- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Every team's worst pick in the 2017 NFL Draft (247 Sports)
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:19 am
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:19 am
LINK
Some pretty interesting ones throughout the league IMO.
quote:
New Orleans Saints - Ryan Ramczyk
The Wisconsin lineman could turn out to be a steady figure on the Saints’ offensive line, but New Orleans had their sights set on another target: Reuben Foster. The 49ers traded ahead of the Saints and they were forced to select an offensive lineman instead of some much-needed defensive help.
Some pretty interesting ones throughout the league IMO.
17
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:20 am to TideSaint
Completely disagree. It was fantastic value and BPA. Considering Strief could fall off a cliff any day now and he can be used day 1 as an eligible tackle in the run game.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:22 am to TideSaint
I like Ram but if we could have nabbed Foster, man, there wouldn't have been any doubt who had the best draft. Still surprised Seattle traded within the division.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:23 am to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
It was fantastic value and BPA. Considering Strief could fall off a cliff any day now and he can be used day 1 as an eligible tackle in the run game.
I agree with this
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:23 am to TideSaint
how often have we missed a starting tackle past year or two. pretty often.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:23 am to TideSaint
Damn pay wall. Can't view that article.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:24 am to TideSaint
Sometimes picks like these... which involve weird tricks of fate... end up being blessings in disguise.
Sometimes you don't get what you want... but you get what you need.
If Ramcyzk is our worst pick in this draft... then you bet I'll take that damn draft any day!
Sometimes you don't get what you want... but you get what you need.
If Ramcyzk is our worst pick in this draft... then you bet I'll take that damn draft any day!
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:25 am to TideSaint
Yeah we missed on Foster, but we have solidified our o-line for the the next few years, which is arguably the second most pivotal position groups. Ram will contribute immediately as the 6th eligible OT/TE and gives us depth at a position where we've been killed by injuries recently.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:27 am to TideSaint
there's some frick tarded logic, well they guy on D they wanted was not there so this was a bad pick.
Anyone that does not think T was a need of ours isn't paying attention to the depth chart.
Anyone that does not think T was a need of ours isn't paying attention to the depth chart.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:28 am to TideSaint
Just a reminder that 30 teams passed on Reuben Foster, this supposed top 3 talent. Teams looking for a LB picked Haason Reddick and Jarrad Davis over him. There are reasons why.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:28 am to BilJ
quote:
there's some frick tarded logic
That was my thought as well.
The guy they wanted got picked so this pick is their worst pick. No discussion of the player (who was a fantastic value at that spot) or the need. Good times.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:37 am to TideSaint
Anal zone was easily our worst pick.
That said, I hope he makes me eat those words.
That said, I hope he makes me eat those words.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:42 am to TideSaint
Terrible choice and even more terrible reasoning by the author.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:43 am to Fun Bunch
right he doesn't even mention guys we should have taken there, just says they needed D and the guy on D they wanted was gone sooooooo worst pick? Yeah that makes sense.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:45 am to JGuidry7
You can't say we solidified the line with this pick. He has an injury history and hasn't played a single down. Chances are that he will be serviceable but can't count him as a 5 year starter yet
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:45 am to BilJ
I'll take that as my worst pick all day long
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:47 am to Vacherie Saint
Wow, what a compliment to our draft- our "worst pick" is the top-rated OT in the draft, and expected to play/eventually replace Strief at RT.
Because we didn't reach for a defensive position, I guess.
I mean- he overcame the "serious" injury, and was a stud afterwards. He had a fluke injury that ended his college career, but that one won't have any lasting effects and he should be fine already.
Because we didn't reach for a defensive position, I guess.
quote:I dunno- he's getting a lot of hate and name-ridicule here, because nobody saw him coming... but the almost universal consensus everywhere else is that he was a good pick.
Anal zone was easily our worst pick.
I mean- he overcame the "serious" injury, and was a stud afterwards. He had a fluke injury that ended his college career, but that one won't have any lasting effects and he should be fine already.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:49 am to WicKed WayZ
quote:
Still surprised Seattle traded within the division
Possibly because they viewed Foster as a headache and a likely flop. Why not let your division foe step in it?
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:54 am to tigerclaws15
quote:He was one of the top OT prospects, #1 in a lot of people's opinion. He was the 2nd OL taken in the draft, and nobody said anything about him being a reach, or that other OL should have been picked ahead of him (I didn't hear anybody saying "if you pick that position you should have taken Robinson instead", not like they did on some other players). He was considered a safe, very good value pick.
You can't say we solidified the line with this pick. He has an injury history and hasn't played a single down.
quote:You can say that about every pick in the draft. Objectively, you have to count on him, if you draft.
Chances are that he will be serviceable but can't count him as a 5 year starter yet
Posted on 5/1/17 at 11:57 am to TideSaint
Strange because it's not really a complaint about Ryan, or an argument that he's not value at 32, but more about the fact that the Saints didn't address defensive needs. Which I guess is fine but that doesn't make Ryan a bad pick or a potential bust.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News