Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
What's logical about it? It's rather specious, if you ask me.
Long - Went against their draft board? Apparently not since it was THEIR draft board, and THEY made the decision. Against "expert" draft boards? Maybe, but why should we give them credence?
Avery - Reached for a raw receiver? Again, how do we define reach? Because Kiper said so? If he was the best receiver on the Rams board, and consensus was that he wouldn't be there in the 3rd, it wasn't a reach at all. And raw? 210 receptions in college. Is Devin Thomas' 86 receptions make him raw too?
Avery was 3rd in receiving yards & the ONLY receiver in the top 35 (74+ receptions) to average 16 yards per reception.
Is Avery raw? No more than any other rookie wideout.
Burton - Injury prone? He's missed 1 game in the past two years. NEXT!
|
I think "specious" is an excellent way to sum this up. On the first pick, does anyone really think they would have praised us for sticking to the draft board and ignoring our most urgent need?
As far as Avery being a reach, I tend to define a "reach" as taking a player earlier than they deserve to because of a lack of other options. If our first choice of all the receivers in the draft is a reach, then logically every receiver in the draft would have been a reach at that point. The distinction in my mind is whether you take a player earlier than predicted because you feel you have no other choice or if you take a player earlier than predicted because you feel he's really a better prospect. You can blame the scouts if you want to for rating him so highly, but it isn't fair to fault the decision-makers for taking the guy highest on their draft board...especially after having just faulted them for straying from it.
I will concede that King is kind of a project, and I do seem to recall reading somewhere that Burton played through some injuries. Playing through injuries gets you points for toughness but doesn't change the concern that you may not be playing at full strength as often as other guys.