PDA

View Full Version : Sometimes second round is better than first in NFL draft


Double Barrel
04-21-2007, 02:21 PM
Sometimes second round is better than first in NFL draft

A year ago, the Houston Texans bypassed the electric Reggie Bush and ignored hometown hero Vince Young. They used the first overall pick in the N-F-L draft on defensive end Mario Williams.

After a six-and-ten season, they hear about it every day -- more often as this year's draft approaches.

But the Texans still can brag about last year's draft -- because they took linebacker DeMeco Ryans with the first pick of the second round. While Williams was bothered by injuries and made little impact, Ryans was the N-F-L's defensive rookie of the year.

It's too bad everyone focuses on the first round. Too bad, because almost as many stars emerge from the second round as the first -- from Brett Favre in 1991 and Michael Strahan (STAY'-han) two years later to Ryans and Devin Hester last season.

Why do second-rounders succeed when first-rounders often fail? To most football people, it's simple.

In the first round, teams often draft on potential. Sometimes, they're the players who ace the tests at the scouting combine by running faster and jumping higher in shorts. The problem is they don't do the same thing in pads when there's someone trying to crush them.

Intelligence is often the secret to second-rounders' successes. Former Houston general manager Charley Casserly -- who picked both Williams and Ryans before resigning shortly thereafter -- cites another quality. That's attitude.

Casserly says "first-rounders get big money and a lot of them hold out. Second-rounders are in camp right away and start working. A lot of them want to prove that they deserved to be in the first round -- or that they are better than the guys with the big names who got the big money."

Source (http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6402700&nav=0w0x)

gwallaia
04-21-2007, 02:23 PM
This is one reason I support the Texans trading out of the 1st round this season.

leebigeztx
04-21-2007, 02:28 PM
Lower expectation probably. Mario was playing well until he got hurt and played hurt. The defense played better after the 1st 6 games. I guess i'm still missing the reggie bush deal. I mean if you want a receiver, draft one, but drafting a back that plays like a reciever that avg 3.5 a carry and longest run from srimmage is 12 yards thats another.

gwallaia
04-21-2007, 02:36 PM
I think Mario is going to be a damn good player that will always be compared to Reggie and Vince.

But since this year, because the Texans have lost some picks beacuse of the Schaub deal. (they overpaid in my opinion) they should trade down and get more picks.

leebigeztx
04-21-2007, 02:39 PM
i agree. i think if you look at the depth the texans have built this offseason i think its pretty good. I think they did the right thing and eveluated Carr themselves before dumping him. I do like the instant leadership Matt has shown early on. People smirked at Jordan Black,Barber,Davis and Fletcher signing, but i think they were low cost smart moves. If the pats, or eagles make these moves they're called great, but the texans make then and hardly no mention. I could break down the benefits of the moves they've made and people would probably think none really matter.

Specnatz
04-21-2007, 03:44 PM
Lower expectation probably. Mario was playing well until he got hurt and played hurt. The defense played better after the 1st 6 games. I guess i'm still missing the reggie bush deal. I mean if you want a receiver, draft one, but drafting a back that plays like a reciever that avg 3.5 a carry and longest run from srimmage is 12 yards thats another.

Do not forget he got all that money to be a decoy and a return specialist.

ATXtexanfan
04-21-2007, 07:00 PM
teams are built through the draft. most often from rounds three to five. usually these guys have something to prove and very little guaranted

leebigeztx
04-21-2007, 08:00 PM
Yeah like a 1600yd guy like duece reallly needed help. Its a trip how when the game is close or the team reggie is on have the lead, he's on the bench with his helment and mouthpiece.

RTP2110
04-21-2007, 09:50 PM
It's all about the money. Stop giving unproven rookies insane amounts of money. Let them stay hungry and have to earn the big bucks. Then you'll see more 1st rounder shine.

infantrycak
04-21-2007, 11:44 PM
It's all about the money. Stop giving unproven rookies insane amounts of money. Let them stay hungry and have to earn the big bucks. Then you'll see more 1st rounder shine.

This should be the next big move in the NFL--moving toward and NBA model of defined rookie salaries that limit or eliminate hold-outs and have even the best prospects paid less than the best proven players. There is no rational reason for Bush making more than LT.

Double Barrel
04-21-2007, 11:46 PM
teams are built through the draft. most often from rounds three to five. usually these guys have something to prove and very little guaranted

Yep. The Colts had 22 of 24 starters (incl. kicker & punter) last year through the draft. That speaks volumes about the quality of front office analysis and decisions. Hopefully we're building something like that, but only time will tell.

It's all about the money. Stop giving unproven rookies insane amounts of money. Let them stay hungry and have to earn the big bucks. Then you'll see more 1st rounder shine.

I've never cared for paying guys on potential. It seems counter-productive to give someone the reward before they have a chance to earn it.

nedthehead
04-22-2007, 12:39 AM
After last year the Texans should trade out of the first round annually!:splits:

Wolf
04-22-2007, 01:44 PM
http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/contentbe/dispatch/2007/04/22/20070422-E8-01.html


NEW YORK ? A year ago, the Houston Texans bypassed the electric Reggie Bush and ignored hometown hero Vince Young to use the first pick in the NFL draft on defensive end Mario Williams. After a 6-10 season, they hear about it every day ? more often as the draft approaches this week.

But the Texans still can brag about the 2006 draft ? because of linebacker DeMeco Ryans, taken with the first pick of the second round. While Williams was bothered by injuries and made little impact, Ryans was the NFL?s defensive rookie of the year. He was second in the league with 155 tackles, had 3 1 /2 sacks and developed into the leader of the defense, if not the team?s leader.

It?s too bad everyone focuses on the first round. Too bad, because almost as many stars emerge from the second round, from Brett Favre in 1991 and Michael Strahan two years later to Ryans and Devin Hester last season.

SheTexan
04-22-2007, 06:08 PM
Maybe if Mario can keep from breaking his neck in his new set of wheels, he might have a better year, and get better press. How does he get his big butt in and out of that car anyway?!!!:d:

False Start
04-22-2007, 07:56 PM
Mario really needs to come out and have a pretty big year to silence the critics . (10 1/2 sacks would be nice) . The debate will rage on until he either makes or breaks himself in the next couple of years. I still have faith in the guy .

Sopranos in 5 minutes .......... :cool:

the wonger need food
04-22-2007, 08:03 PM
It's all about the money. Stop giving unproven rookies insane amounts of money. Let them stay hungry and have to earn the big bucks. Then you'll see more 1st rounder shine.



Take it a step further and pay the winning teams more money. That will keep everyone in the organization hungry. The current socialist system promotes mediocrity.

infantrycak
04-22-2007, 08:49 PM
Take it a step further and pay the winning teams more money. That will keep everyone in the organization hungry. The current socialist system promotes mediocrity.

Yeah, there's a good idea. Let's give the already best team more money so they can stay best and no one else has a good chance. This has nothing to do with political systems and how you run a government. You want your country and government to be the best. You want sports to be competitive and non-predictable, i.e. each season isn't a repeat of last year.

awtysst
04-22-2007, 09:05 PM
This should be the next big move in the NFL--moving toward and NBA model of defined rookie salaries that limit or eliminate hold-outs and have even the best prospects paid less than the best proven players. There is no rational reason for Bush making more than LT.

How about a performance based pay system? You get a base salary and then get incventives if you play well(a la Demeco) and no incentives if you dont(TJ)?

Your thoughts, sir?

infantrycak
04-22-2007, 09:09 PM
How about a performance based pay system? You get a base salary and then get incventives if you play well(a la Demeco) and no incentives if you dont(TJ)?

Your thoughts, sir?

For rookies or everyone? Generally, I have no problem with folks negotiating whatever they can get. The NFL is awash in money. The only problem I have is rookies getting more money without playing a down at the same position as the best in the league. Somehow the rookie system has gone whack. There is no excuse for a rookie coming in and earning 50% more than the league MVP at the same position. A defined rookie system would also eliminate hold outs.

gwallaia
04-22-2007, 09:44 PM
A system that limits what rookies make I assume would be an issue the player's union would be involved in. Doubt they would make any concessions in that matter. The owners ofcourse would support it.

I could see this leading to a player's strike. My season tickets are spent to see pro's, not scabs.

But I like the idea of limiting the money rookies with no expeirence make; that's make as in not earned.

Texans Horror
04-22-2007, 10:46 PM
How about a performance based pay system? You get a base salary and then get incventives if you play well(a la Demeco) and no incentives if you dont(TJ)?

Your thoughts, sir?

The NFL actually gives bonuses to players that play better than expected. Teams will do the same. For example, if AJ gets x amount of catches or yards in a season, he gets a bonus of x. If nobody can throw to him or he is always double-teamed, no bonus.

Texans Horror
04-22-2007, 10:56 PM
Traditionally, the second round is an abysmal place for the Texans.

2002 - Gaffney, Pitts
2003 - Joppru
2004 - nobody
2005 - nobody
2006 - Ryans

Regardless of whether you think Joppru and Gaffney were busts, the Texans seem to have squandered their second round picks. However, I think that when they have had that pick, they are 50/50 for having a good player that makes an impact. Pitts and Ryans are unquestionably (at least in my mind) two of the better players on the Texans team.

So is giving up the 2007 and 2008 second round just looking at fate and sayin "meh - we never did well there anyway" or is it just continuing the misuse of the second round? Only time will tell.

Goldensilence
04-22-2007, 11:21 PM
Take it a step further and pay the winning teams more money. That will keep everyone in the organization hungry. The current socialist system promotes mediocrity.

Must be an MLB fan.

I actually like the NBA Rookie salary situation after looking into it more. Makes a lot of sense. Acutally i am willing to bet after getting a decent proposal about it i don't think we'd see a players strike especially if veteran players got it. I know the NFL is a more injury laden leage simply because of the nature of the sport and some who are pretty much gauranteed first rounders make the jump.They make it for the money up front.

Lucky
04-22-2007, 11:34 PM
A system that limits what rookies make I assume would be an issue the player's union would be involved in. Doubt they would make any concessions in that matter.
There is a system that limits how much a rookie makes. It's called the rookie salary pool. Every team has a limit on what they can collectively pay their rookies depending upon how many selections they have and where they are in the draft order. Each team has discretion on how much to pay individual players.

How about eliminating the draft altogether? Make every player eligible for the NFL a free agent. At least then, you would find out who wants to pay for potential, and who doesn't. I'm thinking there would be plenty of teams willing to pony up big $$$ for guys like Calvin Johnson, JaMarcus Russell, and Adrian Peterson. Even though they haven't played a down in the league.

infantrycak
04-23-2007, 08:04 AM
A system that limits what rookies make I assume would be an issue the player's union would be involved in. Doubt they would make any concessions in that matter. The owners ofcourse would support it.

I could see this leading to a player's strike. My season tickets are spent to see pro's, not scabs.

But I like the idea of limiting the money rookies with no expeirence make; that's make as in not earned.

True it would take union involvement, but look at it this way--everyone with a vote is already in the league and everyone effected by it is not yet in the league and doesn't have a vote. From the perspective of the players, the less money spent on rookies, the more money for vets.

infantrycak
04-23-2007, 08:09 AM
The NFL actually gives bonuses to players that play better than expected. Teams will do the same. For example, if AJ gets x amount of catches or yards in a season, he gets a bonus of x. If nobody can throw to him or he is always double-teamed, no bonus.

The Performance Based Pay system isn't designed to address AJ or any top tier players. It is designed to identify league minimum type guys who get substantially more play time than other folks with similar salaries such as Owen Daniels. For most players, the only bonuses they get are the ones negotiated into their contracts.

Here is an article about Performance Based Pay (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/10091662).

eriadoc
04-23-2007, 09:29 AM
I'll add one reason why I think the second round is a better round than the first:

That stupid points system for the first round.

All we hear about, every draft year, is how someone "reached" for a player, or got a steal by taking someone at 20 instead of 15. Why five spots should matter can only be boiled down to one thing - money paid versus projected impact. It should be clear to anyone who has followed the draft that projected impact is, at best, an educated guess. If we had taken Demeco Ryans #1 overall, we would have been absolutely blasted 100x worse than we already were. But then, when the ROY honors rolled in, would the naysayers have a leg to stand on? Well, IMO, they didn't have one to stand on in the first place.

It's human nature to overanalyze things and come up with a rote, systematic process by which decisions can be made. No place is this further from optimal than in the 1st round of the NFL draft, IMO.

Vinny
04-23-2007, 10:40 AM
Early in the draft teams tend to take prototype players who project well to the next level. Many times in the second round is where guys who had some question about size or didn’t run the 40 quite as fast as another freaky athlete could, but may have more of a football mentality and has some instinct for the position that the elite physical prototype doesn't have. DeMeco was on of those guys, and Mario is a good example of the prototype player.

texasguy346
04-23-2007, 10:53 AM
True it would take union involvement, but look at it this way--everyone with a vote is already in the league and everyone effected by it is not yet in the league and doesn't have a vote. From the perspective of the players, the less money spent on rookies, the more money for vets.

You'd have to think that the players union would be in favor of the high salaries that rookies coming into the league are given. Not only does it mean more money for that particular player, but in the following years other premiere players at a position can point to Player X who plays the same position but doesn't have nearly the same production as a starting point for contract negotiations.

Vinny
04-23-2007, 10:57 AM
You'd have to think that the players union would be in favor of the high salaries that rookies coming into the league are given. Not only does it mean more money for that particular player, but in the following years other premiere players at a position can point to Player X who plays the same position but doesn't have nearly the same production as a starting point for contract negotiations.Players careers age in dog years so that kind of thinking works against them at a certain point. The players and the league negotiate a certain % of the revenue to go to the players, but if the league sets a limit on the amounts that go to the unproven rookies there will naturally be more money for the Vets. There will be less guessing and less money wasted on pure speculation. More money ends up in more proven hands if you set up a smarter rookie wage scale.

Specnatz
04-23-2007, 12:18 PM
Early in the draft teams tend to take prototype players who project well to the next level. Many times in the second round is where guys who had some question about size or didnít run the 40 quite as fast as another freaky athlete could, but may have more of a football mentality and has some instinct for the position that the elite physical prototype doesn't have. DeMeco was on of those guys, and Mario is a good example of the prototype player.

Case in point is Zach Thomas, he was said to be to slow to small and would not be able to handle the rigors of the NFL, ....... Oppss!!

Marcus
04-23-2007, 12:24 PM
Take it a step further and pay the winning teams more money. That will keep everyone in the organization hungry. The current socialist system promotes mediocrity.

Sincerely yours,

George Steinbrenner