- Thread starter
- #61
It IS a binary process if you are evaluating the pick as it was picked OR retrospectively. Agree it isn’t if not.
If you are separating the quality of the pick from JRob being held accountable retrospectively, I have a real problem with that. You can’t rationalize the pick was OK because “what pick was better at the time?” Everybody uses performance to evaluate the pick.
It was a consensus opinion AT THE TIME Wilson was picked it was a reach project pick. It was not a popular pick with “pundits”. And you just don’t gamble with 1st round picks. So any suggestion that it can’t be classified as a bad pick and that the pick does not reflect negatively on JRob is simply rationalization.
This makes absolutely no sense. So you can't disagree with what happened but also not agree with the "other" idea.
I never said the Wilson pick was "OK". Show me the post that says that. I can easily name a better pick at the time (Fulton, Johnson, Diggs), but when you say it should have been an EDGE player I'm asking who should have been taken there. What rookie edge player would you be happy their production as a first round pick. Because thats the arguement. We should have drafted an edge player in the first instead of Clowney. I'm asking who you would have taken instead. Not saying there was no one better than Wilson (because his lazy azz just practiced the whole week for the first time as a Titan).
Also show me where it doesn't negatively reflect on JRob? You are just making stuff up lol I never said that. This might be his biggest whiff in the draft. It was a horrible pick. I'd be surprised if he ever plays a down for us. But if you are arguing we should have taken an edge player instead of signing Clowney I want to know who you would have taken instead of Wilson there. You still haven't answered that question...