PDA

View Full Version : 1560s LZ & John Harris question the value of "Draft Position" ?


nunusguy
03-20-2009, 12:02 PM
1 Alex Smith QB Utah San Francisco 49ers
2 Ronnie Brown RB Auburn Miami Dolphins
3 Braylon Edwards WR Michigan Cleveland Browns
4 Cedric Benson RB Texas Chicago Bears
5 Cadillac Williams RB Auburn Tampa Bay Buccaneers
6 Pacman Jones CB West Virginia Tennessee Titans
7 Troy Williamson WR South Carolina Minnesota Vikings
8 Antrel Rolle DB Miami (Fla.) Arizona Cardinals
9 Carlos Rogers DB Auburn Washington Redskins
10 Mike Williams WR USC Detroit Lions
11 DeMarcus Ware OLB Troy State Dallas Cowboys
12 Shawne Merriman OLB Maryland San Diego Chargers
13 Jammal Brown T Oklahoma New Orleans Saints
14 Thomas Davis DB Georgia Carolina Panthers
15 Derrick Johnson OLB Texas Kansas City Chiefs
16 Travis Johnson DT Florida State Houston Texans
17 David Pollack LB Georgia Cincinnati Bengals
18 Erasmus James DE Wisconsin Minnesota Vikings
19 Alex Barron T Florida State St. Louis Rams
20 Marcus Spears DE Louisiana State Dallas Cowboys
21 Matt Jones WR Arkansas Jacksonville Jaguars
22 Mark Clayton WR Oklahoma Baltimore Ravens
23 Fabian Washington CB Nebraska Oakland Raiders
24 Aaron Rodgers QB California Green Bay Packers
25 Jason Campbell QB Auburn Washington Redskins
26 Chris Spencer C Mississippi Seattle Seahawks
27 Roddy White WR Alabama-Birmingham Atlanta Falcons
28 Luis Castillo DE Northwestern San Diego Chargers
29 Marlin Jackson DB Michigan Indianapolis Colts
30 Heath Miller TE Virginia Pittsburgh Steelers
31 Mike Patterson DT USC Philadelphia Eagles
32 Logan Mankins G Fresno State New England Patriots
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?season=2005&round=round1
**********************************
They compared the first 7 picks in the first round vs the last 7 picks of that
round in the 2005 Draft and came to the conclusion (obviously) that the last 7 were better choices. Interesting. Not to mention the difference in cap resources saved.
If you really like Draft talk you need to check these guys out on 1560 on Thursdays at 5:00 - 6:30 PM for their Draft-Show.

bah007
03-20-2009, 12:05 PM
Perhaps the last seven turned out to be better players because they were drafted by better teams and received better coaching?

Polo
03-20-2009, 12:08 PM
Perhaps the last seven turned out to be better players because they were drafted by better teams and received better coaching?

How could you look at the players up there and the teams that picked them come to that conclusion ?

Blake
03-20-2009, 12:08 PM
Perhaps the last seven turned out to be better players because they were drafted by better teams and received better coaching?

Great point. Who knows how David Carr would have turned out, had he gone to the Steelers near the bottom of round 1 and gave him better coaching, and sat him on the bench for a year.

TheRealJoker
03-20-2009, 12:10 PM
Perhaps the last seven turned out to be better players because they were drafted by better teams and received better coaching?

Valid point. A player is only as good as the scheme he is put in. Now granted, some players are special and would do well in just about any scheme, but to be HOF caliber they need to be in a scheme that maximizes their potential.

Imagine Peyton Manning or Tom Brady in a run heavy offense like the Titans employ. Same player, a lot of people would think they're very good too. But they wouldn't put up the gaudy numbers we've become accustomed to from them.

Goldensilence
03-20-2009, 12:10 PM
This is exactly why there should be a salary cap of some sort on rookie contracts. I think the NBA actually does it right.

This way the pressure is eased on the the team for justifying the resources spent on a top pick or havingthem play too early to justify the resources spent on said player.

I would think the rookies would benefit from less intense scrutiny and could ease themselves into the pace of the NFL. There is a reason why more intelligent picks are made at the bottom seven of the draft and both of those play a big part in it.

Polo
03-20-2009, 12:10 PM
Great point. Who knows how David Carr would have turned out, had he gone to the Steelers near the bottom of round 1 and gave him better coaching, and sat him on the bench for a year.

Probably a few notches above complete suckage instead of right on the line.

Polo
03-20-2009, 12:12 PM
Imagine Peyton Manning or Tom Brady in a run heavy offense like the Titans employ. Same player, a lot of people would think they're very good too. But they wouldn't put up the gaudy numbers we've become accustomed to from them.


Tom Brady and Peyton Manning probably dictate that their offense pass it so much. Tom Brady in the Titans offense would pass it more than Kerry Collins.

If you have a star player, use him.

Vinny
03-20-2009, 12:23 PM
Great point. Who knows how David Carr would have turned out, had he gone to the Steelers near the bottom of round 1 and gave him better coaching, and sat him on the bench for a year.
He would have been the same player he was here...just a bad Steeler QB instead of a Texan.

nunusguy
03-20-2009, 12:26 PM
Perhaps the last seven turned out to be better players because they were drafted by better teams and received better coaching?

I gotta get in line with some of the other posters and agree bah007. There definitely might be a correlation between the success of the players picked and the teams who picked 'em.

Ole Miss Texan
03-20-2009, 12:36 PM
Perhaps the last seven turned out to be better players because they were drafted by better teams and received better coaching?

"Must spread rep" I didn't have to go far to find a post of exactly what I would have written.

Here's a novel idea: Why don't teams just decide to make the playoffs so they can pick in the bottom of the 1st round and select better players. Why do they constantly want to suck, have marginal talent around their team and then throw a rookie in there and expect him to turn the team around? :shades:

TheRealJoker
03-20-2009, 12:57 PM
Tom Brady and Peyton Manning probably dictate that their offense pass it so much. Tom Brady in the Titans offense would pass it more than Kerry Collins.

If you have a star player, use him.

Indeed, they would still be very good but not "best of all time" caliber like we think of them now. Sure, Fisher would pass more, but how much more? His ideological view is that the offense needs to control the ball and limit turnovers, not throw it 30+ times a game and try to win shootouts.

Fisherball is still Fisherball with or without Brady/Manning.

Second Honeymoon
03-20-2009, 01:07 PM
If you were to look at other drafts, you won't find the same sort of trends that 2005 showed. I do agree that being drafted later in the draft, is always helpful to a player. As long as they are still given an opportunity to get on the field, a player drafted later in the 1st has less pressure and a better team to fit into. Then when you add the fact that the best teams have the best coaching staffs, you can see this helping a late round draftee further.

Either way, if your drafted in the 1st Round, your one of the top32 players coming out of college so your a pretty damn good football player. In today's league of rookies coming in and getting playing time, some of these young guys are taking the bull by the horns and making themselves their team's starters from Day One.

mexican_texan
03-21-2009, 12:30 PM
Great point. Who knows how David Carr would have turned out, had he gone to the Steelers near the bottom of round 1 and gave him better coaching, and sat him on the bench for a year.
He still would've been a bust. At a position where elite guys never take a week off, Carr took months off before he threw a ball in the offseason. He wasn't and probably still doesn't have the desire to put in extra work into becoming a starting QB.

DiehardChris
03-21-2009, 12:46 PM
David Carr publicly said he was happy to be a backup quarterback. To me, that's the absolute END of that conversation. The physical part of the game was never his problem.

steelbtexan
03-21-2009, 01:22 PM
He still would've been a bust. At a position where elite guys never take a week off, Carr took months off before he threw a ball in the offseason. He wasn't and probably still doesn't have the desire to put in extra work into becoming a starting QB.

Spot On

steelbtexan
03-21-2009, 01:30 PM
David Carr publicly said he was happy to be a backup quarterback. To me, that's the absolute END of that conversation. The physical part of the game was never his problem.

This is Carr

Stole McNairs money

Stealing Mara's money

Making millions with no work ethic

Great job if you can get it


Does he still have the teased hair & white gloves? That was classic.

Kubes cut him because of his inability to read defenses. This tells me he's either lazy (not putting in the time to learn) or dumb.

Second Honeymoon
03-21-2009, 01:43 PM
Kubes cut him because of his inability to read defenses. This tells me he's either lazy (not putting in the time to learn) or dumb.

or both

bah007
03-21-2009, 01:44 PM
Carr always had all the physical tools. That was never in doubt. That was why he went #1 overall.

He just never developed anything beyond that.

TexansFanatic
03-21-2009, 03:36 PM
David Carr publicly said he was happy to be a backup quarterback. To me, that's the absolute END of that conversation. The physical part of the game was never his problem.

That's the thing about the crazy money these guys make.

In the old days when pro football players had jobs in the offseason to make ends meet, you knew they were playing because they sincerely loved the game.

These days, a guy might not give a damn about football but if he's got special football talent he's going to play because he won't see that kind of money anywhere short of winning the lottery. The result is a lot of guys treating football like a 9 to 5 gig. Guys like Mr. Carr.

Lucky
03-21-2009, 05:25 PM
OK, let's not turn a perfectly good topic into a David Carr thread.

LZ
03-23-2009, 09:34 PM
Perhaps the last seven turned out to be better players because they were drafted by better teams and received better coaching?


Coaching has very little to do with which teams you get drafted by. That's way overrated. There are great coaches on bad teams and bad coaches on great teams. Some guys are just better players than others. Alex Smith was a guy coming from a system and that system was nothing like the pro game.

Benson had some character issues while Brown has been up and down thanks to injuries. Caddy has been hurt too often and Braylon is just flaky. Everyone know about PacMan's issues and everyone knew that teams were drafting Williamson on potential since he really hadn't done anything in college.

Mankins was bumping down from tackle to guard which is why his value was late first to early 2nd in that draft. Heath Miller was a TE who wasn't a gamebreaker so late 1st was the right value on him as well. Patterson was considered a little undersized which is why he was drafted where he was.

Guys at the back end of the first round often have small physical deficiencies which cause them to drop while players who have better measurables tend to rise. Often times the productivity in college isn't weighed as heavily as it should be and guys like DeMeco Ryans fall where they did. It isn't surprising that the good teams get good football players late in the first many times and then get the added benefit of not being saddled with such high rookie contracts.

That whole coaching excuse is nonsense to me.

LZ
03-23-2009, 09:38 PM
Valid point. A player is only as good as the scheme he is put in. Now granted, some players are special and would do well in just about any scheme, but to be HOF caliber they need to be in a scheme that maximizes their potential.

Imagine Peyton Manning or Tom Brady in a run heavy offense like the Titans employ. Same player, a lot of people would think they're very good too. But they wouldn't put up the gaudy numbers we've become accustomed to from them.

If you are drafted in the top 7 or ANY draft, you had sure better transcend the scheme. If not, you aren't worthy of being picked in that spot. It's one thing to say a 4-3 DE is miscast in a 3-4, but that doesn't happen. It's another to just say that you plug guys into "schemes" and they magically become players. I just don't think it works like that at all.

Are they busting their tails in the offseason? Are they taking care of themselves or out drinking? Are they smart in meetings and can they retain information that is given to them? Do they have a good football IQ? Are they coachable?

There are a ton of considerations that go into whether a player will be a good player or just a guy. Scheme is near the bottom of the list when dealing with first rounders.

nunusguy
03-24-2009, 10:16 AM
It isn't surprising that the good teams get good football players late in the first many times and then get the added benefit of not being saddled with such high rookie contracts.


Or "being saddled with such high rookie" expectations (which also would be advantages in that there's less notoriety & shorter memories on Draft screw-ups).

beerlover
03-24-2009, 10:59 AM
LZ has a knack for outstanding analysis on a daily basis. not only understand's the process, he has extensive contacts, grew up in a NFL coaching household & backs-up blog by bringing in actual quest scouts to formulate worthwhile, quality information you can use to make informed opinions, hence rewarding draft expereinces (knowledge is power). When they use the term "value" it has real meaning because they echo what actual scouts are thinking.

I really enjoy listening to John Harris too, his passion & knowledge is contagious :)

Specnatz
03-24-2009, 11:13 AM
1 Alex Smith QB Utah San Francisco 49ers
2 Ronnie Brown RB Auburn Miami Dolphins
3 Braylon Edwards WR Michigan Cleveland Browns
4 Cedric Benson RB Texas Chicago Bears
5 Cadillac Williams RB Auburn Tampa Bay Buccaneers
6 Pacman Jones CB West Virginia Tennessee Titans
7 Troy Williamson WR South Carolina Minnesota Vikings
8 Antrel Rolle DB Miami (Fla.) Arizona Cardinals
9 Carlos Rogers DB Auburn Washington Redskins
10 Mike Williams WR USC Detroit Lions


http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?season=2005&round=round1
**********************************
They compared the first 7 picks in the first round vs the last 7 picks of that
round in the 2005 Draft and came to the conclusion (obviously) that the last 7 were better choices. Interesting. Not to mention the difference in cap resources saved.
If you really like Draft talk you need to check these guys out on 1560 on Thursdays at 5:00 - 6:30 PM for their Draft-Show.

Bold = poor attitudes and work ethic.
Underline = injuries / Smith has had multiple coordinators and is now injured.

Sure coaching has a little to do with it but it is also the character of the individual.

BigBull17
03-24-2009, 11:14 AM
Bold = poor attitudes and work ethic.
Underline = injuries / Smith has had multiple coordinators and is now injured.

Sure coaching has a little to do with it but it is also the character of the individual.

There arent to many good players on that list.

Polo
03-24-2009, 11:33 AM
Coaching has very little to do with which teams you get drafted by. That's way overrated. There are great coaches on bad teams and bad coaches on great teams. Some guys are just better players than others. Alex Smith was a guy coming from a system and that system was nothing like the pro game.

Benson had some character issues while Brown has been up and down thanks to injuries. Caddy has been hurt too often and Braylon is just flaky. Everyone know about PacMan's issues and everyone knew that teams were drafting Williamson on potential since he really hadn't done anything in college.

Mankins was bumping down from tackle to guard which is why his value was late first to early 2nd in that draft. Heath Miller was a TE who wasn't a gamebreaker so late 1st was the right value on him as well. Patterson was considered a little undersized which is why he was drafted where he was.

Guys at the back end of the first round often have small physical deficiencies which cause them to drop while players who have better measurables tend to rise. Often times the productivity in college isn't weighed as heavily as it should be and guys like DeMeco Ryans fall where they did. It isn't surprising that the good teams get good football players late in the first many times and then get the added benefit of not being saddled with such high rookie contracts.

That whole coaching excuse is nonsense to me.

That's my take as well.

Polo
03-24-2009, 11:40 AM
If you are drafted in the top 7 or ANY draft, you had sure better transcend the scheme. If not, you aren't worthy of being picked in that spot. It's one thing to say a 4-3 DE is miscast in a 3-4, but that doesn't happen. It's another to just say that you plug guys into "schemes" and they magically become players. I just don't think it works like that at all.

Are they busting their tails in the offseason? Are they taking care of themselves or out drinking? Are they smart in meetings and can they retain information that is given to them? Do they have a good football IQ? Are they coachable?

There are a ton of considerations that go into whether a player will be a good player or just a guy. Scheme is near the bottom of the list when dealing with first rounders.

Agreed again.

Good players are good player are good players. Certain Schemes do fit certain players better than others though.

El Tejano
03-24-2009, 12:24 PM
There arent to many good players on that list.

Picks 8-15 are pretty good players.

whiskeyrbl
03-24-2009, 12:31 PM
Valid point. A player is only as good as the scheme he is put in. Now granted, some players are special and would do well in just about any scheme, but to be HOF caliber they need to be in a scheme that maximizes their potential.

Imagine Peyton Manning or Tom Brady in a run heavy offense like the Titans employ. Same player, a lot of people would think they're very good too. But they wouldn't put up the gaudy numbers we've become accustomed to from them.

You also make an argument that you should draft for your teams particular needs and not so much the BPA approach.

Specnatz
03-24-2009, 12:34 PM
You also make a point to draft for your teams particular needs and not so much the BPA approach.

BPA should be

BPATN = Best Player Available Team Need

HoustonFrog
03-24-2009, 12:41 PM
Agreed again.

Good players are good player are good players. Certain Schemes do fit certain players better than others though.

I agree with you and LZ. For years I have been on here complaining about the combine and how teams are idiots to just go on certain measurables without looking how that player looked in their system, how they played at their college level, if they overcame their small physical deficiencies, etc. Guys like Zach Thomas and others who fit this mold were always no-brainers to me because they "made plays" in college. DeMeco fits this mold. The bottom of the draft teams end up with guys who basically were outstanding college level players that people felt didn't do as well in their 40 or bench press at the combine. Yet they never seem to get that Largent, Rice, etc were "slower" guys who just seemed to make catches and in Rice's case had "football" speed. When you are at the bottom you aren't really reaching because you are just trying to find athletes that can plug a few holes to an already good team. If one thing would stand out to me at the combine it would be more the interview and seeing how the guy prepared, pre-combine. The guys at the top try the square peg-round hole system despite the fact that their need may be DE but DE may be the 5th highest rated position on the board.

LZ
03-25-2009, 08:23 PM
Agreed again.

Good players are good player are good players. Certain Schemes do fit certain players better than others though.

A perfect example of this conversation is Travis Johnson. The Texans drafted him into a 3-4 when he clearly wasn't a fit in that scheme. Fast forward over the last three years and he's been less than stellar in the 4-3. The 3-4 scheme wasn't a fit for him, but the 4-3 scheme hasn't made much of a difference either.

LZ
03-25-2009, 08:25 PM
BPA should be

BPATN = Best Player Available Team Need


And that is usually the way most teams approach it unless a player that a team considers "special" is available or if a team has an approach of loading up at a position (generally defensive line) due to playing a rotation at that position.

beerlover
03-26-2009, 01:35 AM
A perfect example of this conversation is Travis Johnson. The Texans drafted him into a 3-4 when he clearly wasn't a fit in that scheme. Fast forward over the last three years and he's been less than stellar in the 4-3. The 3-4 scheme wasn't a fit for him, but the 4-3 scheme hasn't made much of a difference either.

ouch.

he does have several motivating factors to consider & if he doesn't respond to this then he'll probably be labled a bust.


contract year
new scheme that better suits 3 technique tackle
better players around him & more competition

imatexan
03-26-2009, 03:17 AM
That is just a really bad draft class overall.

bah007
03-26-2009, 11:09 AM
delete

LZ
03-31-2009, 08:26 AM
ouch.

he does have several motivating factors to consider & if he doesn't respond to this then he'll probably be labled a bust.


contract year
new scheme that better suits 3 technique tackle
better players around him & more competition



Yeah, but he's a 3-technique playing behind Okoye then.