Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
I specifically noted that MEH wasn't an example.
FAU is mushy middle -- I'm not real sure who to believe there.
The two most direct analogues, though, were Speaks and Moore. In both cases we were looking to attack a specific position group in a specific range. We panicked and moved up when that position group dried up in that range so we took the last guy we had in Speaks.
And in Moore we saw a group of 3-4 guys we liked AT the position group and were willing to trade down to take whoever was left.
And that's not speculating, that's a matter of public record. Veach has said as such. Both directly and indirectly (with Moore he said it specifically and then re-stated it in a different way when discussing the Cook pick and how they didn't think they could get the WR where they took Cook so they took WR first even though they had Cook ranked higher).
They have absolutely demonstrated a willingness to do this in the first round or two and I just don't think it's worked out for them well at all when they have. McDuffie they traded up for because the TALENT and not the position. And Karlaftis was said to be a bit of a combination of both -- they badly wanted a DL there but saw enough of them on the board that they were reasonably confident one would fall.
I think there's a fair argument to make that you could fit Karlaftis into this 'approach' and call it a win. I don't think that's right, but it's makeable. That still puts them at least 2-1 down, though.
|
This argues maybe we should have taken more risk in these decisions. Skyy Moore was the safe pick over Pickens with his attitude, however we still got Cook. Skyy definitely disappointing but was considere the safe pick. Speaks had the talent, just not the will. We got Kahlen Sanders the next year, which is what they though Speaks would have been.