Jump to content

POLL - Are You Happy with A. J. Terrell as our 1st Round Pick?


jlrfalcon
 Share

Are You Happy with A. J. Terrell as our 1st Round Pick?  

119 members have voted

  1. 1. Are You Happy with A. J. Terrell as our 1st Round Pick?

    • Great Player Picked at Right Spot
      67
    • Great Player Just Picked Too Soon
      36
    • Bad Player and Bad Pick
      17


Recommended Posts

I think people are taking too much stock into a national championship game against the best college offense of all time.

It's highly unlikely that A.J. Terrell would have been available round two, likely wouldn't have made it another 5 picks either.  I'm more comfortable having him come in as a starter than anything left after round 1 so I can't complain about the pick.  It addressed the biggest area of need and with how the board presented itself at 16 i'm pretty happy with the direction they took.  Only other argument for players would have been Murray, Chaisson, and maybe Patrick Queen.  I can easily see an argument for Terrell there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He must be pretty good for TD to draft him with the first round pick..and at 16.  I'd like to know how far down he may have gone if we had not taken him?  I'll say this , a lot of people had him in my Draft game...  I started to put him in at one point,, and I thought to myself ... I just can't see us takeing a DB at 16.. Well, I was wrong .. I have  about 5 DBs in my top 20.. may not get a one of them..  But I do have a lot of DL and hope to get a few... I thought for sure they would draft the Big DLman 1st.

But I'll say this,, I'm all for what makes this team better.. Not as much about me figuring out how they will draft.. As long as it gets us to the playoffs.. I'm all for it. I have about 5 DBs in my top twenty.. maybe we'll get one... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to put to words my feelings on it.

He's a good enough player and I have no doubt that most teams had him as their #3 CB. I also have no doubt Oakland would have taken him at 19.

However, I dont think he's good enough to warrant us not trading back to get more picks with guys like Baun, Uche, Blacklock, Winfield and Delpit still available. The truth is, Kinlaw was the last of the "Tier 1" guys. Once he was gone, I dont feel that any defenders on the board were worth taking at 16. I think the Tier 2 guys will stretch all the way into the beginning of the 3rd round, and trading back could have netted us probably 4 impact, starting caliber players. Instead, we stayed at 16 took the 1st of the non-elite guys. I just dont value Terrell over getting possibly 2 additional players of his same caliber.

And before the "You have to have a partner to trade" brigade comes in. TD has already stated that trading down was a possibility if Oakland had taken Terrell with their 1st pick. They just valued the CB need more than acquiring extra picks.

 

To summarize, I think he's a good enough player and went probably around the spot he should have given Henderson coming off the board, but I dont think He is the caliber of player to warrant us not moving back if the option was there (and it was).

Edited by Snafu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This man had a bad game against the best WR in college football on the highest scoring offense in college football history and was still in position to make a play a majority of the time. He would have been picked within 5 picks of #16 if we didn’t take him. Don’t listen to buffoons on TV. Welcome AJ!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Snafu said:

I'll try to put to words my feelings on it.

He's a good enough player and I have no doubt that most teams had him as their #3 CB. I also have no doubt Oakland would have taken him at 19.

However, I dont think he's good enough to warrant us not trading back to get more picks with guys like Baun, Uche, Blacklock, Winfield and Delpit still available. The truth is, Kinlaw was the last of the "Tier 1" guys. Once he was gone, I dont feel that any defenders on the board were worth taking at 16. I think the Tier 2 guys will stretch all the way into the beginning of the 3rd round, and trading back could have netted us probably 4 impact, starting caliber players. Instead, we stayed at 16 took the 1st of the non-elite guys. I just dont value Terrell over getting possibly 2 additional players of his same caliber.

And before the "You have to have a partner to trade" brigade comes in. TD has already stated that trading down was a possibility if Oakland had taken Terrell with their 1st pick. They just valued the CB need more than acquiring extra picks.

And if no one wanted to trade up? You make trading back seem like a certainty 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Snafu said:

I'll try to put to words my feelings on it.

 

However, I dont think he's good enough to warrant us not trading back to get more picks with guys like Baun, Uche, Blacklock, Winfield and Delpit still available. 

 

And before the "You have to have a partner to trade" brigade comes in. TD has already stated that trading down was a possibility if Oakland had taken Terrell with their 1st pick. They just valued the CB need more than acquiring extra picks.

 

To summarize, I think he's a good enough player and went probably around the spot he should have given Henderson coming off the board, but I dont think He is the caliber of player to warrant us not moving back if the option was there (and it was).

I won't pretend to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but if this is not you stating definitively that we should have traded back and that you're certain that opportunities to do so we're there then I don't know what is.... 

Maybe the problem is that you need to actually have a clear opinion before actually making a post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ramonezy said:

I won't pretend to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but if this is not you stating definitively that we should have traded back and that you're certain that opportunities to do so we're there then I don't know what is.... 

Maybe the problem is that you need to actually have a clear opinion before actually making a post

Try reading it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Snafu said:

I'll try to put to words my feelings on it.

He's a good enough player and I have no doubt that most teams had him as their #3 CB. I also have no doubt Oakland would have taken him at 19.

However, I dont think he's good enough to warrant us not trading back to get more picks with guys like Baun, Uche, Blacklock, Winfield and Delpit still available. The truth is, Kinlaw was the last of the "Tier 1" guys. Once he was gone, I dont feel that any defenders on the board were worth taking at 16. I think the Tier 2 guys will stretch all the way into the beginning of the 3rd round, and trading back could have netted us probably 4 impact, starting caliber players. Instead, we stayed at 16 took the 1st of the non-elite guys. I just dont value Terrell over getting possibly 2 additional players of his same caliber.

And before the "You have to have a partner to trade" brigade comes in. TD has already stated that trading down was a possibility if Oakland had taken Terrell with their 1st pick. They just valued the CB need more than acquiring extra picks.

 

To summarize, I think he's a good enough player and went probably around the spot he should have given Henderson coming off the board, but I dont think He is the caliber of player to warrant us not moving back if the option was there (and it was).

TD said trading back was a possibility before the draft started.  Doesn't mean that there was a partner willing to trade up while they were on the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, falconidae said:

TD said trading back was a possibility before the draft started.  Doesn't mean that there was a partner willing to trade up while they were on the clock.

"A source familiar with the situation stated trading back was a possibility if Terrell was not on the board"

Is the exact quote from an article this morning regarding the selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Draftnut57 said:

I'd like to know how far down he may have gone if we had not taken him?

Supposedly the Raiders would have taken him at 19 instead of Arnette.  I've seen mentioned that they were debating between Ruggs and Terrell at 12.

TD, in interviews already, confirmed they were more interested in Terrell than CJ Henderson.

And this is just me, but I noticed some of those sub-conscious non-verbal visual queue's from DQ while TD was addressing this.  TD and DQ were on split-screen doing Zoom/Skype with the Atlanta media, fielding questions, and when someone asked TD if he was considering going up to 9 for CJ Henderson, TD shot that down quick and said Terrell was the top CB on their board, and DQ was sitting there, shook his head at the mention of Henderson, and then nodded his head up and down at the mention of Terrell.

I know it sounds silly, but this is weird ish I pay attention to as non-verbal body language is a big part of reading people in my job.  So I think they are telling the truth and Terrell was the target since guys like Young, Brown, and Simmons didn't fall far enough for them to reasonably move up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...