My point is this: second guessing picks is a waste of time. On draft day, no one knows if they've picked Brady over Rattay; or Tate over Wallace; or McCourty over Kyle Wilson. The players are unformed professionals and there is no crystal ball.
I can respect opinions expressed in the moment... everyone's got one. But to look back three years later and criticize a selection and wish we had taken the other side of the choice... it's pointless.
We always hypothesize about the wash outs, and wonder how great it would have been if only... as if it's so obvious to everyone that Wallace was a sure thing. But, fact is, the Patriots have a lot more to be grateful about from the lottery which is the NFL draft than they have to regret. I think the whole "Wallace over Tate" premise is just disrespectful to a Franchise that has done damn well to constantly restock the roster.
First, the people making the picks for the various teams are paid to make the picks, and their jobs are on the line when they do. There may not be a crystal ball, but there sure as hell is more to it than dartboards and blindfolds. Go to the draft forum, or look at some of the draft discussion that's taken place here in the main forum, and you'll find that there is a lot of discussion about the players beginning well before they are drafted. Message boards may not be stocked with NFL GMs and scouts, but they have a lot of people who pay a fair amount of attention to the college game and its players. The discussions about players like Gholston demonstrate that quite nicely, so you might want to go take a look at some of them.
Second, that line about respecting opinions is garbage in general, even if it's completely honest in your specific instance. When the picks are first made, the homers scream out something like "You're complaining already? Give these guys a chance!". Then, when the players go bust, the screeching turns to "The time to complain was when they were drafted, because hindsight's 20/20!". It's a con game run by the homers, and it's as transparent as it is pathetic.
Third, we're not just talking about these players in the context of years down the road. We're talking about players who were wanted/unwanted from back during their drafts. Tate was a controversial pick, one I actually defended as a total flier that I was fine with due to the other picks already made, and there were a lot of people who were pissed about that choice.
For people to be pointing to Wallace's success in light of Tate's failure isn't disrespectful and, if you think it is, I suggest to you that you need to give your definition of "disrespect" a bit of fine tuning. As for the team doing well to constantly restock the roster, I'd say that it's abundantly clear that such a position is open to debate.
