RunTheBall Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 I look at it this way - There was a RB available for AZ to pick at 44 so the TH trade was off, even if we still wanted to do it. By that time, the 3 offensive linemen we've heard about (Baas, Mankins, Spencer) were already gone so it didn't make sense for us to jump 11 spots anymore even IF it were possible. I was surprised at the Parish pick but not dismayed. I have to conclude that the CBs, DTs, and OL still left were not worth the 55 pick and we could get better value at these positions later in the draft. I'd like to know from people who have studied the draft more than I who would you have picked at #55 instead of Parish and why? RTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 I look at it this way - There was a RB available for AZ to pick at 44 so the TH trade was off, even if we still wanted to do it. By that time, the 3 offensive linemen we've heard about (Baas, Mankins, Spencer) were already gone so it didn't make sense for us to jump 11 spots anymore even IF it were possible. I was surprised at the Parish pick but not dismayed. I have to conclude that the CBs, DTs, and OL still left were not worth the 55 pick and we could get better value at these positions later in the draft. I'd like to know from people who have studied the draft more than I who would you have picked at #55 instead of Parish and why? RTB 315906[/snapback] i would have attempted to trade up for barnes (went 3 spots ahead)........ failing that, i would have took adam terry........ why? a potential starting LT is much more important and harder to find then a potential 3rd string slot WR with return ability......i think we already have those needs filled (josh reed, fast freddie, nate)....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted April 24, 2005 Author Share Posted April 24, 2005 i would have attempted to trade up for barnes (went 3 spots ahead)........ failing that, i would have took adam terry........ why? a potential starting LT is much more important and harder to find then a potential 3rd string slot WR with return ability......i think we already have those needs filled (josh reed, fast freddie, nate)....... 315915[/snapback] I wasn't sold on Terry. I'm an SU grad and watched all but 1 game this season and was surprised the pundits were talking about him going so high. I think it is more indicitive of the lack of talent at the tackle position in this year's draft. RTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigdaddyinOrlando Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Surprised at the #2 pick of Parish, but not disappointed with it. I was hopping for Terry or the DT from Iowa Babineaux, but upon hearing thier reasoning as to wanting to get a playmaker I like it more. I think it will be easier to find a OL player who can play now later in the draft than a skilled player who can contribute in the second day of drafting. Also ,I really like the TE pick as well. Not perfect but a good couple of players who should help us and JP immediatly!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts