Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by KRS-1:
History of multiple 1st rounders in recent years shows that a good percentage of the time teams pick one player who doesn't end up living up to his draft status or busts.
Well, doesn't that just reflect the chances of a first rounder either disappointing or busting? The fact that the team takes two players just doubles their chances. Other than Flagler and Kelly I don't think we have done too badly in this respect
Let's keep this in recent history because Kelly/Flagler is a whole different time and regime. Staley and Willis was good combo in 2007 but Davis/Lawson was a disappointment. It took Davis 4 years to come around and Lawson has not lived up to expectations as a pass rusher.
Do we want to take another player who will take 4 years to come around and another who doesn't excel in at what he was drafted for (pass rushing) ?
People b***hed about losing a top 10 pick to nab Staley and still do (albeit there was no way of knowing the pick would be top 10, and we made the move because we saw Staley as a franchise LT). Those same people never piped up about VD taking 4 years to come around, instead every year it was "this will be his breakout year". VD was the wrong pick regardless of how he turned out now, you don't draft a TE at 6 overall and can be okay with waiting 4 years for his light switch to turn on. From a TE (being drafted that high) you expect better production earlier on in his career and someone who doesn't have a case of the dropsies.
I disagree with your last sentence but yes it is doubled chances to get at least one good player. But we can't afford to take a big risk on a player in this draft unless the risk is on a QB. So IMO drafting any underachievers or players who have sky high ceilings but are more of a project (ie. taking Iupati as an OT) are a
Don't get me wrong on Iupati, I'd draft him but as an OG not an OT. We are close to being able to win this division and don't want to chance him struggling out there for a year or 2 or possibly longer, before developing into a quality tackle.
At the end of the day, there is a lot riding on Scot to somehow mirror 2007 and get 2 players who can make an immediate impact. If it mirrors 2006 then it's chalk full of fail and we can expect to win the west in 4 years if things pan out.
Hopefully we can get at least one of 2 to be an immediate contributor and crack a starting spot while the other should at least be a role player from day 1 (whether that's being used a returner, rushing the passer/playing in the nickel D or something to that extent).