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!