NFL Draft [Over-rated] (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

I love the NFL draft as much as anyone. Heck, I put it right behind opening day and ahead of the opening preseason game.However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated. I was thinking about the Steelers and the consistency in which they make the plays and have 'winning' seasons. Then I started thinking about their playmakers and where they were drafted.Big Ben, outside top-10.Troy Polamalu - I believe he was outside the top-20.Hines Ward?Even the Vikings under Denny Green. That team was rebuilt from the ground up while the Vikings were making the playoffs.Even though I love the draft, the ideaology (sp??) that you have to get at least one (or a few in a few seasons) top-5 pick is completely hog-wash.Thoughts?

 

[derek19]

I love the NFL draft as much as anyone. Heck, I put it right behind opening day and ahead of the opening preseason game.

However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated. I was thinking about the Steelers and the consistency in which they make the plays and have 'winning' seasons. Then I started thinking about their playmakers and where they were drafted.

Big Ben, outside top-10.

Troy Polamalu - I believe he was outside the top-20.

Hines Ward?

Even the Vikings under Denny Green. That team was rebuilt from the ground up while the Vikings were making the playoffs.

Even though I love the draft, the ideaology (sp??) that you have to get at least one (or a few in a few seasons) top-5 pick is completely hog-wash.

Thoughts?

Polamalu went 15th or 16th because they traded up from i believe the 26th or 27th spot.

 

[djcolts]

The last two multiple-champion teams - their best players were 6th round picks.

 

[MDSkinner]

I love the NFL draft as much as anyone. Heck, I put it right behind opening day and ahead of the opening preseason game.

However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated. I was thinking about the Steelers and the consistency in which they make the plays and have 'winning' seasons. Then I started thinking about their playmakers and where they were drafted.

Big Ben, outside top-10.

Troy Polamalu - I believe he was outside the top-20.

Hines Ward?

Even the Vikings under Denny Green. That team was rebuilt from the ground up while the Vikings were making the playoffs.

Even though I love the draft, the ideaology (sp??) that you have to get at least one (or a few in a few seasons) top-5 pick is completely hog-wash.

Thoughts?

I would agree with you in the sense that there are always good players to find later in the first round, and even in later rounds. The key is finding those guys. I do not have the stats in front of me, but I would say that the odds of a guy being good out of the first 5 picks are better than the odds of a guy being good as one of the last 5 picks of the first round. The people we always think of the most are the busts (Ryan Leaf, Ki-Jana Carter). Either way, I would say that your chances of getting a quality starter in the early picks are better than your chances of getting a quality starter in the later picks. But there are clearly teams (Steelers, Pats) that seem to always draft the right guys, regardless of draft position.

 

[BlueOnion]

Either way, I would say that your chances of getting a quality starter in the early picks are better than your chances of getting a quality starter in the later picks.

Quality starter, yes. But Troy and Big Ben are not quality starters, I would consider them difference makers (a notch up).But there in lies another rub for me. If a player was drafted #3 in the draft and another was drafted #145 and they both become qaulity players, are they going to command the same money when their rookie contracts are up?

I call this the Plaxico-complex. Plaxico is a quality wide receiver. Although he did not live up to his draft position, he was still a quality player. However, his original draft position dictated his contract demands after his rookie contract was up.

 

[Bloom]

However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated.

Then why do teams jockey to move up? Its only overrated if the personnel guys are not good. The reason teams like the Steelers and Pats do well is that they don't overvalue measureables, pay a ton of attention to intangibles, and know exactly how to find players that fit their schemes. I will say that certain positions always seem to come at a discount in the draft, and certain positions are inflated, and this tends to skew the value of draft postion, depending on what you are looking for as a team:

Overinflated: QB, WR, OT, CB, edge rushing DEs

Discounted: RB, TE, Interior Offensive Line, ILB, S

OLBs and DTs seem about right, but DTs are getting close to being overvalued.

so I'll make a complete 360 and say sometimes I agree with your statement.

 

[Rounders]

I agree, if you can judge talent well you give your team a big advantage.I think the hype for the high draft pick comes from the "savior" attitude. A bad team pick first, and the thought of getting a hall of fame player to turn the franchise around is the eternal hope of the draft.That's the hype.

 

[Warpig]

I wonder how many top ten, dare I say, overhyped draft picks are in the hall of fame compared to how many that went after the 20th pick and in the later rounds? Would anyone be willing to go back, say 10 - 20 years (or further if they want) and do a comparison. Wasn't Dan Marino a 23rd or 24th pick (in the 1st)? I just think of people like Terrell Davis, Tom Brady, Jake Delhomme, Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, people like this that were Golden picks and these were no where near the "popular picks". That's why I think guys like Reggie Bush and Vince Young are so overhyped and they probably won't even be the best player available at their position.

 

[stbugs]

I wonder how many top ten, dare I say, overhyped draft picks are in the hall of fame compared to how many that went after the 20th pick and in the later rounds? Would anyone be willing to go back, say 10 - 20 years (or further if they want) and do a comparison. Wasn't Dan Marino a 23rd or 24th pick (in the 1st)? I just think of people like Terrell Davis, Tom Brady, Jake Delhomme, Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, people like this that were Golden picks and these were no where near the "popular picks". That's why I think guys like Reggie Bush and Vince Young are so overhyped and they probably won't even be the best player available at their position.

If you look at the hall of fame, you see exactly what you would expect, a higher percentage of 1st round picks all the way down. If you are a 1st round pick, you are far more likely to become a HOFer than a later round pick.If Tom Brady makes it to the HOF, he will join only 1 other 6th round pick there. If Reggie Bush makes it, he will join 11 #1 overall picks. That also doesn't include Peyton Manning, Bruce Smith, and Orlando Pace as potential HOFers.

So there are 11 #1 overall, so not just 1st rounders but the 1st pick of the 1st round, in the HOF and exactly 1 6th rounder.

Everyone brings up Tom Brady, but when it comes to HOF/All-Pro players, the chances of getting one is far greater the higher they go in the draft.

 

[MDSkinner]

Either way, I would say that your chances of getting a quality starter in the early picks are better than your chances of getting a quality starter in the later picks.

Quality starter, yes. But Troy and Big Ben are not quality starters, I would consider them difference makers (a notch up).But there in lies another rub for me. If a player was drafted #3 in the draft and another was drafted #145 and they both become qaulity players, are they going to command the same money when their rookie contracts are up?

I call this the Plaxico-complex. Plaxico is a quality wide receiver. Although he did not live up to his draft position, he was still a quality player. However, his original draft position dictated his contract demands after his rookie contract was up.

I think I can probably make that jump as well, that you are more likely to draft difference makers with early picks than with later picks as well. You give great examples of difference makers that were outside of the top 10 draft picks, no question about it, but I think that for the long haul we would probably find more difference makers (percentage wise) that came out of the top 10, than that came out of the bottom 20 or so fo the first round. Again, playing the odds and nothing more as clearly intelligent teams with great scouting (Steelers) will come up with those difference makers regardless of the pick they have.

 

[IndyHavoc]

The thing that is becoming more and more apparent to me is that there are loads of players with the talent to be "difference makers," but only a small percent of these have the work ethic, desire, and coaches to become just that.

If any of those 3 things is missing, a player will never achieve his maximum potential. You have to want to work and improve, you have to know how to work and improve, and you have to have the coaches and support system around you to keep forward progress.

An example that I always come back to in my mind, is Michael Jordan. The guy just never quit getting better. As much praise he'd get, he'd never be satisfied and always found things in his game to improve. Jerry Rice, Tom Brady, all of the truly greats seem to have understood this. Polamalu sure looks like he gets it! He's pretty darn good right now, but I'd give good odds that he will pick out several things to improve on over the off-season (or his coaches will point them out, and he'll work on them). Hell, Ward's another GREAT example. How good of a WR was he when he was drafted?? How good is he now?

 

[stbugs]

To back up my post above here are the raw numbers (I counted by hand, so not nitpicking if I am 1 or 2 off):Hall of Famers1st Rounders - 74 (only 12 picked 11-19 and only 5 picked 20+)2nd Rounders - 243rd Rounders - 174th-27th Round - 36I didn't count special selections, which were just a handful, because I didn't know where to put them.Anyway, I think it is pretty clear that being picked in the 1st round means that you are far more likely to be a great player than later. There are gems, but the whole 1st round picks aren't worthwhile discussion is silly.57 of the 151 HOFers in my list were top 10 overall picks in the draft. Seeing as there are roughly 210+ other picks every draft, the top 10 are still usually special. There are still busts in the top 10, but that is still where 1/3 of the real studs are drafted.

 

[R.White]

I love the NFL draft as much as anyone. Heck, I put it right behind opening day and ahead of the opening preseason game.

However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated. I was thinking about the Steelers and the consistency in which they make the plays and have 'winning' seasons. Then I started thinking about their playmakers and where they were drafted.

Big Ben, outside top-10.

Troy Polamalu - I believe he was outside the top-20.

Hines Ward?

Even the Vikings under Denny Green. That team was rebuilt from the ground up while the Vikings were making the playoffs.

Even though I love the draft, the ideaology (sp??) that you have to get at least one (or a few in a few seasons) top-5 pick is completely hog-wash.

Thoughts?

I think the Panthers might agree with you BlueOnion January 20, 2006, 09:15

Panthers :: QB, RB

Is Draft Overrated?

Stan Olson, Charlotte Observer - [Full Article]

Carolina's backfield will not include No. 1 draft choices. Forget that, it will include no draft choices of any kind. All of the Panthers' backfield starters were passed over in their draft years and eventually signed as free agents. That's QB Jake Delhomme, RB Nick Goings and FB Brad Hoover. All three running backs expected to be active Sunday were undraftables. Goings' backup will be RB Jamal Robertson, with RB Rod Smart behind him. LINK - Scroll Down

RW

 

[Varmint]

I love the NFL draft as much as anyone. Heck, I put it right behind opening day and ahead of the opening preseason game.

However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated. I was thinking about the Steelers and the consistency in which they make the plays and have 'winning' seasons. Then I started thinking about their playmakers and where they were drafted.

Big Ben, outside top-10.

Troy Polamalu - I believe he was outside the top-20.

Hines Ward?

Even the Vikings under Denny Green. That team was rebuilt from the ground up while the Vikings were making the playoffs.

Even though I love the draft, the ideaology (sp??) that you have to get at least one (or a few in a few seasons) top-5 pick is completely hog-wash.

Thoughts?

You're right...They should go to an auction format!

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Somewhat off subject but I thought this was a strange comment from Pasquarelli's Monday Morning QB (Scout's Take) column:

Link

"There ought to be a lot of teams kicking themselves for passing on [tight end] Heath Miller in the draft. He has really added a new dimension to the Pittsburgh passing game and is one of their best first-round picks in years."

Ahhh Miller's great but...they drafted Ben Roethlisberger and Troy Polamalu the two previous drafts.

 

[Wadsworth]

The top picks are overvalued in almost every year. Like last years draft for example. There were not the high percentage instant differince makers on the board last season. When that happens the top picks salaries cost more than they are actually worth. In the future I think you'll some team trading down from those picks for deals that they wouldn't even consdier right now in years where the top level talent is not there. There's not an Eli or Vick every seaon and in the seasons there isn't someone like that I'd rather be picking later than have to pay an Alex Smith first overall money. If the new CBA keeps the current rookie pay structure a new method of balancing potential versus price will soon develop. Why pay Alex Smith, Courtney Brown, and Keyshawn the same money as Vick, Palmer and the Mannings.? In years were the top talent isn't there it can hurt more than help keeping the first pick. San Fran would have been better off taking almost any trade for the first pick overall and saving the money and percieved longterm commitment to Alex Smith. Now they are stuck paying him and giving him every chance to start. The short of it is that in most drafts the top guys are not bargins and the late first rounders and second rounders usually are bargins. It's only in those better than average years that the top picks are worth the money and very rarely they are bargins.

 

[SoFresh&SoClean]

I am learning to not even follow the draft as far getting real high hopes of grabbing someone, because Marvin knows who he wants, and surpirses me everytime. But it is working. Marvin's drafts have included Carson Palmer, Jeremi Johnson, Chris Perry, Chris Henry, David Pollack, Odell Thurman, Madieu Williams, Keiwan Ratliff...many more too. All are either starters or see significant time on the field. Marvin has rebuilt this whole team through the draft. So I don't have hopes of landing anyone in particular, but the draft is very important. I can see how draft position doesn't matter to some teams. Being the Bengal fan I am, I've surely seen enough busts to get this through to me. Teams like the Pats or Steelers look for players that fit a scheme rather than just the best players available.

 

[Chaos Commish]

To back up my post above here are the raw numbers (I counted by hand, so not nitpicking if I am 1 or 2 off):

Hall of Famers

1st Rounders - 74 (only 12 picked 11-19 and only 5 picked 20+)

2nd Rounders - 24

3rd Rounders - 17

4th-27th Round - 36

I didn't count special selections, which were just a handful, because I didn't know where to put them.

Anyway, I think it is pretty clear that being picked in the 1st round means that you are far more likely to be a great player than later. There are gems, but the whole 1st round picks aren't worthwhile discussion is silly.

57 of the 151 HOFers in my list were top 10 overall picks in the draft. Seeing as there are roughly 210+ other picks every draft, the top 10 are still usually special. There are still busts in the top 10, but that is still where 1/3 of the real studs are drafted.

I think these are the winning points and why you have to see the higher picks as considerably more valuable.

 

[-OZ-]

Somewhat off subject but I thought this was a strange comment from Pasquarelli's Monday Morning QB (Scout's Take) column:

Link

"There ought to be a lot of teams kicking themselves for passing on [tight end] Heath Miller in the draft. He has really added a new dimension to the Pittsburgh passing game and is one of their best first-round picks in years."

Ahhh Miller's great but...they drafted Ben Roethlisberger and Troy Polamalu the two previous drafts.

"one of their best" - as in one of their best 6 picks since 1999. Steelers have done extremely well in the draft recently (and historically)

 

[Chaos Commish]

 

[Spike]

However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated.

Then why do teams jockey to move up? Its only overrated if the personnel guys are not good. The reason teams like the Steelers and Pats do well is that they don't overvalue measureables, pay a ton of attention to intangibles, and know exactly how to find players that fit their schemes. I will say that certain positions always seem to come at a discount in the draft, and certain positions are inflated, and this tends to skew the value of draft postion, depending on what you are looking for as a team:

Overinflated: QB, WR, OT, CB, edge rushing DEs

Discounted: RB, TE, Interior Offensive Line, ILB, S

OLBs and DTs seem about right, but DTs are getting close to being overvalued.

so I'll make a complete 360 and say sometimes I agree with your statement.

Bingo! It's measurables that have killed (and dictated) the top of the draft now.

 

[harrycarey]

I am learning to not even follow the draft as far getting real high hopes of grabbing someone, because Marvin knows who he wants, and surpirses me everytime. But it is working. Marvin's drafts have included Carson Palmer, Jeremi Johnson, Chris Perry, Chris Henry, David Pollack, Odell Thurman, Madieu Williams, Keiwan Ratliff...many more too. All are either starters or see significant time on the field. Marvin has rebuilt this whole team through the draft. So I don't have hopes of landing anyone in particular, but the draft is very important.

I can see how draft position doesn't matter to some teams. Being the Bengal fan I am, I've surely seen enough busts to get this through to me. Teams like the Pats or Steelers look for players that fit a scheme rather than just the best players available.

Yeah the Bengals have an incredible future with all the young players they have. If they can come out of this draft with a pass catching TE (will probably have shot at one of big 3 in first), Safety to pair with Maudieu Williams, and a DT lookout. Maybe:1. Broderick Bunkley DT FSU/Roderick Wright DT Texas

2. Anthony Fasano TE Irish

3. Jason Allen/Greg Blue/ Pat Watkins/Donte Whitner (someone will be there)

 

[Bloom]

However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated.

Then why do teams jockey to move up? Its only overrated if the personnel guys are not good. The reason teams like the Steelers and Pats do well is that they don't overvalue measureables, pay a ton of attention to intangibles, and know exactly how to find players that fit their schemes. I will say that certain positions always seem to come at a discount in the draft, and certain positions are inflated, and this tends to skew the value of draft postion, depending on what you are looking for as a team:

Overinflated: QB, WR, OT, CB, edge rushing DEs

Discounted: RB, TE, Interior Offensive Line, ILB, S

OLBs and DTs seem about right, but DTs are getting close to being overvalued.

so I'll make a complete 360 and say sometimes I agree with your statement.

Bingo! It's measurables that have killed (and dictated) the top of the draft now.

well measureable give you the best idea of how good a player *COULD* be. In my opinion, intangibles and gameplay are much better indicators of how good a player *WILL* be, or at least, how much of their potential they will fulfill. they may have lower ceilings, but they are much more likely to reach them.

 

[Wadsworth]

To back up my post above here are the raw numbers (I counted by hand, so not nitpicking if I am 1 or 2 off):

Hall of Famers

1st Rounders - 74 (only 12 picked 11-19 and only 5 picked 20+)

2nd Rounders - 24

3rd Rounders - 17

4th-27th Round - 36

I didn't count special selections, which were just a handful, because I didn't know where to put them.

Anyway, I think it is pretty clear that being picked in the 1st round means that you are far more likely to be a great player than later. There are gems, but the whole 1st round picks aren't worthwhile discussion is silly.

57 of the 151 HOFers in my list were top 10 overall picks in the draft. Seeing as there are roughly 210+ other picks every draft, the top 10 are still usually special. There are still busts in the top 10, but that is still where 1/3 of the real studs are drafted.

I think these are the winning points and why you have to see the higher picks as considerably more valuable.

The higher picks are always worth more but in weak draft years are they worth what you pay for them now? Of course if you get a HoF'r it's always worth it. But with the current salary cap situation the top picks get paid big no matter what. In the past it's been about trading draft picks based on value of the player, there now has to an added factor of price. Would you rather have Alex Smith with a huge contract or a say a David Garrard that has played in the NFL for 1 million per year? In the past the answer was clearly Smith, I'm not so sure that's the case anymore.Edit: I'm not saying that San Fran should have traded the number 1 pick for Garrard. But had they traded a second rounder for Garrard and traded out of the number 1 spot for more picks I bet they'd be better off right now.

 

[Chaos Commish]

However, the where you pick in the NFL draft is so over-rated.

Then why do teams jockey to move up? Its only overrated if the personnel guys are not good. The reason teams like the Steelers and Pats do well is that they don't overvalue measureables, pay a ton of attention to intangibles, and know exactly how to find players that fit their schemes. I will say that certain positions always seem to come at a discount in the draft, and certain positions are inflated, and this tends to skew the value of draft postion, depending on what you are looking for as a team:

Overinflated: QB, WR, OT, CB, edge rushing DEs

Discounted: RB, TE, Interior Offensive Line, ILB, S

OLBs and DTs seem about right, but DTs are getting close to being overvalued.

so I'll make a complete 360 and say sometimes I agree with your statement.

Bingo! It's measurables that have killed (and dictated) the top of the draft now.

well measureable give you the best idea of how good a player *COULD* be. In my opinion, intangibles and gameplay are much better indicators of how good a player *WILL* be, or at least, how much of their potential they will fulfill. they may have lower ceilings, but they are much more likely to reach them.

Interesting points, but I don't think intangibles are overlooked at all. When the recruits got to the East West Shriner, the first thing they got was four written tests with over 1000 questions to answer. Guys like RMoss and TO had bad intangibles and fell too far. They were downgraded despite obviously high measureables. There's examples of mistakes made in a variety of categories.

 

[Chaos Commish]

To back up my post above here are the raw numbers (I counted by hand, so not nitpicking if I am 1 or 2 off):

Hall of Famers

1st Rounders - 74 (only 12 picked 11-19 and only 5 picked 20+)

2nd Rounders - 24

3rd Rounders - 17

4th-27th Round - 36

I didn't count special selections, which were just a handful, because I didn't know where to put them.

Anyway, I think it is pretty clear that being picked in the 1st round means that you are far more likely to be a great player than later. There are gems, but the whole 1st round picks aren't worthwhile discussion is silly.

57 of the 151 HOFers in my list were top 10 overall picks in the draft. Seeing as there are roughly 210+ other picks every draft, the top 10 are still usually special. There are still busts in the top 10, but that is still where 1/3 of the real studs are drafted.

I think these are the winning points and why you have to see the higher picks as considerably more valuable.

The higher picks are always worth more but in weak draft years are they worth what you pay for them now? Of course if you get a HoF'r it's always worth it. But with the current salary cap situation the top picks get paid big no matter what. In the past it's been about trading draft picks based on value of the player, there now has to an added factor of price. Would you rather have Alex Smith with a huge contract or a say a David Garrard that has played in the NFL for 1 million per year? In the past the answer was clearly Smith, I'm not so sure that's the case anymore.Edit: I'm not saying that San Fran should have traded the number 1 pick for Garrard. But had they traded a second rounder for Garrard and traded out of the number 1 spot for more picks I bet they'd be better off right now.

Certainly some players are made unreasonably wealthy while others are short changed, and the draft sets that process in motion. It's a crapshoot. Tenure and free agency try to fix draft day injustices, but I don't think this devalues the top picks. It just emphasizes the risk. Every NFL team is seeking fresh impact players, and the odds of finding them are higher the higher the pick. So, that high pick comes with a heavy price, and it is on the teams to get it right.

 

[Jason Wood]

BlueOnion,I believe this is exactly the reason every fan wants their team to "trade down for more picks" and yet it's so difficult for teams to actually pull that off.

 

[Wadsworth]

BlueOnion,

I believe this is exactly the reason every fan wants their team to "trade down for more picks" and yet it's so difficult for teams to actually pull that off.

Is it difficult to pull it off or is it difficult to pull it off and get a Vick/Eli/Ricky W. type deal? I'd agree that the blockbuster trade down deals aren't always there. But it seems that teams now don't want to trade down unless they get a huge deal. Some years those deal aren't going to happen because the top talent isn't there, but that doesn't mean that's it's the best move for the team to keep the top pick.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

If you are a team that is winning then you already have impact players and a draft pick that doesn't work out isn't as big of a deal. Free agents want to play there and people that are already there have more incentive to stick around. Good teams are also able to put fans in the seats while a team at the beginning of the draft probably is often not only looking for someone to help their team, they are also looking for someone to help put fans in the seat. Someone to be the face of the team and increase hope enough to boost season ticket sales. There is more to every decision in the NFL than just X's and O's. Typically 2nd round picks or late 1sts don't get the fanfare and put people in the seats.

 

[coolnerd]

BlueOnion,

I believe this is exactly the reason every fan wants their team to "trade down for more picks" and yet it's so difficult for teams to actually pull that off.

Is it difficult to pull it off or is it difficult to pull it off and get a Vick/Eli/Ricky W. type deal? I'd agree that the blockbuster trade down deals aren't always there. But it seems that teams now don't want to trade down unless they get a huge deal. Some years those deal aren't going to happen because the top talent isn't there, but that doesn't mean that's it's the best move for the team to keep the top pick.

Teams often don't have even the choice of making a bargain basement trade. The 49ers probably would have taken a "lesser value" trade to move down, but the teams behind them not only did not want to move up, but were (assuming true rumors) trying to trade down themselves. The first trade down was not until pick 13 and involved a future 3rd rounder. The "best" move is always available even at bargain prices.

 

[ffjunk]

Jimmy Johnson gave Bill Belichek advice for draft day. Have your picks in advance and stick with them. I think too many teams take a player that "falls" to them because he is the "best" player still in the draft. Taking the best player left sounds reasonable but if he doesn't fill the role needed the team will suffer. Too many teams want to build a franchise on one player when it's a team they're talking about. Getting the stud is good, but with no supporting cast they are doomed. Houston has a big choice this year. Draft Bush when you have a decent Rb in DD, take Vince Young when you have David Carr- (is there room for a running Qb in the NFL when the most atheletic Michael Vick can't get it done? Although I'd take Young over Carr) or trade the pick for picks or player(s) who are already proven? Houston is somewhat screwed here and that's why I think draft day is difficult and tends to be over-rated.

 

[ren hoek]

Houston has a big choice this year. Draft Bush when you have a decent Rb in DD, take Vince Young when you have David Carr- (is there room for a running Qb in the NFL when the most atheletic Michael Vick can't get it done? Although I'd take Young over Carr) or trade the pick for picks or player(s) who are already proven? Houston is somewhat screwed here and that's why I think draft day is difficult and tends to be over-rated.

... or draft D'Brickashaw Ferguson, who would help to anchor a horrendous offensive line and is likely the safest pick at their position right now?

 

[Bloom]

Houston has a big choice this year.  Draft Bush when you have a decent Rb in DD, take Vince Young when you have David Carr- (is there room for a running Qb in the NFL when the most atheletic Michael Vick can't get it done? Although I'd take Young over Carr) or trade the pick for picks or player(s) who are already proven? Houston is somewhat screwed here and that's why I think draft day is difficult and tends to be over-rated.

... or draft D'Brickashaw Ferguson, who would help to anchor a horrendous offensive line and is likely the safest pick at their position right now?

seeing as the texans have a solid LT in Pitts, i think they should wait til the 2nd to go OT since they will only need a guy who can play RT, and they dont cost nearly the premium of the LT prospects.

 

[ren hoek]

Houston has a big choice this year.  Draft Bush when you have a decent Rb in DD, take Vince Young when you have David Carr- (is there room for a running Qb in the NFL when the most atheletic Michael Vick can't get it done? Although I'd take Young over Carr) or trade the pick for picks or player(s) who are already proven? Houston is somewhat screwed here and that's why I think draft day is difficult and tends to be over-rated.

... or draft D'Brickashaw Ferguson, who would help to anchor a horrendous offensive line and is likely the safest pick at their position right now?

seeing as the texans have a solid LT in Pitts, i think they should wait til the 2nd to go OT since they will only need a guy who can play RT, and they dont cost nearly the premium of the LT prospects.

Granted, this is way off-topic, but I think that the Texans would be foolish to take Bush or Young/Leinart when they already have $10mil per year tied up in David Carr and Domanick Davis.

 

[Quez]

Draft> wildcard games (if your team is not in one)if your team has a top 10 pick draft day > conference championships (if your team is not in one)just my opinion. I think it's because people go so long mocking and analyzing teams needs. To me it's greater than Christmas.

 

[ren hoek]

Draft> wildcard games (if your team is not in one)

if your team has a top 10 pick draft day > conference championships (if your team is not in one)

just my opinion. I think it's because people go so long mocking and analyzing teams needs. To me it's greater than Christmas.