Tweet
Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
-
OK, what word describes Jamal Reynolds? Nuclear bust? That is a wide range of players to put under the "bust" category. And it makes it sound like he high draft picks are especially risky. -
No, not really. 64% success rate in the top 10 is still a hell of a lot better than the 25% success rate (or whatever it is) in round 2 or 10% in later rounds. My point is that everybody loves almost all of these guys, but there will be a good percentage that don't pan out. Would anybody be happy if Hawk had a career like Chris Claiborne?Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
Clayborne's pretty damn good.
Well, there really isn't much to argue about, obviously the high draft picks have high expectations.
The point I was trying to make is that people think trading-down makes drafting less risky, and that is not necessarily the case. It's just perception, the high-profile busts get so much publicity.Comment
-
[quote="Harlan Huckleby"]High draft picks are especially risky because of the amount of money you have to pay them.Originally posted by HarveyWallbangersComment
-
Lets say the team with the highest amount of wins got to pick their draft position. The steelers would pick first. Do you guys really think they would choose #32? No they would choose #1 and take Reggie Bush. Each team down from them would take the next pick. It is common sense. High risk or not it is always better to be picking early. This year is a better than normal draft and GB should get a great player with the #5 pick. Anyone who's complaining about top picks are just pussy's who are too affraid of failure to take a damn shot.Formerly known as JustinHarrell.Comment
Comment