Quote:
Originally Posted by TEX
So not true. It's all timing and building a foundation. Makes more sense to draft a stud Tackle than a medicore QB. If Luck or RGIII type (or even Flacco) would have been there, the Chiefs would have drafted a QB. Now they have folks in place who can protect said QB.
|
That's where our philosophical difference lies. First I don't think Fisher's a stud (or Joeckel or Johnson). I think they're middling prospects available anywhere from 15 to 45 in every draft. Although that's really neither here nor there. Second, I think a 'mediocre,' as you put it, quarterback prospect has more draft value than a good line prospect, because the upside value potential is so much greater. Basically I think positional value is a real and key thing.
Obviously the league disagrees with me, but the league is also slow to change and extremely risk averse. Whereas I have nothing to lose if a player I like doesn't pan out.
And I think everyone is making the same mistake they always make at draft time, judging these picks immediately. You judge these picks in 4 or 5 years, as the players head into their second contracts. If Fisher's an all pro, it turns out that the pick was okay (I don't think I'll ever call it 'great', it's such a meh position to draft #1). If Joeckel or Johnson's a better tackle, then we picked the wrong horse. If Geno never sees the field, the league was right, and if he's a pro bowler, the league was wrong.