Finally some life showing in Dennard.

[wolfkaosaun]

(08-17-2017, 03:02 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I said they're both busts *as first round picks*.

Nobody uses first round picks to get "solid starters" 5 years later. If Kirkpatrick was a 4th or 5th round pick, he would have been a great pick. He wasn't. He was the 17th overall pick in the draft, and it took him 5 years to become a solid starter. That's a bust. The same way that a guy who is taken in the 7th round and does nothing but be a decent special teamer for 3-4 years before exiting the league is not a bust, because that's a good return on a 7th round pick.

That's not to say Kirkpatrick can't have a good career as a decent starter from now on. It just means when we look back on the draft history, it was a bad decision to use the 17th overall pick on him because 1st round picks need to be stars, not take 5 years to become solid starters.

Granted, Dennard might be a bust regardless of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round status. He's shown less in his first three years than Kirkpatrick did.

That's not true at all. 1st round picks are picked to be improvements and help better your team.

Since 2012's Draft Class, there has been 44 Pro-Bowl players drafted in the 1st round.

That's 44 players out of 159 players (NE lost their 1st round pick in 2016).
Which includes: RGIII, Cordarelle Patterson, Todd Gurley, and Eric Reid

Teams know they aren't going to get amazing players all the time. Sometimes they fill needs and what works best for their system rather than best player overall. That's why there's players that haven't been voted to the Pro Bowl or All-Pro that are still being productive.

IE: Tannehill, Zeitler, Cooks, Matthews, and Mariota.

I'm not saying there won't be stars in the 1st, because clearly they are. But teams go into the draft knowing the 1st round isn't fully of All-Pro studs. Teams do use 1st round picks for solid starters because it's better to have a solid player than a hole on your team.

Nothing is certain in the NFL.