re: Best pick of the 1st round (NFL.com)

I read your biased responses. Clearly, your agenda has blinded you.

You are so consumed with thinking everyone is saying he is a "Pro Bowler" (when I have not heard one person here claim that) that you can't even acknowledge Vaccaro was stride-for-stride on every play I gave you as evidence. That's a fact. Thus, your hypothesis that "TA would have gotten open if..." is pure speculation & discounts itself. Vaccaro was with TA step-for-step.

FWIW, I just read SI's grades on all players in the draft and like NFL.com, SI.com gave Vaccaro a favorable review. Vaccaro tied for the third highest grade out of everyone in the draft (8.30).

But before you jump the gun, & get all defensive and go off on SI's meritable analysis of Vaccaro, please note that their highest rated player, Chance Warmack, only had an 8.50, which means in their eyes, Warmack was the only player worthy of a "Top-10 selection; possible Pro Bowler".

To my point, this was a weak draft by comparison to other years. Only 20 guys received a "first round selection" grade from SI like Vaccaro did. It didn't project him as a Pro Bowler, merely that Vaccaro has the chance to start for a team & worthy of a 1st round selection. I agree, as does mostly everyone here else with a decent knowledge of football.

Vaccaro does have the cover skills, athleticism, instincts, physicality, & versatilty to start here in our dismal secondary and help our defense make the opponents offense punt the ball back to Drew Brees. But your opinion is so twisted by you agenda, you discounted every single move on every single play (in both of our linked "evidence" clips) as if Vaccaro wasn't even UDFA material. Think about that.

NFL.com has an opinion. SI.com has an opinion. I & other Vaccaro fans have an opinion. You have an agenda.