Video: Eddie Jackson and the 12 safeties drafted ahead of him

[remydat]

Not sure if you follow the NFL, but Jamal Adams can play football at a high level.

So can Jackson. Point was safety is not good value in top 10 as easier to find good safeties throughout the draft.

 

[remydat]

coming out of the draft, people were not sure if Adams was going to stay at safety or go to ILB. So there was a question there. The only question. As far as leadership, there was never a question.

He had a choice of Fournette, Davis, Adams, Williams, McCaffery, Maholmes, Lattimore and Watson and just inked a quarterback.

If he went with Adams, probably wold have still taken Jackson. imagine that duo. I am pretty sure the people clamoring were considering we were trading down and getting more picks.

Nah there were folks that straight up wanting to take Adams at 3 instead of a QB as if you recall the pundits were saying it was a weak QB class. Of course there were also some that favored a trade down as well.

 

[modo]

Nah there were folks that straight up wanting to take Adams at 3 instead of a QB as if you recall the pundits were saying it was a weak QB class. Of course there were also some that favored a trade down as well.

Remy is correct about this....I remember plenty of people wanted Adams and there was people saying it was a weak class.

That draft class had a lot of talent at safety...taking one that early didn't make sense to me at the time

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Remy is correct about this....I remember plenty of people wanted Adams and there was people saying it was a weak class.

That draft class had a lot of talent at safety...taking one that early didn't make sense to me at the time

Bears could have had Mahomes instead of Trubisky, too. I guess we should rehash that Quenton Nelson argument.

 

[modo]

Bears could have had Mahomes instead of Trubisky, too. I guess we should rehash that Quenton Nelson argument.

hindsight is generally 20/20....id still take the bears draft over the Colts draft from last year in the first 2 rounds....

 

[Rory Sparrow]

hindsight is generally 20/20....id still take the bears draft over the Colts draft from last year in the first 2 rounds....

True, but by the same token I think its disingenuous (remy term) to judge the Adams or Nelson picks after the fact and still cling to the lazy "you don't take a safety/guard that high" analysis.

 

[gallagher]

I wanted Adams, but damn if this wasn't a good draft for safeties! They'll be talking about this draft class for some time.

 

[Big Tyme D]

I wanted Adams in that draft... and was of the belief that the QB class was weak and should have taken one later..if not the following year.

 

[modo]

True, but by the same token I think its disingenuous (remy term) to judge the Adams or Nelson picks after the fact and still cling to the lazy "you don't take a safety/guard that high" analysis.

You certainly can take that position that high it is just that typically the roi is not worth it....Nelson did turn out to be worht it.

 

[xer0h0ur]

I don't care what anyone says, that 2017 draft is working out like gangbusters even if Shaheen turns out to be entirely useless. People have a bad habit of ignoring the average hit rate on drafts across the league. Getting two 100% legit pro bowl players, one already an all-pro, with a third on the rise in a single draft is phenomenal. I will take that shit any draft.

 

[remydat]

Bears could have had Mahomes instead of Trubisky, too. I guess we should rehash that Quenton Nelson argument.

Not sure your point. Mahommes is still a QB so doesnt really address my point. Also not in favor of taking a G in top 10 for same reason not in favor of taking a S.

True, but by the same token I think its disingenuous (remy term) to judge the Adams or Nelson picks after the fact and still cling to the lazy "you don't take a safety/guard that high" analysis.

Except no one is doing this as I made that same argument at the time.

I still remember all the people clamoring for Adams and all the debates about how S is one of the worst positions to take in the top 10 or top 5.

Please point to where I make a hindsight argument? I quite clearly state that people at the time said S was one of the worst positions to draft high.

Hindsight would be if no one said it at the time but was saying it now. That is not what my post says.

 

[BearClaw55]

The Bears need to find a faster back up ILB the Nick kwiatkoski, he is way too slow!

 

[Zion]

nm

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Not sure your point. Mahommes is still a QB so doesnt really address my point. Also not in favor of taking a G in top 10 for same reason not in favor of taking a S.

Except no one is doing this as I made that same argument at the time.

Please point to where I make a hindsight argument? I quite clearly state that people at the time said S was one of the worst positions to draft high.

Hindsight would be if no one said it at the time but was saying it now. That is not what my post says.

I can't tell what is going on here...perhaps I am just trying to block it out. Its simply one of the dumbest postings that I've ever seen.

I said that its stupid to say on August 9, 2019 that Jamal Adams and Quenton Nelson were bad draft picks because you don't take safeties/guards that high in the draft. They've proven their value on the field. That is the opposite of "hindsight argument". I'm not sure how I can explain it any better or clearer. The fact that you continue to claim "I made that same argument when those guys were drafted" is beyond comprehension in its stupidity. I am speechless.

 

[remydat]

I can't tell what is going on here...perhaps I am just trying to block it out. Its simply one of the dumbest postings that I've ever seen.

I said that its stupid to say on August 9, 2019 that Jamal Adams and Quenton Nelson were bad draft picks because you don't take safeties/guards that high in the draft. They've proven their value on the field. That is the opposite of "hindsight argument". I'm not sure how I can explain it any better or clearer. The fact that you continue to claim "I made that same argument when those guys were drafted" is beyond comprehension in its stupidity. I am speechless.

You said it is disingenuous to judge the Adams and Nelson picks after the fact (ie hindsight). I am not judging them after the fact. I made a comment that I remember the debate that went on at the time. There was no after the fact in my statement.

True, but by the same token I think its disingenuous (remy term) to judge the Adams or Nelson picks after the fact and still cling to the lazy "you don't take a safety/guard that high" analysis.

Generally when people say after the fact they are making a hindsight argument. So not sure how you figure your post is the opposite of hindsight. Your argument is using hindsight. Mine is not.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

You said it is disingenuous to judge the Adams and Nelson picks after the fact (ie hindsight). I am not judging them after the fact. I made a comment that I remember the debate that went on at the time. There was no after the fact in my statement.

I'm not sure when you had your lobotomy, but I guess it was fairly recent. I said "but by the same token I think its disingenuous (remy term) to judge the Adams or Nelson picks after the fact and still cling to the lazy "you don't take a safety/guard that high" analysis."

Sorry that your brain has stopped functioning. My condolences. I don't know what else to say.

 

[remydat]

I'm not sure when you had your lobotomy, but I guess it was fairly recent. I said "but by the same token I think its disingenuous (remy term) to judge the Adams or Nelson picks after the fact and still cling to the lazy "you don't take a safety/guard that high" analysis."

Sorry that your brain has stopped functioning. My condolences. I don't know what else to say.

Right and I never did that. I made a comment about what people said at the time. I did not judge them after the fact.

 

[remydat]

Although if you want me to judge after the fact, Bears are better off in my opinion with Trubs, Daniels and Jackson as opposed to taking Adams or Nelson in top 10 and trying to fill QB in a later round.

So not really disingenuous at all. The value of a QB in top 10 is much higher than a S or G.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Right and I never did that. I made a comment about what people said at the time. I did not judge them after the fact.

Preceded by...

So can Jackson. Point was safety is not good value in top 10 as easier to find good safeties throughout the draft.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Although if you want me to judge after the fact, Bears are better off in my opinion with Trubs, Daniels and Jackson as opposed to taking Adams or Nelson in top 10 and trying to fill QB in a later round.

Great analysis on the Jets selection of Jamal Adams. I'm sure your analysis of the first 198 picks of the 2000 NFL draft is repeating "They would have been better off taking Tom Brady!" over and over.