- Messages
- 58,971
- Reaction score
- 60,826
You don't have to do better than an ideal. You just have to do better than the competition. If he starts then we are doing better than most. You stack that up and you end up with a winning football team.
As for alternatives, Jack had similar issues and is a worse long term risk. Howard was okay for the Vikings. Spence was not even on the board and with Gregory considered I can hardly blame them. Ragland? Reed?
The question wasn't how to beat the market for a 2nd round pick. The question was how to justify the specific player. None of the use cases where the pick busts justifies a section, by definition, so we're now only looking at the cases where the pick doesn't bust. Of the picks that don't bust, some, but not all, play all four years. So he Jaylon misses a year and plays a year compromised, he's got work to do to make up for the missed/diminished time. That was my original point.
I rethought it a bit and decided if he performs at about the median for those 2nd round picks that don't bust, we're probably getting our pick's worth, which is why I countered with the 2-year-starter bit. But that still doesn't account for the risk we took that the guy might never play at all. It's great that that's not the way it looks like it worked out, and we probably had a better idea than most that that's how it might go down, but we still took that risk, which means we probably should have expected a commensurate return over and above what you'd normally expect for the #34 overall.