In the context of where our team was at the time we drafted Eason, I completely agree with the pick and it was actually a low risk, high reward type of pick. Lots of people liked Eason in the 2nd or even 3rd round, so at the time it was perceived as value for a mid round pick when we only had a 39 year old Rivers as our QB. I liked the pick then and I would do it again if I were Ballard.
I liked the pick, but in hindsight I don't like the player. Was there any QB's taken around Eason or after that has really panned out for a team anyway? It was a swing we had to take and likely one we will take again in the mid rounds in the upcoming draft. Need to keep our cupboards stocked, especially with Wentz' inability to stay healthy on the reg. I wouldn't be surprised if Ballard is actively looking for a veteran backup right now.
As for Paris Campbell? Yes, definitely a wasted pick. At the time, also a luxury pick when we had way bigger holes to fill. I wont criticize Ballard for picking Campbell, as there was no data indicating that he would be an injury risk at all. I will criticize him for picking a WR there though...when we should have went OT, EDGE, or CB in hindsight.
So it both cases, the player ended up not working out. In one of them, Ballard was justified in taking the swing at the QB position. In the other, he wasted a premium pick on a luxury position. Which one hurt us more? I would have to say Campbell, especially given the fact that he could have been Metcalf.
Just my two cents
|