Starters don't necessarily mean a good pick. Just means best of the rest of the personnel at that position. Makes an assumption the choices were good quality. hate that metric.
I think that’s a good lot though.
Fulton is the best CB on the team
Tart is quality DL depth, has had some really good games.
NWI is clearly the #3 WR but has been forced to #1 in Tennessee multiple times. He’s not a #1, but has had a few good games.
Brewer may end up being a long term depth OL. Seems he can play both G and C positions. Might not be great but he could also be a Nate Davis still where if he gets extended time, he improves.
i thought you typically draft to improve a position. You would never draft a person if you dont think it would be a upgrade at a position or an upgrade to your roster.
fair point but I think it is fair overall because it shows an 'upgrade' at a position ... which is nice
His later round work has been pretty phenomenal but him trying to be cute in the first isn't it.
He's just a special teams guy, not important
Agree. Just hate that as a metric. For example upgrading from super sucky to just sucky IS an upgrade, but it’s still sucky. My point is about the metric “starters” not necessarily about those guys.
also coaches sometimes lobby for players to be drafted and then start them over others to prove themselves right. Just a bad metric.
Not me, I loved the pick and had zero confidence in Farley.
I must admit I didn't know anything about McCreary,but it was a good pick.
JRob should stay away from 1st round picks....trade back and get more picks in the rounds he isn't bad at
JRob should stay away from 1st round picks....trade back and get more picks in the rounds he isn't bad at
3 of the 4 were UDFA's lol
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
