So what? All positions on the field are important to a degree. I'm just glad that when Foote went down last year that they valued the position enough to get a good experienced backup or a high pick instead of a 6th rounder... oh wait... yup they value the hell out of ILB. I guess it just took them this year to start valuing them?
Like Vader said, all positions have value. But the LESS valuable ones should probably be held off on unless you're talking about an undeniably impactful talent - Willis and maybe Shazier come to mind. I don't think Timmons fits that bill.
I wouldn't take an OG early unless he has DeCastro's upside, or a RB early unless he has AP's upside, etc.
so you'd WANT them to take a pick with a high upside early, but are pissed when they do?
for the record, Joe Staley quite possibly could have turned out to be nothing more than Mike Adams. At the draft, no one knew how good Staley would be. How good he could be, yes, but not how good he would be. Same thing with Timmons. I'd gander that the coaching staff saw a dominant LB in their assessment. Even when Tomlin fell in love with him. I wished they'd have not stated so publicly their infatuation (for the record, I wanted Willis to fall to us) to open up more venues for trade.
As it is, both of you are doing nothing but second guessing the pick based on flawed logic and then turning around and saying you'd do the same.
Maybe the coaching staff saw Lawrence Taylor in Timmons? Maybe they saw a guy who could cover TEs and RBs? Maybe they saw a guy who could control the middle of the field if need be and rush the QB. Yet, when Timmons was picked, then Woodley thereafter and Deebo took the other OLB spot, we were in a bind with Timmons. Due to his flexibility, he allowed us to move him inside. It's not like Woodley could have moved inside is it? Or would it have been better to NOT have Timmons in that draft, and then been in more of a bind with Foote going to Detroit and forcing a rookie to learn the D on the fly (at this point, I should note that both of you command that rookie defensive starters produce immediately, regardless of their previous college positions). It turns out that bringing in Timmons to learn under Foote for a season then playing him the next was the right call...no matter how much you hated the pick.
As for Staley, we had Max Starks at LT.
Starks was 26. Why draft someone to come in at LT at that point? That doesn't make any sense.
Players selected in the first after Timmons included all of Justin Harrell, Jarvis Moss, Leon Hall, Michael Griffin, Aaron Ross, Reggie Nelson, Brady Quinn, Dwayne Bowe, Brandon Meriweather, Jon Beason, Anthony Spencer, Robert Meachem, Joe Staley, Ben Grubbs, Craig Davis, Greg Olsen, Anthony Gonzalez.
Second round guys taken include Alan Branch, Paul Posluszny, Arron Sears, Kevin Kolb, Eric Weddle, Zach Miller, Justin Blalock, John Beck, Chris Houston, Tony Ugoh, Drew Stanton, Sidney Rice and Dwayne Jarrett.
WHICH of those lumps of **** would you rather have? The only ones worth discussing would be Grubbs (we were starting Stapleton at that point), Posluszny (then we'd still be in the same argument) and possibly Sidney Rice (who was not projected as a first rounder).
Like I said previously, we are picking talent from the depleted talent pool.
Solid is not the same as "above average" no matter which way you want to twist and spin it. It's called splitting hairs, especially when you turn right around and state that the guy is always out of position, can't cover a TE and gets stone-walled by RBs or is like a kite on defense.
