Round 1 Pick 28: S Terrell Edmunds

[Chieferific]

Just now, MOSteelers56 said:

Keanu Neal was a first rounder.

HA, read that as Siran Neal (whom I liked). Thanks. 

[Steelers22]

On the surface level, this restores some hope in the pick.  But ultimately, I'm still really down on the selection.  I think media draftniks, at least the good ones, are as good as a lot of the front offices in the NFL.  There aren't many occasions where I recall the draft community being down on a player, that player gets selected WAY higher than expected, and the player living up to those lofty expectations.

 

Ultimately, however, Edmunds seems to have all the tools to succeed--pretty much everybody agrees on that.  From there, it's on the coaches.  Our history of developing defensive backs is pretty atrocious but with Bradley hired now, maybe that will change.  Edmunds seems like a charismatic guy and ready to take on the challenge.  We'll see how it pans out.

[JLambert58]

Girl, you know it's true...

[jebrick]

2 hours ago, Steelers22 said:

On the surface level, this restores some hope in the pick.  But ultimately, I'm still really down on the selection.  I think media draftniks, at least the good ones, are as good as a lot of the front offices in the NFL.  There aren't many occasions where I recall the draft community being down on a player, that player gets selected WAY higher than expected, and the player living up to those lofty expectations.

BS.  There are way more people drafted high that fail.  But I will give you one. Markus Golden OLB  graded by the draftniks as a 5th round pick.  Chosen in the 2nd round.  Done pretty well.  7 time pro bowl OG Logan Mankins.  1st round pick by the Pats.  3rd round grade( or lower) by the draftniks

The talking heads get stuff horribly wrong all the time and just move on.  People pay for these mocks and predictions even though the best of them just sucks at accuracy.

Best thing to do is give this draft an F on these boards and rail against it.  In 3 years, 60% of the class will be gone and you have a decent chance to be able to crow about how good you were in knowing they would fail.  You can be pleasantly surprised if any of the picks do well but you know the odds are in your favor.

Or just figure that the teams generally know way more than the draftniks about WHAT they want their team to become and WHO  will best fit that profile.  Some picks work and some do not.

[Steelers22]

1 hour ago, jebrick said:

BS.  There are way more people drafted high that fail.  But I will give you one. Markus Golden OLB  graded by the draftniks as a 5th round pick.  Chosen in the 2nd round.  Done pretty well.  7 time pro bowl OG Logan Mankins.  1st round pick by the Pats.  3rd round grade( or lower) by the draftniks

The talking heads get stuff horribly wrong all the time and just move on.  People pay for these mocks and predictions even though the best of them just sucks at accuracy.

Best thing to do is give this draft an F on these boards and rail against it.  In 3 years, 60% of the class will be gone and you have a decent chance to be able to crow about how good you were in knowing they would fail.  You can be pleasantly surprised if any of the picks do well but you know the odds are in your favor.

Or just figure that the teams generally know way more than the draftniks about WHAT they want their team to become and WHO  will best fit that profile.  Some picks work and some do not.

Projecting your frustrations a bit there? 

As I said, I don't RECALL many, that doesn't mean there aren't examples.  I'm really uninterested in being "right", I'm just discussing my reason for hesitation regarding the pick.  I think it is generally lazy to simply say draftniks, as a whole, don't know as much as the front offices.  It matters who you listen to.  

In any case, we'll see how it works out.  But as a said, I'm not overly optimistic about the pick and that has absolutely nothing to do with an egoic desire to say "I told you so"

[jebrick]

26 minutes ago, Steelers22 said:

Projecting your frustrations a bit there? 

As I said, I don't RECALL many, that doesn't mean there aren't examples.  I'm really uninterested in being "right", I'm just discussing my reason for hesitation regarding the pick.  I think it is generally lazy to simply say draftniks, as a whole, don't know as much as the front offices.  It matters who you listen to.  

In any case, we'll see how it works out.  But as a said, I'm not overly optimistic about the pick and that has absolutely nothing to do with an egoic desire to say "I told you so"

BS.  Name one draftnik that knows more than any NFL FO about that teams needs.  Anyone you name can't be proven and they would not admit to knowing more.  Draftniks do not see the interviews do not see the medicals.  Any info they get is fed to them by a team FO.

 

[Steelers22]

12 minutes ago, jebrick said:

BS.  Name one draftnik that knows more than any NFL FO about that teams needs.  Anyone you name can't be proven and they would not admit to knowing more.  Draftniks do not see the interviews do not see the medicals.  Any info they get is fed to them by a team FO.

 

Think it is fair to say the Browns would've done far better with lead evaluators like Cossell and Mayock.  Their results speak for themselves.  Your point is equally speculative although it is true that they do not have access to interviews and medicals.

Our team needs were pretty clear this year but were not adequately address by the front office.  That doesn't mean the front office is terrible but it does mean that there were probably better routes to take in order to help the team win THIS YEAR

[JLambert58]

You're both right.  USUALLY the FOs know more but that doesn't necessarily mean they always draft well.

There have been plenty of clownish picks by knowledgeable GMs.   In some cases, "draft experts" are more dialed into the value and sometimes even armchair GMs like us can see more clearly from 30,000 feet than the guys who are up to their eyeballs in decision making.  (with all the pressure that goes along with it.)  It's not an exact science by any means.