CanesSkins26 wrote:A player drafted with the 5th pick of the 2nd round should be starting Day 1.
Day one of rookie year? Based on what? And normally a guy picked 5th in the second round is selected because they're the best player there, we'd be doing it on need and just hoping one worth that high a pick is there.
CanesSkins26 wrote:We could have drafted Okung in the first and gone with someone like McCoy in the 2nd round.
JC was late first round, sucked. Ramsey was late first round, sucked. Basically this is what we have now except you'd rather have Colt as a second rounder start for us, who knows if he'll ever be starting NFL caliber instead of McNabb we know is starting NFL caliber for a few more years?
CanesSkins26 wrote:If Bradford had fallen to 4 we could have attempted to trade into the first round, like the Eagles are now trying to do with our pick, to get Claussen. There are a ton of different scenarios that could have happened.
Yes, and none of them are better then the one we did. Basically Canes I laid out specific reasons this makes long term transition sense and you're not addressing those at all. You throw out scenarios, none of them you support as why they make sense over the reasons I stated McNabb did. I want to do the best for the team, if you have a better idea then try supporting it. If one actually makes more sense then what we did I'll gladly switch sides, I want what's good for the team. I know you do to, I'm not implying otherwise. You're not like the pseudo fans who just rip the team and don't support them. But you're not really analyzing the implications either of McNabb or the other paths, and yet you're taking a position. It's just weak.