Forge Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 On 11/10/2017 at 6:46 AM, mike23md said: No, you stated that Ruben Foster and Jon Allen were just as good of prospects as Dalvin Cook. That is saying, that Ruben Foster and Dalvin Cook could have been a top 5 pick, which is not true. Of those three Jon Allen was the ONLY one considered a top 5 pick and Cook was not even the best RB in the draft. Fournette was. Cook was not even selected until the 2nd round. Foster was picked by San Fran after they traded up to get him at pick. I just don't think you can say that Cook and Foster were just as good of prospects as Allen. Also, until the combine, Nick Chubb is considered a 2nd round pick at this point. I think his injury history is hurting him. Foster was the #3 player on the 49ers draft board (MG, Solomon Thomas, Foster) as noted by Peter King. Had the Bears taken Thomas rather than Trubsiky, the 49ers were going to take Foster. So yes, Foster was considered a top 5 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, Forge said: Foster was the #3 player on the 49ers draft board (MG, Solomon Thomas, Foster) as noted by Peter King. Had the Bears taken Thomas rather than Trubsiky, the 49ers were going to take Foster. So yes, Foster was considered a top 5 pick. Had to be before his injury. Much like Jon Allen, both players had injuries that had most teams drop them from top 5 picks to the teens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, turtle28 said: Had to be before his injury. Much like Jon Allen, both players had injuries that had most teams drop them from top 5 picks to the teens. It was during the draft. Final board. Peter King's article was about the 49ers during the draft, in their war room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 Just now, Forge said: It was during the draft. Final board. Peter King's article was about the 49ers during the draft, in their war room Fair enough, but they obviously were the only team as almost every other team passed on him in round 1 because of his injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Just now, turtle28 said: Fair enough, but they obviously were the only team as almost every other team passed on him in round 1 because of his injury. He could have been in the top 5 on a couple of boards , particularly teams drafting in the top 10, only to have someone rated higher still be available. Several of the talented defensive players slipped in the draft. Sometimes draft board don't make any sense. I have no idea how the Bengals had Ross that high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostnote Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Forge said: Foster was the #3 player on the 49ers draft board (MG, Solomon Thomas, Foster) as noted by Peter King. Had the Bears taken Thomas rather than Trubsiky, the 49ers were going to take Foster. So yes, Foster was considered a top 5 pick. Ok, the 49ers, with a rookie GM, said he was the #3 guy on their board. Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, mike23md said: Ok, the 49ers, with a rookie GM, said he was the #3 guy on their board. Ok. He didn't say that, it was shown pretty clearly in the article with Peter King actually in the room. Your comment that he wasn't a top 5 prospect was wrong, that's all. Also, that rookie GM has done a pretty solid job thus far, so I'm not sure why the fact that he's a rookie gm is relevant in the least. And you can't prove that he wasn't in the top 5 of anyone else unless you somehow have access to their board (similar to me not being able to say that Allen wasn't a top 5 guy on anyone's board). As I said, he could have easily been in the top 5 of a couple of teams' boards in the top 10 but higher guys were available at the time. Maybe New Orleans', who knows. They got very fortunate that Lattimore was there, and he was way up there on a lot of media and draft rankings, and they had interest in Foster (they were taking him with their second first rounder). The idea that he wasn't the prospect that Allen was is a stretch. Allen may have been viewed as a slightly superior prospect in a general consensus, who's to say. But they were absolutely in that same tier and general rankings range for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Forge said: He could have been in the top 5 on a couple of boards , particularly teams drafting in the top 10, only to have someone rated higher still be available. Several of the talented defensive players slipped in the draft. Sometimes draft board don't make any sense. I have no idea how the Bengals had Ross that high Foster was never a top 5 pick. This whole argument is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, lavar703 said: Foster was never a top 5 pick. This whole argument is absurd. And yet there's evidence that he was considered a top 5 guy by at least one team, sooooo..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Forge said: And yet there's evidence that he was considered a top 5 guy by at least one team, sooooo..... That doesn't make him a consensus top 5 pick. He's a very talented player that was never going to get picked in the top 5. It wasn't going to happen. Stop being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A TRAIN 89 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 This thread is supposed to be about the 2018 Draft...can we keep it that way and stop bickering about 2017 draft picks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, A TRAIN 89 said: This thread is supposed to be about the 2018 Draft...can we keep it that way and stop bickering about 2017 draft picks? Tell the mod cluttering the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiphoon Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Guys let's get back to discussing the 2018 draft, please. What happened in 2017 draft is definitely a good discussion to have. Let's have that in a different thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiphoon Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 BTW - as of right now, the Redskins draft 15th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Draper Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Thaiphoon said: BTW - as of right now, the Redskins draft 15th no mans land- kind of how the wizards were for years. Look at the 76ers, the astros heck even the rams- suck and get the best picks unless you are the celtics and Pats- smarter than everybody else. And nobody gonna mistakenly say that about DanSkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.