It should be noted that most of the negatives we're reading about Davenport are about what it cost us to acquire him, not whether or not he's a great pick for us.

I think the consensus is that we got a fantastic prospect at a crucial position which also happens to be a need for us.

We probably over-paid a little to get him, but thats certainly debatable.

Its my humble opinion that if we had numerous holes on our roster, we over-paid. But since we don't have glaring holes up and down this roster, we didn't over-pay.

Its the old Rebuild vs Re-load. We aren't rebuilding, we're re-loading and Davenport is a key piece of ammo.

You make a great point here Danno. Nobody talks about the actual player but rather the trade compensation. I’m guilty as well. All the draft gurus had Davenport as a top 15 player but for some reason giving up next year’s 1st makes him lesser of a player it seems. I don’t know... I’m pretty conflicted still.