What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Put a 22 year old Larry Allen in the 2006 NFL (1 Viewer)

Englishteacher

Footballguy
Here's a discussion question I was thinking about. Say you could make Larry Allen 22 years old again and put him in the 2006 NFL Draft. Stay with me again.... you also know (you have a chrystal ball) that he is going to have the exact same career that the current Larry Allen has had. 10+ Pro Bowls, guaranteed. But, you always have to play him at Guard (I know that has been his #1 position but he also played some Left and Right Tackle). Do you take him #1 overall this year?

Of course there are some franchise type players available this year. None of them have done anything yet. But they could very well go to the HOF in their own rights and who knows? Maybe they'll be an all time great. There are also several of these guys who play more marquee and crucial positions than guard. We'll even make it more interesting. Your team is an expansion team and the only players you have are a bunch of veteran castoffs. You are assured (by the ball) that NONE of them will ever make a Pro Bowl for your team.

Remember, you're starting an expansion team from scratch. Who do you pick in this draft and why? Oh, you can trade down if you want, throw that in there too.

 

Englishteacher

Footballguy
Yeah, I already had the answer to my question but it's weird how the draft works. Steve Hutchinson was a can't miss and he went #17. Guards and centers are so deemphasized they're the red headed stepchilds, all with cases of herpe lip.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Henry

Footballguy
I would NOT draft a guard with the #1 pick overall no matter how good he is. End of story. The position just doesn't carry enough importance in the grand scheme of things. Are you going to pay a guard #1 money? Heck no.

Hutchinson is a great example as someone already pointed out. He was as close to a "can't miss" prospect as I've seen in years at the guard position. He didn't sniff the top 10. I'd venture to say a safety will NEVER be drafted #1 overall either. Sean Taylor was regarded as the perhaps the best prospect in the last decade. Granted, he broke the top 10 but wasn't ever going to go top gun.

 

Englishteacher

Footballguy
Nobody is certain Reggie Bush will be the next Gale Sayers?

D Brick is said to be the best O lineman since Walter Jones. No one wants a career left tackle over a guard?

What if Mario Williams was certain to get you at least 4 Pro Bowls from the DE spot?

What about the upside of Matt Leinart turning into the next Joe Namath?

Or Vince Young redefining football?

Or Jay Cutler indeed becomg the next Brett Favre?

Say AJ Hawk turns into Ray Lewis?

Larry is still the #1 no?

 

Englishteacher

Footballguy
Um....yes. No offense, but it seems like a pointless debate.
Maybe not.We have a discussion!

I would NOT draft a guard with the #1 pick overall no matter how good he is. End of story. The position just doesn't carry enough importance in the grand scheme of things. Are you going to pay a guard #1 money? Heck no.

Hutchinson is a great example as someone already pointed out. He was as close to a "can't miss" prospect as I've seen in years at the guard position. He didn't sniff the top 10. I'd venture to say a safety will NEVER be drafted #1 overall either. Sean Taylor was regarded as the perhaps the best prospect in the last decade. Granted, he broke the top 10 but wasn't ever going to go top gun.

 
D Brick is said to be the best O lineman since Walter Jones. No one wants a career left tackle over a guard?
I would absolutely take career LT over career OG.
What if Mario Williams was certain to get you at least 4 Pro Bowls from the DE spot?
I'd take Reggie White over Larry Allen without even blinking.
 

diesel7982

Footballguy
I would NOT draft a guard with the #1 pick overall no matter how good he is. End of story. The position just doesn't carry enough importance in the grand scheme of things. Are you going to pay a guard #1 money? Heck no.

Hutchinson is a great example as someone already pointed out. He was as close to a "can't miss" prospect as I've seen in years at the guard position. He didn't sniff the top 10. I'd venture to say a safety will NEVER be drafted #1 overall either. Sean Taylor was regarded as the perhaps the best prospect in the last decade. Granted, he broke the top 10 but wasn't ever going to go top gun.
This is just incredibly silly.Larry Allen was a Pro Bowl LT during his career too. You don't pass up a HOF Offensive Lineman to take someone with a 50/50 chance of being even a good pro.

 

JAA

Footballguy
I think a lot of folks here are missing the point. The question laid forth is that you can see the future with this draft pick and you cant with the others.

I for one would rather take a garunteed probowler for 10 years at any position over a skill position that is simply a prospect.

 

diesel7982

Footballguy
I think a lot of folks here are missing the point. The question laid forth is that you can see the future with this draft pick and you cant with the others.

I for one would rather take a garunteed probowler for 10 years at any position over a skill position that is simply a prospect.
Exactly. Especially considering Larry Allen is likely one of the top 5 OLmen to ever play the game.

 
Also, the point was you HAD to play him AT Guard. How does this affect everyone's decision?
That's just getting stupid now. He's an olineman. If the time comes that he needs to fill in at C or LT or whatever, that's what you do.The premise is all rather silly anyway. Yes, you take a guaranteed HOF OG over any "prospect".

But if you're going to do that, you do it for everyone.

Bush = Faulk/Thurman/Sanders

D'Brick = Anthony Munoz/Jackie Slater

Mario = Reggie White/Bruce Smith

Leinart = Marino/Moon

Young = Elway/Young

etc etc

Now who do you pick?

 

diesel7982

Footballguy
Also, the point was you HAD to play him AT Guard. How does this affect everyone's decision?
It doesnt. "Important" position or not, you dont pass up HOF caliber players for the lottery that is the NFL draft.
 

broncofan13000

Footballguy
Since there is no risk in taking him i would see him going #2. Bush would still be #1 and the debate would be between NO taking a guaranteed HOF Gaurd with no injury risk, or a potential HOF LT in D'Brick. I personally believe teams would go with the sure thing.

1) Bush

2) L. Allen

3) Leinart

4) D'Brick

5) Mario

6) Hawk......

 

Borat

Footballguy
You'd be pretty foolish to pass up a guaranteed Hall of Fame offensive lineman at any point in the draft, even 1st overall. I'm really amazed at some of the responses to the contrary in this thread.

 
I'm really amazed at some of the responses to the contrary in this thread.
I think the responses in the negative are coming from the "Larry Allen as a prospect" camp not "Larry Allen 100% guaranteed to do what he did".It's a silly question.

 

JAA

Footballguy
Also, the point was you HAD to play him AT Guard. How does this affect everyone's decision?
doesntThis is only 1 pick in 1 draft you are "sacrificing" to receive a garunteed probowler.

 

Bob Henry

Footballguy
I would NOT draft a guard with the #1 pick overall no matter how good he is. End of story. The position just doesn't carry enough importance in the grand scheme of things. Are you going to pay a guard #1 money? Heck no.

Hutchinson is a great example as someone already pointed out. He was as close to a "can't miss" prospect as I've seen in years at the guard position. He didn't sniff the top 10. I'd venture to say a safety will NEVER be drafted #1 overall either. Sean Taylor was regarded as the perhaps the best prospect in the last decade. Granted, he broke the top 10 but wasn't ever going to go top gun.
This is just incredibly silly.Larry Allen was a Pro Bowl LT during his career too. You don't pass up a HOF Offensive Lineman to take someone with a 50/50 chance of being even a good pro.
Ok, fair enough, but how can you make the assumption (as the original posted did) that you KNOW he will have an HOF career and also be a ProBowl LT but not make the same assumption of other players at more important positions?
 

Hobbes

Footballguy
I think a lot of folks here are missing the point. The question laid forth is that you can see the future with this draft pick and you cant with the others.

I for one would rather take a garunteed probowler for 10 years at any position over a skill position that is simply a prospect.
Of course if you are the only one that can see the future then Mel Kiper is probably going to call you an idiot :bag:
 

diesel7982

Footballguy
I would NOT draft a guard with the #1 pick overall no matter how good he is. End of story. The position just doesn't carry enough importance in the grand scheme of things. Are you going to pay a guard #1 money? Heck no.

Hutchinson is a great example as someone already pointed out. He was as close to a "can't miss" prospect as I've seen in years at the guard position. He didn't sniff the top 10. I'd venture to say a safety will NEVER be drafted #1 overall either. Sean Taylor was regarded as the perhaps the best prospect in the last decade. Granted, he broke the top 10 but wasn't ever going to go top gun.
This is just incredibly silly.Larry Allen was a Pro Bowl LT during his career too. You don't pass up a HOF Offensive Lineman to take someone with a 50/50 chance of being even a good pro.
Ok, fair enough, but how can you make the assumption (as the original posted did) that you KNOW he will have an HOF career and also be a ProBowl LT but not make the same assumption of other players at more important positions?
:confused: Because thats the point of this exercise?

 

SkyRattlers

Anti-aliai
Looks like we have some people who have trouble grasping theoretical situations.

Larry Allen at age 22 with his future locked in is so far ahead of any real #1 draft pick that it's stupid. I agree with the 2nd post in this thread, the debate is pointless. The people making a debate are either not reading closely enough, not understanding what is being asked, or just being argumentative for the fun of it.

 

Pskov1420

Footballguy
Looks like we have some people who have trouble grasping theoretical situations.

Larry Allen at age 22 with his future locked in is so far ahead of any real #1 draft pick that it's stupid. I agree with the 2nd post in this thread, the debate is pointless. The people making a debate are either not reading closely enough, not understanding what is being asked, or just being argumentative for the fun of it.
:goodposting: This hypothetical is simple folks. If there is one guarenteed HOF player, at any position, in the draft he goes number 1 no matter what. I reckon that even if there was a guarenteed HOF kicker or punter they'd have a shot at going first overall. In the crapshoot that is the NFL draft you do not pass up known greatness.

 

aposulli

Footballguy
...you also know that he is going to have the exact same career that the current Larry Allen has had. 10+ Pro Bowls, guaranteed. But, you always have to play him at Guard (I know that has been his #1 position but he also played some Left and Right Tackle). Do you take him #1 overall this year?
If someone were to actually be guaranteed that they would be getting a 10-time pro-bowl Guard, I think he automatically goes top three, and in a weaker class, #1.(Agree with the previous two posts)

If you KNOW what you're getting, then there is practiaclly no debating.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jene Bramel

Footballguy
Asking the question another way...

Would you trade the #1 overall pick in this draft for Larry Allen knowing he was about to enter the prime of his career (and become a perennial Pro Bowl OL)?

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I have a feeling that every single NFL GM, past and present, would asnwer in the affirmative were they asked this question.

Again, in this VERY hypothetical situation you're being given the choice of taking a Hall of Fame lineman that you KNOW is elite for 10+ years, stays healthy and can play any position on the line?

Not one personnel man on the Earth would pass up that chance.

 

TME

Footballguy
I have a feeling that every single NFL GM, past and present, would asnwer in the affirmative were they asked this question.

Again, in this VERY hypothetical situation you're being given the choice of taking a Hall of Fame lineman that you KNOW is elite for 10+ years, stays healthy and can play any position on the line?

Not one personnel man on the Earth would pass up that chance.
I respectfully disagree. I can appreciate the fact that everyone is leaning hard on the fact that this would be a slam dunk and you will know what you get, but Guard is simply not a franchise position. NFL GM's, scouts, etc. can evaluate talent and know when they have a slam dunk on their hands vs. "potential." But, let's not speak specific to the 2006 draft for a minute. Say we were a few years back. You could draft Allen (the lock probowl guard as forseen in the crystal ball) or Payton Manning, a surefire franchise NFL QB prospect based on scouting analysis. Granted, I know the question is specifically in the context of 2006 draft, but everyone seems to be citing the "known" factor as the over riding slam dunk, no questions asked regardless of consideration, which I disagree with.

Fact of the matter is because he's a guard, which can be filled more cheaply and without probowl talent, I think you still try to draft the franchise difference making player. It's just not a difference making position.

 

Jene Bramel

Footballguy
#1 Overall Picks since 1980

The numbered (and poorly formatted) columns to the right are years played and pro bowls respectively.

1980 Billy Sims, rb Oklahoma Detroit 5 3

1981 George Rogers, rb South Carolina New Orleans 7 2

1982 Kenneth Sims, dt Texas New England 8 0

1983 *John Elway, qb Stanford Baltimore 16 10

1984 Irving Fryar, wr Nebraska New England 15 5

1985 Bruce Smith, de Virginia Tech Buffalo 18 11

1986 Bo Jackson, rb Auburn Tampa Bay 4 1

1987 Vinny Testaverde, qb Miami, (Fla.) Tampa Bay 19 2

1988 Aundray Bruce, lb Auburn Atlanta 11 0

1989 Troy Aikman, qb UCLA Dallas 12 6

1990 Jeff George, qb Illinois Indianapolis 13 0

1991 Russell Maryland, dt Miami, (Fla.) Dallas 10 1

1992 Steve Emtman, dt Washington Indianapolis 8 0

1993 Drew Bledsoe, qb Washington State New England 13 4

1994 Dan Wilkinson, dt Ohio State Cincinnati 12 0

1995 Ki-Jana Carter, rb Penn State Cincinnati 8 0

1996 Keyshawn Johnson, wr Southern Cal. N.Y. Jets 10 4

1997 Orlando Pace, ot Ohio State St. Louis Rams 9 7

1998 Peyton Manning, qb Tennessee Indianapolis 8 6

1999 Tim Couch, qb Kentucky Cleveland 6 0

2000 Courtney Brown, de Penn State Cleveland 6 0

2001 Michael Vick, qb Virginia Tech Atlanta 5 3

2002 David Carr, qb Fresno State Houston 4 0

2003 Carson Palmer, qb Southern Cal. Cincinnati 3 1

2004 Eli Manning, qb Mississippi San Diego 2 0

2005 Alex Smith, qb Utah San Francisco 1 0

There are some awful nice players in this list. But is it worth the risk? Only two have gone to more Pro Bowls than Allen. Manning and Pace could equal him in future years.

Everyone has been coming down on one side or another here, but I think the question is debatable. If your scouting department is convinced that X player is a transcendant talent at a skill position, knowing that nothing is certain, do you take the lineman? I wouldn't be shocked by a personnel man who makes an argument for taking Reggie Bush and taking the risk that his career parallels that of Bo Jackson...

I'm taking Allen though.

 

BigTex

Don't mess with Texas
Let's see.............he made the Pro Bowl as a Guard............and as a Tackle.........last year (thinking out loud) he only allowed 3.5 sacks...........hmmmm..............what was the question again?

 

Kleck.

Footballguy
I'd still take Reggie Bush #1.
:loco:
Reggie Bush is a marketing dream. A phenominal talent that the media will constantly be all over. His jersey sales and other memorabilia sales will be tops in the NFL. There will be an increase in ticket demands because people will want to go to games just to see Bush live. Larry Allen might help the team more, and an O-line HOF lock would be the easy pick for any coach or GM, but from an owner and business standpoint I'd want Bush.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NFL GM's, scouts, etc. can evaluate talent and know when they have a slam dunk on their hands vs. "potential."
You might want to let the majority of NFL teams know how to do this, since they seem to #### up their first round "slam dunk" pick rather often.
 

jurb26

Footballguy
I would be hard pressed to not take the proven, sure fire Pro Bowler and HoFer. However, the reaosn so many would is because with #1 overall picks you want real difference makers and game changers. Gs, unfortunatly by the very nature of the position, do not turely offer this no matter how good they are it would seem. In short, I don't think I take him over a Reggie Bush/Payton Manning type prospect but in other drafts, more than likely would.

 

scoobygang

Footballguy
Everyone has been coming down on one side or another here, but I think the question is debatable.  If your scouting department is convinced that X player is a transcendant talent at a skill position, knowing that nothing is certain, do you take the lineman?  I wouldn't be shocked by a personnel man who makes an argument for taking Reggie Bush and taking the risk that his career parallels that of Bo Jackson...

I'm taking Allen though.
The interesting question that nobody's addressing is whether the conventional wisdom against using high picks or big money for interior offensive linemen is rational. I've actually thought for a couple of years that it isn't. For one thing, the days of a LT having the biggest impact on pass protection seems (to me) to be a thing of the past. Teams don't just line their best guy at RE anymore and QBs are increasingly getting better at avoiding outside pressure.More and more pressure is dictated not only by blitzing, but by collapsing the pocket up the middle. And the keys to many defenses (which are often built from the inside out) rely on occupying a double team to let the LBs make plays. Now more than ever, I think, the ability to handle a space eating DT face up and get a guy to the second level is critically important to the running game. That's not to mention how essential a mobile guard is to any team that likes to trap and pull a lot.

I think tackles, and particularly LTs are probably overvalued by the pro football market right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top