No position to waste first round pick

[fortdick]

Reading all the prognostication, I see basically two camps. Defense first, Offense first. Which ever it turns out to be, and based on the current condition of the team, we cannot afford to waste the pick.

Of all the names which would be the safest? That is the question in my mind.

Trading down just increases the risk that the pick will be a bust. DeCastro is the safest bet if he is there at #14.

Who would be the SAFEST bet if he is gone?

 

[cowboysooner]

Kuechley is the safest pick in the draft. He has elite athleticism, great tape and no injury history. There is no such thing as no risk but he is close.

 

[Staxxxx]

If you want safe I'd say Luke Kuechly but I don't see that one happening.

 

[fortdick]

Kuechley is the safest pick in the draft. He has elite athleticism, great tape and no injury history. There is no such thing as no risk but he is close.

I agree, he would be a safe pick by everything I have read. But do we need an ILB at this point, or would it be a bit of a waste given we have Lee, Connor and Carter? I would probably still take him, but it would not fill a huge hole.

 

[Gaede]

I don't agree with taking the safest player. I used to, but last year changed my mind.

Tyron Smith was definitely NOT the safest pick and now appears to be a franchise LT.

Sean Lee was not the safest pick and is now the middle of our defense.

Might as well take a risk, I think. Because in hindsight, no pick in the draft is safe. And you can **** the bed just as easily on a safe player as on a boom/bust player (Aaron Curry comes to mind)

 

[Staxxxx]

When someone says "safe" I tend to think limited downside which by nature usually translates to limited upside as well. I think Upshaw probably falls into the limited downside category as well.

 

[cowboysooner]

I don't think we should take him after getting Conner and Carter but I was just answering your question.

I just don't agree with the premise of the question. I can't think of a teams whose draft philosophy is to take the safest player in the 1st round.

 

[jobberone]

They should take the best player that fits the team well.

 

[fortdick]

I don't agree with taking the safest player. I used to, but last year changed my mind.

Tyron Smith was definitely NOT the safest pick and now appears to be a franchise LT.

Sean Lee was not the safest pick and is now the middle of our defense.

Might as well take a risk, I think. Because in hindsight, no pick in the draft is safe. And you can **** the bed just as easily on a safe player as on a boom/bust player (Aaron Curry comes to mind)

Let's not call Canton yet. He may tank at LT. It does look promising, but you can't say he is All pro yet. And he was as close to a safe pick as was available at the time.

Lee was a second. Apples and oranges.

 

[fortdick]

I don't think we should take him after getting Conner and Carter but I was just answering your question.

I just don't agree with the premise of the question. I can't think of a teams whose draft philosophy is to take the safest player in the 1st round.

Then the Colts should take RGIII instead of Luck?

Safest is probably not the best word, but I can;t think of another right now.

 

[cowboysooner]

Let's not call Canton yet. He may tank at LT. It does look promising, but you can't say he is All pro yet. And he was as close to a safe pick as was available at the time.

Lee was a second. Apples and oranges.

Smith was a high risk pick at a low risk position. He had next to no tape and great measurables, athleticism, youth and potential. Costanzo was the smart known safe player. But he went behind the 2 years away, riskier player in Solder.

 

[Gaede]

Let's not call Canton yet. He may tank at LT. It does look promising, but you can't say he is All pro yet. And he was as close to a safe pick as was available at the time.

Lee was a second. Apples and oranges.

That's why I said, 'appears' to be. But he was anything but a safe pick. Safe picks were JJ Watt and Costanzo.

Lee was a second, yeah. But people were going nuts over how we wasted a high pick on a LB with a bad knee. Point being, you cannot 'afford' to miss on any picks, especially high ones, but ANY pick you make takes that risk.

 

[xwalker]

Reading all the prognostication, I see basically two camps. Defense first, Offense first. Which ever it turns out to be, and based on the current condition of the team, we cannot afford to waste the pick.

Of all the names which would be the safest? That is the question in my mind.

Trading down just increases the risk that the pick will be a bust. DeCastro is the safest bet if he is there at #14.

Who would be the SAFEST bet if he is gone?

Trade down and pick one of each (offense and defense).:laugh2:

At #14 the only safe picks are DeCastro and Kuechly.