Quote:
Originally Posted by TwistedChief
Meh. I don’t think it’s fair to compare a team picking at, say, 12 who didn’t take him to the Chiefs. But I think it’s entirely likely that there would’ve been teams picking earlier than 31/32 who would’ve chosen him if their picks had been as late as ours.
Take that to its extreme. If we can for the sake of argument agree that he’s a top-5 player ex-injury, then the question becomes, “What type of discount do you need?” Are the Raiders at 6 getting much surplus value choosing him there? Not really. How about the Chiefs at 32? Well, that’s more reasonable. How about at the back of the 7th round? At some point the value is clearly enough.
I just don’t think it’s fair or apples-to-apples to act like we must have a dramatically different eval on the guy or the medicals than each and every team that passed on him.
|
I've already noted that if you think he's a top 5 player absent the injury, the pick is defensible. In fact, it's what I thought the Chiefs HAD to believe to make the pick and said so over a month ago.
I don't. I'd have had him 10-15.