Corsair wrote:The Reggie comparison is a good one, but remember he wasn't drafted to be a "gadget" player. He was supposed to be the next Ladanian Tomlinson, a game changer, a savior. He lit Los Angeles on fire in the middle of that Pete Carroll dynasty and everyone expected him to do the same in the pros. He ended up as a solid contributor on his teams, but I'm sure many people thought of him as a bust. Michael Clayton is a bust. Reggie Bush had a respectable career in the NFL.
But there is huge value in McCaffrey if your expectations aren't on a Reggie Bush level.
But if your expectations are a "gadget" player that your coaching can unlock, you don't take him in the first round... much less the top 10.
Reggie certainly wouldn't have gone that high in retrospect.
I agree 100% with everything you're saying. It's just possible that a GM won't see it that way, especially a GM with a Sean-Payton like coach who thinks he can use McCaffrey as an unstoppable X-factor that'll change the whole dynamic of his attack.
Ultimately, *I* sure as ***** don't draft a gadget player in the 1st round. I didn't particularly want Percy Harvin when he as 2009's incredibly overhyped Florida school prospect that year for the same reason - he wasn't a #1 NFL receiver and he never would be. I don't think you use your first round pick on a toy or a decoy or a guy you're going to play in five spots. You draft a skill position player in the 1st round, he either needs to be a back who can handle 25 touches, a receiver with the physique and skill-set to develop into a #1, or a tight end who changes the complexion of your passing attack.
That's pretty much it for me. I don't want a slot receiver. I don't want a change of pace back. I don't want a blocking tight end who catches a little. I can get any of those things in later rounds. If I really feel like I NEED a gadget player to help my offense, my offense has other problems and I should probably draft a good OL prospect instead.