Even if DolphDallas is right that BP, etc., thought Hilliard would be a better FB than, say, Hillis, either one of them is still just a FB. Why burn a draft pick on a guy you can pick up in UDFA, who plays a position that has very little impact in the NFL, when there are WRs available, a position you need help at, who likely won’t still be available at the end of the draft?

The only thing I can think of is that they’re planning a very conservative, controlled, short passing game to complement a smash-mouth run-oriented offense. The problem with that is that for a passing game oriented more to the TE and backs than the WRs, Hillis would be the MUCH better FB, given his terrific hands.

Or maybe they’re just figuring that, whatever kind of passing game they try, they’re going to need blocking help in the backfield to keep their young QB alive while the new O-line gels. Hilliard probably is a better blocker than Hillis. He’s certainly bigger.

Really, the thing I don’t get isn’t that we took Hilliard; it’s that we took Hilliard AND Parmele. If we think we need a FB, pick one - ONE - to draft, and grab another in UDFA if you want some competition. As it is, we used TWO draft picks on guys who play the same low-profile position and both of whom probably would still be available in UDFA.

for your input. With Hilliard being drafted at #204, I noticed that there were a handful of DB players that could have been developed – Josh Barrett, Arizona St went to Denver at 220; Caleb Campbell, 6-2, 230, Army went to Detroit at 218; Chris Horton, UCLA, went to Washington at 249. These were all good secondary men. I would pick one RB especially when there are 5 total on the roster now (including 2 FB – Mauia and Grigsby). Didn’t Parcells also pick up someone named “Crocker”? Isn’t he a RB / FB? Well, they know what they’re doing. Again, thank you all for your information. I did get to see both sides, which is good.