Quote:
Originally Posted by O.city
Need him to atleast be a solid player.
I'll not knock them too much for him. It was a smart positional pick with where we were. I might have taken a different player at the time, but positionally that's where I'd have probably went.
|
Hell, I don't think I was that mad about the pick.
It was eminently defensible even if it doesn't work out.
But it's okay to wonder if it's gonna work out.
EDIT: Yup - was pretty damn measured on the pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
It's funny - you're the Felix Guy and I'll end up being seen as the anti-felix guy but I'll bet you and I see him almost identically as a player.
I think you see a little more burst than I do but still wouldn't consider him a 'twitchy' player. I think we both agree that he plays stronger than his size but he's not Foskey or White in terms of play strength.
He's a fairly chalky player. I don't think we got any sort of amazing value (I don't think you do either) but I think we took a solid guy who wouldn't have been available past 40 or so at a position where we want to keep layering talent.
It's...fine. B- outcome after it looked like A/A+ was on the table an hour previous to the the pick. It's neither brilliant nor stupid. It was a little more need based than I'd have expected as it's hard for me to believe that he graded higher in a vacuum than Porter or Branch, but they also clearly like him as a talent as they had him ahead of Foskey and White.
Ultimately I don't see much to be irritated or amazed by. It's just a fairly standard pick and ultimately development will determine how it ends up.
|
Which is rare for me. But 'standard' first round pick has about a 50/50 bust rate at best. And we're way back at the back. It's okay to wonder...