The dumbest pick in the draft?

[Wolfecola]

Pretty sure you wouldnt even see any recent SB winners who are not teams who won 23 games in 5 years take a luxury pick on a kicker. There's a reason the &*^% teams stay that way while the same teams have winning formulas.

Valid point!

 

[ProGen]

Of course it should. What if they traded three future firsts for it! It's all about the whole picture, not just the drafted position. A la RGIII, Goff, Wentz etc. Albeit on a smaller scale.

 

[dieterbrock]

Andy Reid did it a number of times. The Packers did it a number of times in the 90s. Chargers did it with Whitehurst. Packers did it with Flynn. Falcons did it with Schaub. New England did it with Cassel. I'm sure there are more that I'm not remembering off the top of my head.

None in the last 10 years that I can think of. And Cassell played a full season
To me the idea of a team who hasn't had a winning record in 13 years, trading up and drafting a guy under the hope that their best player may get hurt and this guy will play well enough to maybe trade him later?
Yeah, if that's the reasoning then I stand by my assertion that it was the dumbest pick....

 

[jrry32]

None in the last 10 years that I can think of. And Cassell played a full season
To me the idea of a team who hasn't had a winning record in 13 years, trading up and drafting a guy under the hope that their best player may get hurt and this guy will play well enough to maybe trade him later?
Yeah, if that's the reasoning then I stand by my assertion that it was the dumbest pick....

Matt Flynn was traded in 2012. Charlie Whitehurst was traded in 2010 IIRC.

 

[dieterbrock]

Matt Flynn was traded in 2012. Charlie Whitehurst was traded in 2010 IIRC.

I'm pretty sure Flynn was a FA, not a trade
And the Whitehurst deal, I don't remember if it was a trade or a FA but I do recall the minute it happened Carroll looked like a complete idiot
Oakland has their "franchise QB" and the only way they could make out in drafting Cook is if Carr were to miss significant time. To me, that's just dumb
Also to consider that they trade up to get that pick and he was passed up by several teams
Just dumb

 

[…..]

I think a lot of times when people trade up it's because they get wind that another team is interested in that player so they have to make the move to get ahead of them

 

[dieterbrock]

Trading for a player that you don't want to step on the field, ever, in Cook is no comparison to a rotational CB that will see the field in every game
Its mind boggling to me. Carr hasn't missed a start in 2 years, why jinx it?

 

[Dieter the Brock]

San Francisco trading up for Joshua Garnett from Stanford was the dumbest pick in the draft

 

[dieterbrock]

What team is paying a back up 7 mill after their starter hasn't missed a start in 2 years?
We using Philly as an example here? I hope not because that's as apples to oranges as it gets
Oakland has many holes and they finally have a guy at QB they can count on. Not to mention Matt McGloin has proven serviceable so its not like they had nobody behind him
Its just a dumb pick, and not comparable to the Rams situation.
When you're a winning team you can take risks. Oakland is the West Coast Factory of Sadness
And also, they TRADED up for him. Costed more than just their pick

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

McFadden isn't a good HB. And Redskins fans felt like Morris was nearing the end. Said he lacked explosiveness in 2015.

Todd Gurley would have been a smart pick no matter where we took him (aside from #1 and #2 because QBs).

Cowboys do have holes on the defensive side...but so what...you take the BVA. And there's certainly an argument that's Zeke. Especially considering how good Zeke is on passing downs.(outstanding block and pass-catcher)

I am in the group that say Elliott was overdrafted at 4. The Cowboys desperately need defense. A quality RB could be found in rounds 2-6. With their Oline they didn't need a great runner. I don't even think Elliott has elite traits as a pure runner. I thought they made a terrible pick. How much more production does Elliott give them than say a Devantae Booker? Not enough for the difference in pick value is the answer. Plus next year should have three first round caliber RBs. The Cowboys could get one of them in the teems or twenties. Elliott was not good value.

A player like Elliott helps the Cowboys more than a single defensive back would; a DB can only do so much. Ramsey went to the perfect team imo; Jaguars have an established front seven pretty much.

I love the Todd-father, but imo Elliott is a much more complete back than Gurley. Dude will make his money on third down in this league-- hold me to that.

I disagree completely. Another good back could produce just as well as Elliott because Dallas has a great Oline. They also have Romo who still will throw the ball. It is not like having Elliott will give them reason to run the ball more than they usually do. And if a team does mostly run their scoring cannot keep up with the teams that can score in a few seconds through the air.

Someone on this board posted a thread about the value of a good DB in this current era of pass happiness. It was very convincing and proved that a shutdown corner gives a team a huge advantage. Ramsey should have been the pick. Plus Dallas is in need of defense and Jaylon Smith may never get over his foot drop issue. So they didn't really help the defense much at all.


Exactly right. Elliott does not make up for the Cowboys lack of defense. In fact you could say he could hurt it if they end up relying on him too much, due to injuries to Romo or Dez, or just because he is successful. It is hard to keep up with a quick strike passing offense when you have a bad defense and your main way to produce points is running the ball. That is the exact reason the Rams had to make a move for Goff. They need to be able to move the ball through the air if they are going to win.

 

[thirteen28]

Trading for a player that you don't want to step on the field, ever, in Cook is no comparison to a rotational CB that will see the field in every game
Its mind boggling to me. Carr hasn't missed a start in 2 years, why jinx it?

I know you're not a fan of Cook, and I think your logic regarding him being picked by the Raiders is sound ... on the other hand, the Jets and Browns both passing on him multiple times when he could have been had at anytime in the third was dumb. The Jets taking Hackenburg in the 2nd makes it even dumber for them, because they don't have a quality starter in front of him that will allow him time to sit an develop.

 

[LesBaker]

Oh for that one figgie........sorry I had to stir the pot a little.

 

[dieterbrock]

I know you're not a fan of Cook, and I think your logic regarding him being picked by the Raiders is sound ... on the other hand, the Jets and Browns both passing on him multiple times when he could have been had at anytime in the third was dumb. The Jets taking Hackenburg in the 2nd makes it even dumber for them, because they don't have a quality starter in front of him that will allow him time to sit an develop.

I don't understand the Jets taking Hackenburg, but somebody in that organization seems to think he's worth it.
The draft rarely follows the scouts rankings, and Cook was #3 or #4 on most ranks. To see him go 7, bypassed by the likes of Hackenburg and Cody Kessler is crazy but what do we know.
TBH, I think the jets drafting Hackenburg means they will cave in to Fitzpatrick.

 

[Yamahopper]

Kinda meh on the kicker. But if they felt the 2 picks they gave up would just be guys and the kicker would would be effective as far as deciding games I can see it. Kind of.

The perennial picks of QB's that have no chance of ever being even a avg. backup is always comical.They either lack the physical tools or ability to process information at game speed dooms them from the start..
But every team looking for their Brady or Romo.