View Single Post
Old 01-19-2010   #32
infantrycak
Lead Moderator
 
infantrycak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 49,283
Rep Power: 413804 infantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: Why I am against taking RBs high in the draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelbtexan View Post
If I told you that the Texans could finally fix their OL problems by trading a 3rd rd pick for Chris Kuper and spending a 1st rd pick on Iupati would you be willing to do that? The OL would be set for the next 8-10 yrs. Next years draft is the one that you want to spend a high draft pick. Ingram,Royster,etc.

I'm not saying dont take a RB this year. Take one in the middle rds and get the franchise RB after your OL is set next year.

Thoughts
This wasn't directed to me but for my two cents, this seems like a variation of the need v. BPA debate.

At #20 what are you going to get?

2008 - Mendenhall or CJ v. Chilo Rachal
2007 - Kenny Irons v. Joe Staley or Ben Grubbs
2006 - Maroney or DeAngelo v. Davin Joseph or Nick Mangold
2005 - Arrington or Shelton v. Chris Spencer or Login Mankins

That's forcing a comparison of two needs and discounting the squeals of draftniks around the globe on how some would have been reaches at #20. Still seems like you have to let quality overcome need at some point or you are going to be screwed no matter how you rank the higher need.
__________________
The Art of War
infantrycak is offline   Reply With Quote