- Joined
- Jul 3, 2010
- Messages
- 13,484
- Reaction score
- 20,379
I definitely think this is fair. But I'd add the caveat that the majority of third round picks are unlikely to work out, just by nature of where they're picked. The question is: Is the bigger risk taking a player with less talent, but who already has experience at LT, or a player with more talent who needs to make the switch? I'm not saying the players they could have taken there necessarily fit that hypothetical, just that 3rd round picks all have SOMETHING they need to work on before you can count on them. And I'm not convinced that a position shift is automatically harder than trying to fix something like general athleticism, playing strength, or technique.
You're right though, in that no one should be penciling Wallace in at LT (especially in year one) like it's nothing.
Round 3 can be a RB, free safety, center, etc. who are all more than likely starters. "Majority of third round picks are unlikely to work out" applies to premier positions, which you forgot to mention. We didn't have to pick a WR or EDGE or Tackle, we could have picked BPA. Wallace was a forced pick, he felt predetermined, instead of picking the BPA who would have had a likely chance of working out.
You don't think there was a RB to couple with Rham in the 3rd round that could have started in 2024?












