There are 145 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

We should not take a 1st round O-lineman in the draft!

I totally diagree with the logic. We NEED to draft an O-Line player. Yes we have a long history of poor draftin, but Staley is a very good pass protector (he sucks at run blocking) and Eric Heitmann(I know, 7th round) is a very physical player. Rachal is ATROCIOUS at pass protecting, and Baas just flat out sucks. However, I do not think it is that we shouldn't take an OT or Iupati in the first, its just that McCloughan takes the wrong guy. I think we should take Iupati or anthony Davis, yet he'll end up drafting Trent Williams or Brian Bulaga (Both of which i dislike, more Bulaga). Its Similair with Kentwan Balmer. Phillip Merling, selected 2 picks later has had a much better career already (not great, but 3.5 more sacks and 1 more interception is alot better). Any way its not what position we should or shouldn't draft, its the actual player!
  • DVDA
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,340
A "How to" brought to you by glorydayz

Step 1: Post a stupid thread with no thought put into it.

Step 2: Get butthurt when other members don't agree with your faulty logic.

Step 3: Show your immaturity and reply to those members like a child would.
in germany those people are called trolls...
1st rule of how to respond to a troll: dont argue with them...dont feed the troll.
Originally posted by glorydayz:
Quote:
So if you fail at something you should just give up? that's the worst logic I've ever heard. If anything, the odds are in our favor to hit this time.



Originally posted by Overkill:
Scot hasn't had a ton of success getting OL in the first two rounds, so we should just assume he can find talent later in the draft?

How in the world does that make sense?

Because you have other ways to aquire O-linemen via trade or the draft. Not to mention we have had more success in the past with FA O-linemen than drafted O-linemen.

I say if you aren't good at something you should give up and focus on what you are good at until you turn that weakness into a strength. You don't just keep making the same mistakes over and over again when there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I guess we're going to have 53 linebackers on our roster.
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)

OK, so we draft for need by taking, say, Iupati and Bulaga. Are we getting worse players than if we had chosen BPA? This is the weakness of the BPA argument for me. Who is the best player, a really good ILB or a really good offensive lineman. What are the parameters by which you compare them? Even more complex a problem, of course, if you compare, say, a really quite good quarterback with an excellent safety.

Drafting for need is only a weakness if you accept compromises, such as we did, for example, with Reggie McGrew. But Jerry Rice was a need pick. So was Stubblefield, BY and many others.

But if the quality appears close, the draft is a crapshoot and a gamble anyway, so why not pick to cover your weaknesses rather than your strengths.

No more Reggie McGrew's, though. No argument about reaching.
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)

OK, so we draft for need by taking, say, Iupati and Bulaga. Are we getting worse players than if we had chosen BPA? This is the weakness of the BPA argument for me. Who is the best player, a really good ILB or a really good offensive lineman. What are the parameters by which you compare them? Even more complex a problem, of course, if you compare, say, a really quite good quarterback with an excellent safety.

Drafting for need is only a weakness if you accept compromises, such as we did, for example, with Reggie McGrew. But Jerry Rice was a need pick. So was Stubblefield, BY and many others.

But if the quality appears close, the draft is a crapshoot and a gamble anyway, so why not pick to cover your weaknesses rather than your strengths.

No more Reggie McGrew's, though. No argument about reaching.

I agree that it is hard to compare players. Who is a BPA and who is a need pick is not always apparent (I think some of the names you mentioned were bpa, but that is impossible to prove, especially when bpa=need)

But by saying we should take an average OT prospect rather than an excellent ILB or an electric RB, you are making the argument to get lesser talented players. I would rather have 4 pro bowl linebackers than our current OL, 4 of whom were drafted in the 3rd round or higher. Should we expect different results if we keep drafting OL simply because we need them?

I would be ecstatic if we got McClain and Spiller because I would know that we got some great young players. If we draft Bulaga, I won't be happy because he would be part of a trend (which goes back to the OP's point).
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)

OK, so we draft for need by taking, say, Iupati and Bulaga. Are we getting worse players than if we had chosen BPA? This is the weakness of the BPA argument for me. Who is the best player, a really good ILB or a really good offensive lineman. What are the parameters by which you compare them? Even more complex a problem, of course, if you compare, say, a really quite good quarterback with an excellent safety.

Drafting for need is only a weakness if you accept compromises, such as we did, for example, with Reggie McGrew. But Jerry Rice was a need pick. So was Stubblefield, BY and many others.

But if the quality appears close, the draft is a crapshoot and a gamble anyway, so why not pick to cover your weaknesses rather than your strengths.

No more Reggie McGrew's, though. No argument about reaching.

I agree that it is hard to compare players. Who is a BPA and who is a need pick is not always apparent (I think some of the names you mentioned were bpa, but that is impossible to prove, especially when bpa=need)

But by saying we should take an average OT prospect rather than an excellent ILB or an electric RB, you are making the argument to get lesser talented players. I would rather have 4 pro bowl linebackers than our current OL, 4 of whom were drafted in the 3rd round or higher. Should we expect different results if we keep drafting OL simply because we need them?

I would be ecstatic if we got McClain and Spiller because I would know that we got some great young players. If we draft Bulaga, I won't be happy because he would be part of a trend (which goes back to the OP's point).

I dont think we are going to agree on this, but one more go:-

Where did I say "we should take an average OT prospect " etc? Unless you are saying that Iupati is an average OL prospect?

And your point about 4 pro bowl linebackers. All very well, but if you cant score a point because your OL is sh1te, it really wont matter how good your backers are.

We need a more balanced team. We have a good and improving D but the O is being destroyed by the line, and maybe by the coaching (a matter for another thread). I made the Reggie McGrew point and you still accuse me of going for lesser talented players, which I think is unfair.

"Should we expect different results if we keep drafting OL simply because we need them?" What better reason is there to draft a player? As long as your QC is in place AND YOU DO NOT REACH, then yes.

I dont mind using the first on BPA. But as I have little confidence, as I said, in the methodology of comparison between players at different positions, when all you have seen them in is games against radically different strengthed opponents and and with very different coaching and support.

And anyway, it is all a gamble anyway!
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)

OK, so we draft for need by taking, say, Iupati and Bulaga. Are we getting worse players than if we had chosen BPA? This is the weakness of the BPA argument for me. Who is the best player, a really good ILB or a really good offensive lineman. What are the parameters by which you compare them? Even more complex a problem, of course, if you compare, say, a really quite good quarterback with an excellent safety.

Drafting for need is only a weakness if you accept compromises, such as we did, for example, with Reggie McGrew. But Jerry Rice was a need pick. So was Stubblefield, BY and many others.

But if the quality appears close, the draft is a crapshoot and a gamble anyway, so why not pick to cover your weaknesses rather than your strengths.

No more Reggie McGrew's, though. No argument about reaching.


We already have another Reggie McGrew, his name is Kentwan Balmer.

I agree wholeheartedly with the topic though, if we take an O Lineman in the first for the sake of taking one, I will puke.

There's going to be several impact players available in the top 17 and we BETTER get two of them, LINEMAN or NO LINEMAN.

My picks:

13. Rolondo McClain (if there)
17. C.J. Spiller
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)

OK, so we draft for need by taking, say, Iupati and Bulaga. Are we getting worse players than if we had chosen BPA? This is the weakness of the BPA argument for me. Who is the best player, a really good ILB or a really good offensive lineman. What are the parameters by which you compare them? Even more complex a problem, of course, if you compare, say, a really quite good quarterback with an excellent safety.

Drafting for need is only a weakness if you accept compromises, such as we did, for example, with Reggie McGrew. But Jerry Rice was a need pick. So was Stubblefield, BY and many others.

But if the quality appears close, the draft is a crapshoot and a gamble anyway, so why not pick to cover your weaknesses rather than your strengths.

No more Reggie McGrew's, though. No argument about reaching.

I agree that it is hard to compare players. Who is a BPA and who is a need pick is not always apparent (I think some of the names you mentioned were bpa, but that is impossible to prove, especially when bpa=need)

But by saying we should take an average OT prospect rather than an excellent ILB or an electric RB, you are making the argument to get lesser talented players. I would rather have 4 pro bowl linebackers than our current OL, 4 of whom were drafted in the 3rd round or higher. Should we expect different results if we keep drafting OL simply because we need them?

I would be ecstatic if we got McClain and Spiller because I would know that we got some great young players. If we draft Bulaga, I won't be happy because he would be part of a trend (which goes back to the OP's point).

I dont think we are going to agree on this, but one more go:-

Where did I say "we should take an average OT prospect " etc? Unless you are saying that Iupati is an average OL prospect?

And your point about 4 pro bowl linebackers. All very well, but if you cant score a point because your OL is sh1te, it really wont matter how good your backers are.

We need a more balanced team. We have a good and improving D but the O is being destroyed by the line, and maybe by the coaching (a matter for another thread). I made the Reggie McGrew point and you still accuse me of going for lesser talented players, which I think is unfair.

"Should we expect different results if we keep drafting OL simply because we need them?" What better reason is there to draft a player? As long as your QC is in place AND YOU DO NOT REACH, then yes.

I dont mind using the first on BPA. But as I have little confidence, as I said, in the methodology of comparison between players at different positions, when all you have seen them in is games against radically different strengthed opponents and and with very different coaching and support.

And anyway, it is all a gamble anyway!

Let me clarify the 'average OL' statement. My mind was half in the McClain thread. I think if we draft a OT at our positions, we will be passing up more talented players. So, relative to our draft spots, Bulaga is average. Spiller McClain, Lupati and some others are simply better players.

Plus, I would rather have a pro-bowler sitting on the bench than get a 1st round bust. It is all a gamble, which is why you have to do everything you can to up your odds.
Originally posted by BigBug415:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)

OK, so we draft for need by taking, say, Iupati and Bulaga. Are we getting worse players than if we had chosen BPA? This is the weakness of the BPA argument for me. Who is the best player, a really good ILB or a really good offensive lineman. What are the parameters by which you compare them? Even more complex a problem, of course, if you compare, say, a really quite good quarterback with an excellent safety.

Drafting for need is only a weakness if you accept compromises, such as we did, for example, with Reggie McGrew. But Jerry Rice was a need pick. So was Stubblefield, BY and many others.

But if the quality appears close, the draft is a crapshoot and a gamble anyway, so why not pick to cover your weaknesses rather than your strengths.

No more Reggie McGrew's, though. No argument about reaching.


We already have another Reggie McGrew, his name is Kentwan Balmer.

I agree wholeheartedly with the topic though, if we take an O Lineman in the first for the sake of taking one, I will puke.

There's going to be several impact players available in the top 17 and we BETTER get two of them, LINEMAN or NO LINEMAN.

My picks:

13. Rolondo McClain (if there)
17. C.J. Spiller

That was the point I was trying to make: Get an impact player. If he plays a position of need, great. If not, who cares, hes an impact player.

In 2005 we drafted Smith #1 because we needed a QB. We passed on Ware and Merriman because we thought we were set at OLB with Peterson and Carter. That same year we drafted Baas because we needed more OL. We were originally going to take Mankins but NE snatched him up right before us and we had to settle for a lesser player.

You could make the argument that those were solid picks:
-A QB is the most important position so lets get one
-We don't need an OLB this year so lets not get one
-We need OL and the next one is as good as any.

But realistically, those were terrible picks. Picking Baas because we need OL was a bad move and passing on Ware/Merriman because we needed a QB and we thought we were set at OLB was a bad move.
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)

You make a great point here, I agree with your logic as well but at any rate focusing on need will cause you to miss good to great players at other positions in the draft.



First round O LINEMEN tend to be some of the best in the draft. It depends where in the 1st round you get them. High first is better than middle or lower 1st.

Jonathan Ogden and Orlando Pace come to mind as examples. If you can land that it's worth it.

Joe Staley is a pretty good player BTW. It's the rest of our line that isn't good.
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by BigBug415:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

I agree with your point but not your logic. The reason we have a low success rate with the OL is that those were mostly need picks. Our BPA picks have a much higher success %. Granted, its hard to separate the two sometimes, but almost all the lineman were needs.

The fact is, when you select a player based on need, you are getting a worse player than you could have had otherwise. This means he has a lower % chance to succeed in the NFL and the success rate is low enough as it is.

Plus rookies rarely contribute meaningfully, so we could draft 5 OL this year and even if 2 managed not to be busts (a decent %), they wouldn't help us until 2012. So much can change in the NFL in 2-3 years that we can't anticipate what our needs will be.

Maybe in 2-3 years we will need a ILB and all the people saying we shouldn't waste a first-round pick on one will be yelling 'fire mcclueless! we need an ILB!!'.

The point is, you get talent by drafting the most talented players available, not lesser talented players. The success rate of draft picks is too high to waste on lesser-talented players and the NFL moves so quickly that a need this year probably won't be a need in 2-3 years. (our ol was good in 2006, so don't give me that 'we've needed an ol for 10 years' crap.)

OK, so we draft for need by taking, say, Iupati and Bulaga. Are we getting worse players than if we had chosen BPA? This is the weakness of the BPA argument for me. Who is the best player, a really good ILB or a really good offensive lineman. What are the parameters by which you compare them? Even more complex a problem, of course, if you compare, say, a really quite good quarterback with an excellent safety.

Drafting for need is only a weakness if you accept compromises, such as we did, for example, with Reggie McGrew. But Jerry Rice was a need pick. So was Stubblefield, BY and many others.

But if the quality appears close, the draft is a crapshoot and a gamble anyway, so why not pick to cover your weaknesses rather than your strengths.

No more Reggie McGrew's, though. No argument about reaching.


We already have another Reggie McGrew, his name is Kentwan Balmer.

I agree wholeheartedly with the topic though, if we take an O Lineman in the first for the sake of taking one, I will puke.

There's going to be several impact players available in the top 17 and we BETTER get two of them, LINEMAN or NO LINEMAN.

My picks:

13. Rolondo McClain (if there)
17. C.J. Spiller

That was the point I was trying to make: Get an impact player. If he plays a position of need, great. If not, who cares, hes an impact player.

In 2005 we drafted Smith #1 because we needed a QB. We passed on Ware and Merriman because we thought we were set at OLB with Peterson and Carter. That same year we drafted Baas because we needed more OL. We were originally going to take Mankins but NE snatched him up right before us and we had to settle for a lesser player.

You could make the argument that those were solid picks:
-A QB is the most important position so lets get one
-We don't need an OLB this year so lets not get one
-We need OL and the next one is as good as any.

But realistically, those were terrible picks. Picking Baas because we need OL was a bad move and passing on Ware/Merriman because we needed a QB and we thought we were set at OLB was a bad move.

Not drafting Merriman was only a bad move with the benefit of hindsight. And if you are going to spring arguments like that, your logic is shot and I am out of here.
Originally posted by glorydayz:
We have no luck with first or second round O-linemen.

Staley - average at best!
Bass - below average!
Rachell - below average!

One rookie O-lineman is not the answer. I am open to later round o-line picks that can sit behind a free agent veteran and learn while providing some depth. We should trully go for best player available at ANY position outside of middle linebacker! We still need help at every position until we reach the playoffs!

I can see grabbing first & second round O-linemen if you get a coach that can develope them but other than that those picks tend to look like waisted picks if you are only getting warm bodies. These picks can look a lot lot like the Balmer over Jackson pick if we are not careful.

give them time to develop hater