Most Important Position? Be an NFL GM (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Good discussion on another thread about how wise it is for NFL teams to spend an early pick on a QB.

Jason Wood wrote:

The easy answer would be...the best available player. It's far too easy for GMs and personnel evaluators to throw the top two or three rated QBs on their board atop their overall big board because conventional widsom, media scrutiny, ownership chiding and fanboy shouting will applaud taking the QB as the "necessary" move.

I've long believed that GMs and personnel people don't do an adequate enough job of really understanding the RELATIVE value of players at different positions in a given draft or free agency period.

This is not to say taking a non-QB high is always the right answer, you have to get that pick right too certainly. But I can recall the Rams. When they took Pace, there wree a LOT of doubters. Yet when they took Laurence Phillips, everyone was gushing over his potential.

There are no easy answers, but considering an NFL team is comprised of 53 active guys every Sunday, a practice squad, and 22 starters...you have to wonder about the collective wisdom of using the top overall pick on one position 55% of the time [11 QBs in 20 years].

http://www.drafthistory.com/top_picks/toppick.html

That's good food for thought.I'd ask Jason (and all of you) this question:

If you and 11 of your buddies were suddently handed GM duties for a 12 team real live NFL league and you had the current NFL Players available to draft from, how would the first round go?

J

 

[wannabee]

I think I would look OLine & DLine before other position. Stud LTs and other linemen from both sides of the ball do not come on the FA market until they are either too old or hurt or other issue (Roaf).But, every year good QBs, RBs, WRs, and DBs are on the market.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think I would look OLine & DLine before other position. Stud LTs and other linemen from both sides of the ball do not come on the FA market until they are either too old or hurt or other issue (Roaf).

But, every year good QBs, RBs, WRs, and DBs are on the market.

Who would you take at #1, wannabe?J

 

[Workhorse]

Good question.I'd start with the defensive line - Some kind of an every down disruptive force at DT (if you play the 4-3) or DE (in the 3-4). For two key reasons:(1) QB, while IMO the most important position to determine success or failure of an NFL team over the long haul, is an absolute crapshoot in the draft. There are a lot of reasons behind this but the biggest one has got to be that it's the one position with the steepest learning curve. Because of that, the grooming of an NFL QB is as important as the raw talent. (2) A defense generally needs to be built around one particular impact player to be elite. A defensive lineman who can stop up the run, pressure the QB, tip balls, chase down RBs when they run to the opposite side, etc... probably needs the least amount of coaching to make an immediate impact in the NFL. Start with that one piece, and build your defensive talent around it.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

I think I would look OLine & DLine before other position. Stud LTs and other linemen from both sides of the ball do not come on the FA market until they are either too old or hurt or other issue (Roaf).

But, every year good QBs, RBs, WRs, and DBs are on the market.

Peppers, Rucker, Walter Jones would certainly be near the top of my list. I may take Jones at #1.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Am I starting a new, expansion franchise or taking over an existing one?If I'm taking over an existing one, it would be BPA. If I'm starting from scratch with an expansion, I draft a leader - either QB, RB, LB.

 

[Workhorse]

I think it would be tough to take a QB since I firmly believe the following statement:SYSTEMS MAKE QUARTERBACKS.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Am I starting a new, expansion franchise or taking over an existing one?

If I'm taking over an existing one, it would be BPA. If I'm starting from scratch with an expansion, I draft a leader - either QB, RB, LB.

Hi Andy,Every team in the league will be building a complete team starting 100% from scratch.

J

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Am I starting a new, expansion franchise or taking over an existing one?

If I'm taking over an existing one, it would be BPA.  If I'm starting from scratch with an expansion, I draft a leader - either QB, RB, LB.

Hi Andy,Every team in the league will be building a complete team starting 100% from scratch.

J

In that case, I take a stud LB to coordinate and captain my defense. If that's unavailable, I'd go DE. If that's unavailable, I'd go QB.I go defense first if I'm building a franchise from scratch.

My wishlist would be:

1) Brian Urlacher

2) Dwight Freeney

3) Julius Peppers

4) Tom Brady

5) Walter Jones

6) LaDainian Tomlinson

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Qb's are important, but you can usually find a decent one on the FA market. Plus why spend all that money, time and lost games investing in a guy that may wind up as the next Joey Harrington.I think a great LT can anchor an OL for years. I'd start there.On D, I think a great MLB is something you can't pass up. Obviously a great player at any postion can change everything -- Deion Sanders, Peyton Manning, Walter Payton, so If a guy is an extraordinary talent, you take him. Barring that, I think you look at LT's other OL guys, LB's and then other DL guys.If I'm one of the top 3 teams, though, I probably trade down, maybe try to grab Ferguson (although I'm skeptical of him - I'd have to watch a lot of film and see him workout etc.)

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I think I would look OLine & DLine before other position. Stud LTs and other linemen from both sides of the ball do not come on the FA market until they are either too old or hurt or other issue (Roaf).

But, every year good QBs, RBs, WRs, and DBs are on the market.

Excellant post.

 

[Bloom]

great question joe. I would run a 3-4, or else I would take a guy like peppers first. A good edge rusher covers up so many weaknesses. I would have to consider Polamalu and Urlacher on D, Walter Jones on O among the top picks.

 

[BassNBrew]

1. Brady2. Palmer (not factoring in the current injury)3. LT4. LJ5. Caddy6. Urlacher7. Manning8. Manning9. S. Smith10. R. Brown11. Gates12. Polamula or Big BenI want either guys who touch the ball frequently or make big plays.

 

[Tick]

1.01 Walter Jones

 

[Wadsworth]

Amazing how many people are dodging the question.

If I understand it, it's a new 12 team league with all players put into the draft pool, no one on roster. I'm going to assume that it's not a one season league so you'd be drafting both for performance this season and moving into the future.

First of all, I think it's a good question because you not only have to deal with evaluating player talent, but also value of position. With that in mind I'll first mention the positions that I would not even consider spending a first overall pick on. RB, FB, WR, C, G, RT, TE, OLB, and S. The talant pools at these positions are large there's not enough of a noticable differince between the top players and the drop to the next teir, especially in a 12 team league.

On offense that just leaves QB and LT. On defense it's the whole line, MLB and CB.

I'd want a young player at one of these position that stands out from the rest. I don't think there's a young LT, CB(maybe D. Hall?) or DT that fits that bill. At DE maybe Peppers and MLB perhaps Urlacher. That leaves QB. If you go young, Carson Palmer and Big Ben seem like decent choices. But Brady is not old and has all that play off experience.

With the first pick overall in the Footballguys Shark Pool Message Boards draft, Wadsworth selects: Tom Brady, QB and super model magnet.

In a 32 team league it would be fair to ask what good is a QB is going to do if you don't have the linemen to protect him and the running to keep pressure off the passing game. But with only 12 teams there should enough talent out there to get him a solid line and RB and he's proven that he can succeed with average WRs and RBs. No one handles the ball more than the QB and with Brady you have the one man feared by every team in the NFL come play off time. QB is the right position and Brady is the right guy.

 

[msommer]

To quote a cliche: Football is won in the trenches - I'd go with OL or DL.When HOU picked Tony Boselli in the expansion draft on the advice from their and Jacsonvilles doctors that he could play again there was practically no end to the positive press - how he would preotect David Carr's blind side for years to come etc.Didn't turn out so good but the thought was right. Who know how David Carr would have developed had he not been sacked more than 200 times by now

 

[Wadsworth]

To quote a cliche: Football is won in the trenches - I'd go with OL or DL.

When HOU picked Tony Boselli in the expansion draft on the advice from their and Jacsonvilles doctors that he could play again there was practically no end to the positive press - how he would preotect David Carr's blind side for years to come etc.

Didn't turn out so good but the thought was right. Who know how David Carr would have developed had he not been sacked more than 200 times by now

Houston and Jacksonville both knew Boselli was done when the picked him. It was part of a backroom deal, Houston took the Boselli cap hit and Jacksonville left some other talent out there for Houston to pick up later. But I agree that if Boselli was healthy, he would have been a great player to build a franchise around. If there was a healthy young LT with the skill of Boselli in the NFL right now I might conider him for the first pick overall, I just don't see one.

 

[bostonfred]

I would want a guy who has the most impact on his phase of the game. For example, I think he's an excellent player, but Manning would not make my list unless I traded down. I just think you need to spend too much on other offensive players to take full advantage of his abilities. On the other hand, Brett Favre, in his prime, singlehandedly carried the Packers. It doesn't matter who his targets are. No Sharpe? Meet Robert Brooks. Brooks hurt? Meet Antonio Freeman (and notice how he was never good again without Favre). No Freeman? Meet Donald Driver. The Packers had one of the longest - if not the longest - playoff streaks in the NFL because Brett Favre carried them there every single year.

Tom Brady has virtually singlehandedly made the New England offense a Superbowl contender. He's had devastating losses to his offense each year, hasn't got a ton of high profile targets, and only had a top running back for one year, yet he's made the New England offense good enough to win Superbowls. If New England had to surround him with stud targets, they wouldn't have been able to build the defense the way they did. I'd try to follow a similar model.

When Walter Jones has missed time, we've seen how bad Alexander and the Seahawks look until he got back. When he's in, that team is consistently one of the top offenses in the league. He has to be an early pick.

Dwight Freeney changed the entire Colts defense. He is an instant difference maker, and he's still improving.

Champ Bailey is as close to Deion Sanders as we have in this league right now. He allows the safety to cheat to the other side of the field or support the run. He can also blitz.

LaDainian Tomlinson deserves a nod here because he was able to immediately be dominant on an offense that was completely devoid of talent, especially on the line. The fact that he's a threat to catch or carry is also important to me.

Richard Seymour is conspicuously absent from some of these lists. The Patriots didn't win a Superbowl until he arrived, and their records in games with Seymour is even better than their record in games with Brady. He doesn't rack up the stats, but the rest of the defense racks up great stats because he is so disruptive.

Jake Delhomme has singlehandedly made Muhsin Muhammad and Steve Smith the top receiver in the league in each of the last two seasons while bringing his team to a Superbowl, making a late season surge to just miss the playoffs the next year, and at least going to the NFCCG the next. Meanwhile, he's been surrounded by an unspectacular offensive line, mediocre running backs, and very little else at receiver.

Michael Vick took a team with two OK running backs and made it the best running team in the NFL. He's brought his team to the playoffs in two of his three complete seasons and won games in the playoffs. Some here would say that he brought a team with a good defense to the playoffs. Fine, but if you don't have to spend a lot of high picks on receivers or linemen, and can have a Warrick Dunn at running back, you can afford to spend more on defense. I wouldn't pick him first overall, but I'd pick him pretty early in this draft.

 

[jurb26]

In a perfect world where we still had true shut down CBs (like D.Sanders) and the NFL didn't make the rules so heavily skewed in favor of offense. I will take a shut down CB over anything else. Heck give me 2 of them to start the fantasy draft. This gives your team a distinct advantage in terms of scheme. If you can man up your CBs on the edge w/o regard to S help, you have automatically created a extra man advantage for your D. Seeing how this isn't a perfect world and we have no legit shut down CBs, I would start at the LOS. Tackles being priority, then Dline. From there I would move on to QB and GAME CHANGING WR. Then back to D to find the best CBs availiable.

 

[Jason Wood]

Joe...a couple of important points of clarification:Are we drafting a team assuming it's an "expansion draft"? So, for example, if I picked Jon Ogden it would be a XX year old Ogden due to make $4.7 million in 2006?Or are we doing a revisionist game, i.e., I could draft the rookie version of JO with the 1st overall pick and pay him 1st overall money [with the foresight of knowing I've got the league's best LT locked up for a decade].

 

[bostonfred]

Joe...a couple of important points of clarification:

Are we drafting a team assuming it's an "expansion draft"?

So, for example, if I picked Jon Ogden it would be a XX year old Ogden due to make $4.7 million in 2006?

Or are we doing a revisionist game, i.e., I could draft the rookie version of JO with the 1st overall pick and pay him 1st overall money [with the foresight of knowing I've got the league's best LT locked up for a decade].

This is a very good question. By the way, if I can go back to any player in history in his prime, I take Deion Sanders 1.1.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe...a couple of important points of clarification:

Are we drafting a team assuming it's an "expansion draft"?

So, for example, if I picked Jon Ogden it would be a XX year old Ogden due to make $4.7 million in 2006?

Or are we doing a revisionist game, i.e., I could draft the rookie version of JO with the 1st overall pick and pay him 1st overall money [with the foresight of knowing I've got the league's best LT locked up for a decade].

Hi Jason,Good question.

True expansion draft. You get Ogden at his salary and his current age. Same with a Favre or a Carson Palmer or a Polamalu vs John Lynch.

J

 

[Jason Wood]

Joe...a couple of important points of clarification:

Are we drafting a team assuming it's an "expansion draft"?

So, for example, if I picked Jon Ogden it would be a XX year old Ogden due to make $4.7 million in 2006?

Or are we doing a revisionist game, i.e., I could draft the rookie version of JO with the 1st overall pick and pay him 1st overall money [with the foresight of knowing I've got the league's best LT locked up for a decade].

Hi Jason,Good question.

True expansion draft. You get Ogden at his salary and his current age. Same with a Favre or a Carson Palmer or a Polamalu vs John Lynch.

J

OK, in that case:1) Tom Brady -- He's young, proven and has a below market contract to boot

Let me stew on the other top 10 picks

 

[Pat Patriot]

I would want a guy who has the most impact on his phase of the game. For example, I think he's an excellent player, but Manning would not make my list unless I traded down. I just think you need to spend too much on other offensive players to take full advantage of his abilities. On the other hand, Brett Favre, in his prime, singlehandedly carried the Packers. It doesn't matter who his targets are. No Sharpe? Meet Robert Brooks. Brooks hurt? Meet Antonio Freeman (and notice how he was never good again without Favre). No Freeman? Meet Donald Driver. The Packers had one of the longest - if not the longest - playoff streaks in the NFL because Brett Favre carried them there every single year.

Tom Brady has virtually singlehandedly made the New England offense a Superbowl contender. He's had devastating losses to his offense each year, hasn't got a ton of high profile targets, and only had a top running back for one year, yet he's made the New England offense good enough to win Superbowls. If New England had to surround him with stud targets, they wouldn't have been able to build the defense the way they did. I'd try to follow a similar model.

When Walter Jones has missed time, we've seen how bad Alexander and the Seahawks look until he got back. When he's in, that team is consistently one of the top offenses in the league. He has to be an early pick.

Dwight Freeney changed the entire Colts defense. He is an instant difference maker, and he's still improving.

Champ Bailey is as close to Deion Sanders as we have in this league right now. He allows the safety to cheat to the other side of the field or support the run. He can also blitz.

LaDainian Tomlinson deserves a nod here because he was able to immediately be dominant on an offense that was completely devoid of talent, especially on the line. The fact that he's a threat to catch or carry is also important to me.

Richard Seymour is conspicuously absent from some of these lists. The Patriots didn't win a Superbowl until he arrived, and their records in games with Seymour is even better than their record in games with Brady. He doesn't rack up the stats, but the rest of the defense racks up great stats because he is so disruptive.

Jake Delhomme has singlehandedly made Muhsin Muhammad and Steve Smith the top receiver in the league in each of the last two seasons while bringing his team to a Superbowl, making a late season surge to just miss the playoffs the next year, and at least going to the NFCCG the next. Meanwhile, he's been surrounded by an unspectacular offensive line, mediocre running backs, and very little else at receiver.

Michael Vick took a team with two OK running backs and made it the best running team in the NFL. He's brought his team to the playoffs in two of his three complete seasons and won games in the playoffs. Some here would say that he brought a team with a good defense to the playoffs. Fine, but if you don't have to spend a lot of high picks on receivers or linemen, and can have a Warrick Dunn at running back, you can afford to spend more on defense. I wouldn't pick him first overall, but I'd pick him pretty early in this draft.

Some might think it a bit of a stretch but I would take Richard Seymour (especially if I have Bill Belichick coaching my team). He can play at an All Pro level (notice I said All Pro and not Pro Bowl, there is a big difference) at either DT or DE. The flexibility he gives you to build your defense as a 3-4 or 4-3 is bigtime in a draft like this.

Another question is, is this a snake draft or assigned draft position like NFL. If it is a snake, I think I would fear a run on QB's and have to take Tom Brady. I might still be able to get a good QB at 24 but I wouldnt be able to get a QB that is a leader such as Brady.

 

[Workhorse]

Joe...a couple of important points of clarification:

Are we drafting a team assuming it's an "expansion draft"?

So, for example, if I picked Jon Ogden it would be a XX year old Ogden due to make $4.7 million in 2006?

Or are we doing a revisionist game, i.e., I could draft the rookie version of JO with the 1st overall pick and pay him 1st overall money [with the foresight of knowing I've got the league's best LT locked up for a decade].

This is a very good question. By the way, if I can go back to any player in history in his prime, I take Deion Sanders 1.1.

I'd take Lawrence Taylor and not even think twice about it.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Ok, who sets up the draft. I'm IN. Lets do it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another question is, is this a snake draft or assigned draft position like NFL. If it is a snake, I think I would fear a run on QB's and have to take Tom Brady. I might still be able to get a good QB at 24 but I wouldnt be able to get a QB that is a leader such as Brady.

Let's call it a snake draft since all teams are starting out even.But really, the first round was my main objective to look at here. Although this would probably make for a fun draft - real NFL players for a real NFL team.

J

 

[Wadsworth]

Another question is, is this a snake draft or assigned draft position like NFL.  If it is a snake, I think I would fear a run on QB's and have to take Tom Brady.  I might still be able to get a good QB at 24 but I wouldnt be able to get a QB that is a leader such as Brady.

Let's call it a snake draft since all teams are starting out even.But really, the first round was my main objective to look at here. Although this would probably make for a fun draft - real NFL players for a real NFL team.

J

I'm IN.

 

[Workhorse]

I'd probably take a young up and coming D-Lineman like Osi Umenyiora.

 

[Jason Wood]

This is an interesting exercise but really veers quite far away from the thread Joe referenced in his first post. In this exercise we have the value of hindsight. Capella's thread related to why NFL franchises keep spending huge $$$ on QBs when, in fact, many of the successful playoff teams don't have high 1st round picks running their squads.I think we all universally agree that if scouts knew that Tom Brady would a) gain 30 pounds, b) have a masterful grasp of a complex NFL offense and c) make all the throws under pressure, he would've been a high first round pick versus a 6th rounder.My point being...I think NFL teams in the REAL world need to think long and hard about their infatuation with taking 1st round QBs as a rule. However, in an exercise like this, I would think a great many of the early picks would and SHOULD be QBs.

 

[Rounders]

No question you build your teams with lineman.Offensive - W.JonesDefensive - R.SeymourNow if I wanted to sell tickets, then you draft a franchise QB, but I believe if you can draft a player and use him for 10+ years, you are well on your way to building a great team.Give me a stud offensive line and I can run for TDs behind them. Give me a fierce defensive line and I can rush the passer and create havoc (turnovers). That's my formula - maybe with someone else running the ball

 

[Workhorse]

This is an interesting exercise but really veers quite far away from the thread Joe referenced in his first post. In this exercise we have the value of hindsight. Capella's thread related to why NFL franchises keep spending huge $$$ on QBs when, in fact, many of the successful playoff teams don't have high 1st round picks running their squads.

I think we all universally agree that if scouts knew that Tom Brady would a) gain 30 pounds, b) have a masterful grasp of a complex NFL offense and c) make all the throws under pressure, he would've been a high first round pick versus a 6th rounder.

My point being...I think NFL teams in the REAL world need to think long and hard about their infatuation with taking 1st round QBs as a rule. However, in an exercise like this, I would think a great many of the early picks would and SHOULD be QBs.

I'd say MAYBE on that one Jason. I am becoming more and more convinced that established QBs in the NFL are successful because (for whatever reason) they are in the right system to maximize their strengths. Part of that system has a lot to do with the talent surrounding the QB as well as the coaching strategy that puts the QB in the right places to make plays. For example, is Tom Brady as valuable a player THIS YEAR on a team with a solid running game? If you put Brady on the Steelers, are they any better than they currently are with Big Ben? That's not a slam on Rothlesberger, it's just an honest question. It's almost a chicken vs. egg argument when it comes to QBs, in my mind.

A standout Defensive Lineman has less variables that can influence his effect on a game. Most of the time, it's a one on one battle - Lineman vs. lineman. Sure there are exceptions to that with double-teams and schemes but in some ways that strengthens my argument. When Richard Seymour is double teamed, it frees up someone else to make plays behind/around him.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I'll admit I'm a little befuddled by the exact question myself. I'll go on the premise that we're talking about all players being rookies.QBs are tough and tend to usually be overrated (Bengal homer so I've seen both sides of that). I think experience and capacity to learn are big year and usually shelved to easily (The wonderful Akili Smith starting all of one year in college comes to mind). The biggest factor with QBs is that more often than not it takes time for them to develop into well-rounded players - a QB pick is a pick usually for year 4 not year 1. Unfortunately for coaches this is not a comforting timeline.RBs. I think RB is even more overdrafted than QB frankly. There are probably more out of nowhere stories about RBs than any other position. Factor in the generally short career span and I would find it tough to go RB first.WR. A lot of 'em are needed and a lot 'em seem to be out there and they can be expected to do nothing without a QB. There's a reason they don't go #1.TE. Most of the special ones that have moved up in the draft do play out at this position. But given that some teams have no TE with 20 catches and they still make the playoffs (intangibles of blocking aside) no can do.P. K. NextO-line. This is where I'd go and frankly I think Mandarich depressed this market for a long time. The Bengals got killed for allegedly reaching all of 8-10 spaces to get Levi Jones who's basically the answer at Left Tackle for the next decade (when a trade at that spot may not have been there and when Levi could've gone in that 8-10 space interval). I put O-line over D-line for a simple reason. If you have an ineffective D-line, your secondary/linebacking corps can make up for some of those shortcomings. If your O-line fails - your offense is done.D-line. This is next. Move the line, control the game.I'd have to put linebacker after QB in this mix (4th) - the best ones these days are generally the fast ones and that's a measurable that comes out in the draft.CB- CBs are of huge importance as well (I'd put 5th) and there's a premium on a shutdown corner, but that's more of a final piece to the puzzle usually than the first.S - Safeties seem to be made not born into the league and I'd put them down behind RB and TE.So there ya go -QG

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is an interesting exercise but really veers quite far away from the thread Joe referenced in his first post. In this exercise we have the value of hindsight. Capella's thread related to why NFL franchises keep spending huge $$$ on QBs when, in fact, many of the successful playoff teams don't have high 1st round picks running their squads.

I think we all universally agree that if scouts knew that Tom Brady would a) gain 30 pounds, b) have a masterful grasp of a complex NFL offense and c) make all the throws under pressure, he would've been a high first round pick versus a 6th rounder.

My point being...I think NFL teams in the REAL world need to think long and hard about their infatuation with taking 1st round QBs as a rule. However, in an exercise like this, I would think a great many of the early picks would and SHOULD be QBs.

Hi Jason,Yes, we're talking about two different things.

This excercise is more to the point of what position is the most important?

The other is what position in a draft is the most "reliable" to project?

Connected but different.

For this one, I like the what position is important. Makes for interesting discussion on the "who would you build your team around" talk.

For me, I'd take the best QB at #1 by a pretty fair margin. I think it's by far the most important position on the field and the most difficult position in all of sports. I said it earlier this year when the Eagles were looking for a backup that there isn't a tougher to fill job description in all the world than that of Quality NFL Starting QB.

I remember realizing after a few games that the XFL would not make it for one clear reason: The QB play sucked. When Tommy Maddox was the best guy (by a long shot) in the league, I knew it was doomed.

So for me, it's QB by a long shot.

And yeah, I'd take Tom Brady with the first pick.

J

 

[David Yudkin]

As I mentioned in the other thread, IMO teh success or failure of a team can many times be derived from the strength of the line play.On offense, a great OL can make average skill players productive by provided time to throw or lanes to run. But good skill players cannot make more time to throw or lanes to run in.On defense, a strong DL can stuff runs or harrass opposing QBs and allow an average LB corps or secondary to get away with medicocre coverage. But a good secondary or LB corps most times will not be able to give a QB all day to throw or allow RB a push off the line.I don't have time right now to really get into any of this in-depth, but here are the guys that were Top 10 picks since 1990 . . .OFFENSIVE TACKLES2005 1-2 Robert Gallery, OAK2003 1-8 Jordan Gross, CAR2002 1-4 Mike Williams, BUF2002 1-7 Bryant McKinnie, MIN2002 1-10 Levi Jones, CIN2001 1-2 Leonard Davis, ARI2000 1-3 Chris Samuels, WAS1998 1-7 Kyle Turley, NO1997 1-1 Orlando Pace, STL1997 1-6 Walter Jones, SEA1996 1-4 Jonathan Ogden, BAL1996 1-10 Willie Anderson, CIN1995 1-2 Tony Boselli, JAC1993 1-8 Willie Roaf, NO 1993 1-9 Lincoln Kennedy, ATL1992 1-8 Bob Whitfield, ATL1992 1-10 Ray Roberts, SEA1991 1-7 Charles McRae, TB 1991 1-8 Antone Davis, PHI1990 1-9 Richmond Webb, MIAGUARDS1997 1-10 Chris Naeole, NODEFENSIVE ENDS2003 1-9 Kevin Williams, MIN2003 1-10 Terrell Suggs, BAL2002 1-2 Julius Peppers,CAR2001 1-4 Justin Smith, CIN2001 1-7 Andre Carter, SF2001 1-10 Jamal Reynolds, GB2000 1-1 Courtney Brown, CLE1998 1-3 Andre Wadsworth, ARI 1998 1-6 Grant Wistrom, STL 1998 1-8 Greg Ellis, DAL1997 1-4 Peter Boulware, BAL1996 1-3 Simeon Rice, ARI1996 1-5 Cedric Jones, NYG1995 1-6 Kevin Carter, STL1995 1-7 Mike Mamula, PHI1994 1-4 Willie McGinest, NE1993 1-5 John Copeland, CIN1993 1-6 Eric Curry, TB1991 1-6 Eric Swann, ARI1990 1-10 Ray Agnew, NEDEFENSIVE TACKLES2003 1-4 Dewayne Robertson, NYJ2003 1-6 Johnathan Sullivan, NO2002 1-6 Ryan Sims, KC 2002 1-9 John Henderson, JAC2001 1-3 Gerard Warren, CLE2001 1-6 Richard Seymour, NE2000 1-6 Corey Simon, PHI1997 1-2 Darrell Russell, OAK1994 1-1 1 Dan Wilkinson, CIN1994 1-7 Bryant Young, SF1994 1-8 Sam Adams, SEA1992 1-1 Steve Emtman, IND1992 1-3 Sean Gilbert, STL1991 1-1 Russell Maryland, DAL1990 1-3 Cortez Kennedy, SEAOn first blush, it seems like there are a bunch of guys that really panned out and perhaps fewer "busts" compared to other positions.However, I am not sure what criteria is most relevantin this particular thread. Is it having a solid career? Is it only trips to the Super Bowl? Is it number of Pro Bowl appearances?Either way, I can't provide much analysis now, but for others have at it . . .

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'll admit I'm a little befuddled by the exact question myself.

I'll go on the premise that we're talking about all players being rookies.

Hi QG,No, it's a true expansion draft. You have all the players currently available as of January 17, 2006 at their real age and real salary.

An old Brett Favre, an injured Carson Palmer etc.

J

 

[houndirish]

My top 12 picks would be:1. Peyton Manning2. Carson Palmer3. Tom Brady4. Julius Peppers5. Antonio Gates6. Dwight Freeney7. John Henderson8. De Angelo Hall9. LaDainian Tomlinson10. Walter Jones11. Troy Polamalu12. Shawn MerrimanPhilisophically speaking I'd rather have a Left Tackle higher on the list but I don't believe there's one who was as dominant as say, Ogden was 5 years ago. I think when you're set at Left Tackle it gives you a lot of options offensively. I really would've liked to include more offensive linemen on my list but I simply don't think there are enough absolutely dominant guys out there who also happen to be young. I feel the same way about Defensive Tackles. Tommie Harris almost made the list over Merriman. If I had to prioritize positionally I'd say QB/Defensive Line/Offensive Line/Secondary/Linebackers/Running Backs/WR-TE

 

[Pat Patriot]

This is an interesting exercise but really veers quite far away from the thread Joe referenced in his first post. In this exercise we have the value of hindsight. Capella's thread related to why NFL franchises keep spending huge $$$ on QBs when, in fact, many of the successful playoff teams don't have high 1st round picks running their squads.

I think we all universally agree that if scouts knew that Tom Brady would a) gain 30 pounds, b) have a masterful grasp of a complex NFL offense and c) make all the throws under pressure, he would've been a high first round pick versus a 6th rounder.

My point being...I think NFL teams in the REAL world need to think long and hard about their infatuation with taking 1st round QBs as a rule. However, in an exercise like this, I would think a great many of the early picks would and SHOULD be QBs.

There you go with your Patriots bias again. Hi Jason,

Yes, we're talking about two different things.

This excercise is more to the point of what position is the most important?

The other is what position in a draft is the most "reliable" to project?

Connected but different.

For this one, I like the what position is important. Makes for interesting discussion on the "who would you build your team around" talk.

For me, I'd take the best QB at #1 by a pretty fair margin. I think it's by far the most important position on the field and the most difficult position in all of sports. I said it earlier this year when the Eagles were looking for a backup that there isn't a tougher to fill job description in all the world than that of Quality NFL Starting QB.

I remember realizing after a few games that the XFL would not make it for one clear reason: The QB play sucked. When Tommy Maddox was the best guy (by a long shot) in the league, I knew it was doomed.

So for me, it's QB by a long shot.

And yeah, I'd take Tom Brady with the first pick.

J

 

[Pat Patriot]

This is an interesting exercise but really veers quite far away from the thread Joe referenced in his first post. In this exercise we have the value of hindsight. Capella's thread related to why NFL franchises keep spending huge $$$ on QBs when, in fact, many of the successful playoff teams don't have high 1st round picks running their squads.

I think we all universally agree that if scouts knew that Tom Brady would a) gain 30 pounds, b) have a masterful grasp of a complex NFL offense and c) make all the throws under pressure, he would've been a high first round pick versus a 6th rounder.

My point being...I think NFL teams in the REAL world need to think long and hard about their infatuation with taking 1st round QBs as a rule. However, in an exercise like this, I would think a great many of the early picks would and SHOULD be QBs.

There you go with your Patriots bias again. Hi Jason,

Yes, we're talking about two different things.

This excercise is more to the point of what position is the most important?

The other is what position in a draft is the most "reliable" to project?

Connected but different.

For this one, I like the what position is important. Makes for interesting discussion on the "who would you build your team around" talk.

For me, I'd take the best QB at #1 by a pretty fair margin. I think it's by far the most important position on the field and the most difficult position in all of sports. I said it earlier this year when the Eagles were looking for a backup that there isn't a tougher to fill job description in all the world than that of Quality NFL Starting QB.

I remember realizing after a few games that the XFL would not make it for one clear reason: The QB play sucked. When Tommy Maddox was the best guy (by a long shot) in the league, I knew it was doomed.

So for me, it's QB by a long shot.

And yeah, I'd take Tom Brady with the first pick.

J

Damn quote function!! There you go with your Patriots bias again.

 

[Pat Patriot]

This is an interesting exercise but really veers quite far away from the thread Joe referenced in his first post. In this exercise we have the value of hindsight. Capella's thread related to why NFL franchises keep spending huge $$$ on QBs when, in fact, many of the successful playoff teams don't have high 1st round picks running their squads.

I think we all universally agree that if scouts knew that Tom Brady would a) gain 30 pounds, b) have a masterful grasp of a complex NFL offense and c) make all the throws under pressure, he would've been a high first round pick versus a 6th rounder.

My point being...I think NFL teams in the REAL world need to think long and hard about their infatuation with taking 1st round QBs as a rule. However, in an exercise like this, I would think a great many of the early picks would and SHOULD be QBs.

Jason,This thread and the other one are asking different questions. However, I think Joe is cleverly using this thread to at least somewhat prove his point in the other thread.

Some in the other thread (Capella among others) are saying that you dont need a great QB to win SB's in the NFL. But I think Joe is saying that if you KNEW you were getting a great QB (take the uncertainty out of the draft), would you draft 1 in the top 5? At least for a lot of people in this thread, the answer is yes.

So if QB is the most important position, by far, in the NFL, why wouldnt teams take a shot in the top 5-10 of the draft to try and secure a great QB?

Well done Joe.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is an interesting exercise but really veers quite far away from the thread Joe referenced in his first post. In this exercise we have the value of hindsight. Capella's thread related to why NFL franchises keep spending huge $$$ on QBs when, in fact, many of the successful playoff teams don't have high 1st round picks running their squads.

I think we all universally agree that if scouts knew that Tom Brady would a) gain 30 pounds, b) have a masterful grasp of a complex NFL offense and c) make all the throws under pressure, he would've been a high first round pick versus a 6th rounder.

My point being...I think NFL teams in the REAL world need to think long and hard about their infatuation with taking 1st round QBs as a rule. However, in an exercise like this, I would think a great many of the early picks would and SHOULD be QBs.

Jason,This thread and the other one are asking different questions. However, I think Joe is cleverly using this thread to at least somewhat prove his point in the other thread.

Some in the other thread (Capella among others) are saying that you dont need a great QB to win SB's in the NFL. But I think Joe is saying that if you KNEW you were getting a great QB (take the uncertainty out of the draft), would you draft 1 in the top 5? At least for a lot of people in this thread, the answer is yes.

So if QB is the most important position, by far, in the NFL, why wouldnt teams take a shot in the top 5-10 of the draft to try and secure a great QB?

Well done Joe.

Hi Pat,I do think QB is most important. What I really don't know is the answer to the other question - how reliably we can project. There are lots of QB busts. But there are also a lot of QBs taken early so the pool is much larger for them to bust.

I'm sure there are some ways to measure the "reliability" factor there on how well players project.

Any pick is obviously a risk. I'm saying that until I could be convinced a QB was more risky than another position, I take my chances on the position that is most important most of the time. In other words, if I'm just as likely to bust on a left tackle as I am a QB, I'll go with QB.

J

 

[BassNBrew]

My top 12 picks would be:

1. Peyton Manning

2. Carson Palmer

3. Tom Brady

4. Julius Peppers

5. Antonio Gates

6. Dwight Freeney

7. John Henderson

8. De Angelo Hall

9. LaDainian Tomlinson

10. Walter Jones

11. Troy Polamalu

12. Shawn Merriman

Philisophically speaking I'd rather have a Left Tackle higher on the list but I don't believe there's one who was as dominant as say, Ogden was 5 years ago. I think when you're set at Left Tackle it gives you a lot of options offensively. I really would've liked to include more offensive linemen on my list but I simply don't think there are enough absolutely dominant guys out there who also happen to be young. I feel the same way about Defensive Tackles. Tommie Harris almost made the list over Merriman. If I had to prioritize positionally I'd say QB/Defensive Line/Offensive Line/Secondary/Linebackers/Running Backs/WR-TE

Congrats...the third person to address the question at hand and it only took two pages. Regarding the list above...I can't see Peppers that high as he disappears for long periods of time. Congrats on seeing the value of Gates. Curious as to why Urlacher and S. Smith are missing.

 

[stevec]

I'd either take a blindside tackle (RT if QB ends up being left-handed) or a stud LB to handle the D int he first round.I feel that the key with high draft picks being successful is to correctly project the player, and QB's seem to have the highest degree of ?? around them. It's high risk and high reward. I liken the strategy of QB early in round 1 to drafting high school pitchers in baseball. The Braves have done it well & often, but most teams have a spotty record at best with the strategy. Safer and more rewarding to take dominant players at positions you have mroe confidence in projecting correctly, and trying to get lucky later on with harder to project positions.No time to list my top 12 right now. But I'll list how I think it would go shortly.

 

[BassNBrew]

I would want a guy who has the most impact on his phase of the game. For example, I think he's an excellent player, but Manning would not make my list unless I traded down. I just think you need to spend too much on other offensive players to take full advantage of his abilities. On the other hand, Brett Favre, in his prime, singlehandedly carried the Packers. It doesn't matter who his targets are. No Sharpe? Meet Robert Brooks. Brooks hurt? Meet Antonio Freeman (and notice how he was never good again without Favre). No Freeman? Meet Donald Driver. The Packers had one of the longest - if not the longest - playoff streaks in the NFL because Brett Favre carried them there every single year.

Tom Brady has virtually singlehandedly made the New England offense a Superbowl contender. He's had devastating losses to his offense each year, hasn't got a ton of high profile targets, and only had a top running back for one year, yet he's made the New England offense good enough to win Superbowls. If New England had to surround him with stud targets, they wouldn't have been able to build the defense the way they did. I'd try to follow a similar model.

When Walter Jones has missed time, we've seen how bad Alexander and the Seahawks look until he got back. When he's in, that team is consistently one of the top offenses in the league. He has to be an early pick.

Dwight Freeney changed the entire Colts defense. He is an instant difference maker, and he's still improving.

Champ Bailey is as close to Deion Sanders as we have in this league right now. He allows the safety to cheat to the other side of the field or support the run. He can also blitz.

LaDainian Tomlinson deserves a nod here because he was able to immediately be dominant on an offense that was completely devoid of talent, especially on the line. The fact that he's a threat to catch or carry is also important to me.

Richard Seymour is conspicuously absent from some of these lists. The Patriots didn't win a Superbowl until he arrived, and their records in games with Seymour is even better than their record in games with Brady. He doesn't rack up the stats, but the rest of the defense racks up great stats because he is so disruptive.

Jake Delhomme has singlehandedly made Muhsin Muhammad and Steve Smith the top receiver in the league in each of the last two seasons while bringing his team to a Superbowl, making a late season surge to just miss the playoffs the next year, and at least going to the NFCCG the next. Meanwhile, he's been surrounded by an unspectacular offensive line, mediocre running backs, and very little else at receiver.

Michael Vick took a team with two OK running backs and made it the best running team in the NFL. He's brought his team to the playoffs in two of his three complete seasons and won games in the playoffs. Some here would say that he brought a team with a good defense to the playoffs. Fine, but if you don't have to spend a lot of high picks on receivers or linemen, and can have a Warrick Dunn at running back, you can afford to spend more on defense. I wouldn't pick him first overall, but I'd pick him pretty early in this draft.

Big fan of Delhomme, but he wouldn't be sniffing my top 12. Not sold on Seymour either as I think NE has a team defense concept.

 

[-OZ-]

(I didn't read every post, so I apologize in advance if this repeats what's already said)The first year in the league, I want to do three things. 1. Protect the QB2. Run the ball3. Stop the runAs such, my priority would lay with the lines. Perhaps Walter Jones first, then a terror like Peppers or Freeney. Perhaps an elite DT that can move outside like Seymour. Despite wanting to run the ball effectively, I wouldn't touch a RB until the 6th round or so. IMO it's easier to find a Reuben Droughns if you have a top line than to rely on Alexander without one. That said, if I'm drafting near the end of the 1st and LT is there, I probably take him because he can both run and catch the ball better than anyone in the NFL. I'll take a flyer on a couple QBs, perhaps a guy like Carr, Frye, or Collins would have some value if the line protected him. One interesting fact, out of the 4 remaining playoff teams, 3 of them ranked in the top 8 for fewest sacks given up during the regular season. 3, 6 and 8. The top 2 were Cincy and Indy - the top QBs. Coincidence?Pittsburgh ranked #17.

 

[houndirish]

My top 12 picks would be:

1. Peyton Manning

2. Carson Palmer

3. Tom Brady

4. Julius Peppers

5. Antonio Gates

6. Dwight Freeney

7. John Henderson

8. De Angelo Hall

9. LaDainian Tomlinson

10. Walter Jones

11. Troy Polamalu

12. Shawn Merriman

Philisophically speaking I'd rather have a Left Tackle higher on the list but I don't believe there's one who was as dominant as say, Ogden was 5 years ago.  I think when you're set at Left Tackle it gives you a lot of options offensively.  I really would've liked to include more offensive linemen on my list but I simply don't think there are enough absolutely dominant guys out there who also happen to be young.  I feel the same way about Defensive Tackles.  Tommie Harris almost made the list over Merriman.  If I had to prioritize positionally I'd say QB/Defensive Line/Offensive Line/Secondary/Linebackers/Running Backs/WR-TE

Congrats...the third person to address the question at hand and it only took two pages. Regarding the list above...I can't see Peppers that high as he disappears for long periods of time. Congrats on seeing the value of Gates. Curious as to why Urlacher and S. Smith are missing.

Peppers is a freak of nature. The guy amazes me with his skill set. You just don't see Defenisive Lineman who are as fast as he is but can also anchor against the run. I agree that Peppers tends to disappear on the stat sheet from time to time but I don't see him as a guy who takes plays off. He gets extra attention and thus allows other guys on the line the opportunity to succeed. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say Rucker is a far better player with Peppers on the other side than if he lined up say with Courtney Brown.I really devalue the reciever position. There are definitely amazingly talented guys out there but doesn't it also seem like most of them are head cases? Looking at it differently, my feeling is that if I have a solid QB and a good line, I can make a lot of guys with average or slightly above average talent, into solid performers. I think I'd rahter go that route than add the egomaniac diva who feels every pass should come his way.

Urlacher garnered a lot of consideration from me. I prefer a strong middle linebacker over an outside guy but Urlacher has two things working against him in my rankings. First, he has a bit of an injury history. Second, when Chicago's d-line was subpar, Urlacher suffered greatly. Now I realize that every MLB will struggle if the guy's up front can't take on their blocks but I still wonder how great a player Urlacher would be on another team. At times he looks dominating, other times he looks easily neutralized if the blocker can engage him. Of course I'm giving Merriman a huge benefit of the doubt based on one season's worth of work but when I saw the guy play he amazed me.

 

[LongDuckDong]

The shift in the size/speed of players in today's NFL has radically changed the type of player that is successful. Defensive players are now so athletic and the information systems available so complex (insofar as realtime information about formations, tendencies, etc.) Football games are much more chess matches than they are athletic competitions anymore. Obviously the right pieces are necessary, but implementation of personnel becomes extremely important. Furthermore, specialization has become much more a part of the game than I remember it being in the past - situational players all over the place. This allows for more of a plug-in environment - coaching has been about coaching around areas of weakness either through schemes or through substitution.But there is one area that cannot be taught particularly well and that is being able to analyze a situation in progress, evaluate it, and come up with the proper solution to the problem. Its an issue in every sport, as well as most businesses with any real-time component to them. So ultimately, the most important type of player is the truly intelligent, instinctive one. This is where a player can most differentiate themselves - yes there may be a few whose athletic ability is unmatched, but for the most part the brain is the differentiation between good and great. QB picking up the blitz, finding the open spot, RB hitting the right hole, WR picking the hole in the defense,OL reacting to blitz/stunt, DL reacting to protections, LB watching the whole offensive formation, DB watching the receivers, not getting fooled by PA. You look at a list of the best players at any position and its not because of their athletic ability its because of their ability to play the game in slow motion compared to everyone else. So to the bigger question - it is extremely rare to find a rookie who can step right in and pick up the game at that speed. So the question becomes one of two things:1) Is a player available who we know has the rare ability to play at that level immediately (or at least who demonstrates that they will in some way)2) If not #1, can we scheme around their weaknesses, will they specialize in some way where their strength overlaps a different weakness on our team?And so I think if you're evaluating rookies, the first position that comes up that can be played at a high level even if game understanding is somewhat lacking is defensive line. Give the player their responsibilities and they can be effective. Second would probably be RB, given that they can be coached to go to the right place. But blocking assignments as well as how to run once they're past the line of scrimmage can be a weakness there. However, it can still be dealt with. Most of the other positions involve significant risk in putting someone on the field who might be overwhelmed at what is going on.The problem is that teams have shown very little ability to determine which players have the mental makeup to handle the game in front of them, handle the speed and aggression and complexity. It is only 1,2,3 years into their career that teams figure this out. So if we're talking about the 2006 NFL draft and not an NFL expansion draft, its trying to figure out which kids understand the game well enough to play it at a high level early on. I don't think its a coincidence that a lot of the "high athletic upside" players don't pan out while a player with the following attributes (from nfl.com's pre-draft draft notes) becomes an immediate impact player - POSITIVES - "If they could measure heart, desire and determination, Tatupu would stand tall among the linebackers in this year's draft...His quickness and instincts are his best assets..." NEGATIVES - "Height and size will become an issue on draft day". Of course this is Lofa Tatupu, passed over for many other players who don't have close to the same level of intangibles.If we're talking today's NFL, I don't know how you pick anyone but Tom Brady - even though he may not be the most athletic at his position, he is a special talent at seeing everything happen on the field at once and dissecting it. Im not sure anyone else in football has that ability, and certainly not at QB. Now, certainly Denver did a great job of beating him up, but I think the overall portfolio of work indicates he's at a different level in that area than his peers.

 

[-OZ-]

After reading, my top 12:1. Walter Jones2. Richard Seymour3. Julius Peppers4. Dwight Freeney5. Macus Stroud6. Chris Samuels7. DeAngelo Hall8. LT9. Antonio Gates10. Brian Urlacher11. Peyton Manning12. Tom BradyI would have liked to go all linemen, but some players are dominant enough at their position to warrant a different plan.* The only QBs I put in the 2nd round are Roethlisberger and Palmer.

 

[BassNBrew]

My top 12 picks would be:

1. Peyton Manning

2. Carson Palmer

3. Tom Brady

4. Julius Peppers

5. Antonio Gates

6. Dwight Freeney

7. John Henderson

8. De Angelo Hall

9. LaDainian Tomlinson

10. Walter Jones

11. Troy Polamalu

12. Shawn Merriman

Philisophically speaking I'd rather have a Left Tackle higher on the list but I don't believe there's one who was as dominant as say, Ogden was 5 years ago.  I think when you're set at Left Tackle it gives you a lot of options offensively.   I really would've liked to include more offensive linemen on my list but I simply don't think there are enough absolutely dominant guys out there who also happen to be young.  I feel the same way about Defensive Tackles.  Tommie Harris almost made the list over Merriman.  If I had to prioritize positionally I'd say QB/Defensive Line/Offensive Line/Secondary/Linebackers/Running Backs/WR-TE

Congrats...the third person to address the question at hand and it only took two pages. Regarding the list above...I can't see Peppers that high as he disappears for long periods of time. Congrats on seeing the value of Gates. Curious as to why Urlacher and S. Smith are missing.

Peppers is a freak of nature. The guy amazes me with his skill set. You just don't see Defenisive Lineman who are as fast as he is but can also anchor against the run. I agree that Peppers tends to disappear on the stat sheet from time to time but I don't see him as a guy who takes plays off. He gets extra attention and thus allows other guys on the line the opportunity to succeed. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say Rucker is a far better player with Peppers on the other side than if he lined up say with Courtney Brown.I really devalue the reciever position. There are definitely amazingly talented guys out there but doesn't it also seem like most of them are head cases? Looking at it differently, my feeling is that if I have a solid QB and a good line, I can make a lot of guys with average or slightly above average talent, into solid performers. I think I'd rahter go that route than add the egomaniac diva who feels every pass should come his way.

Urlacher garnered a lot of consideration from me. I prefer a strong middle linebacker over an outside guy but Urlacher has two things working against him in my rankings. First, he has a bit of an injury history. Second, when Chicago's d-line was subpar, Urlacher suffered greatly. Now I realize that every MLB will struggle if the guy's up front can't take on their blocks but I still wonder how great a player Urlacher would be on another team. At times he looks dominating, other times he looks easily neutralized if the blocker can engage him. Of course I'm giving Merriman a huge benefit of the doubt based on one season's worth of work but when I saw the guy play he amazed me.

Regarding Peppers - Guys like White and Bruce never disappearred for weeks at a time. I don't understand the reason why Peppers isn't more dominating, I just see the performance.Regarding Urlacher - I agreed with your line of thinking until later this year. I now believe that he has stepped it up a notch. I can't get over how big and fast he is. If I was a RB, he'd be the last guy I'd want hitting me. The INT he made Sunday was amazing.

Regarding WR - As we've seen, they can take over a game. Before this year, Moss and Owens would have been all over these lists. C-Pep and McNabb weren't the same with out them. I've downgraded them too because of the baggage, however Smith has now proven to be on par with their talent level last some of the ego.

 

[houndirish]

After reading, my top 12:

1. Walter Jones

2. Richard Seymour

3. Julius Peppers

4. Dwight Freeney

5. Macus Stroud

6. Chris Samuels

7. DeAngelo Hall

8. LT

9. Antonio Gates

10. Brian Urlacher

11. Peyton Manning

12. Tom Brady

I would have liked to go all linemen, but some players are dominant enough at their position to warrant a different plan.

* The only QBs I put in the 2nd round are Roethlisberger and Palmer.

You haven't seen enough of Chris Samuels. He's not even the best Tackle on the team. No way he should make anyone's top 12 list.