Q about NFL draft picks (1 Viewer)

[Bri]

If an existing player does far better once a team has drafted a threat to his job. Does it matter that that threat of a player doesn't do well? Was it a good pick then?

To reiterate-

Suppose a quarterback has been struggling. The team drafts a QB who never plays but the starter goes from struggling to being a quality pro just by working harder because a rook was about to take his job. Does that make the rook a good draft pick then?

 

[JGalligan]

If an existing player does far better once a team has drafted a threat to his job. Does it matter that that threat of a player doesn't do well? Was it a good pick then?To reiterate-Suppose a quarterback has been struggling. The team drafts a QB who never plays but the starter goes from struggling to being a quality pro just by working harder because a rook was about to take his job. Does that make the rook a good draft pick then?

Is this a trick question?

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

If an existing player does far better once a team has drafted a threat to his job. Does it matter that that threat of a player doesn't do well? Was it a good pick then?To reiterate-Suppose a quarterback has been struggling. The team drafts a QB who never plays but the starter goes from struggling to being a quality pro just by working harder because a rook was about to take his job. Does that make the rook a good draft pick then?

no. The quality of a pick should be based on the player chosen. If a team uses draft picks to motivate vets, chances are that strategy will fail a lot more than it will work. NFL players jobs are always threatened by the players beneath them on the depth chart. If a player needs the signal of a high draft pick used at their position to "get the message", I doubt they will ever get it. For every vet that gets his act together there are 10 that end up sliding the way the team envisioned when they took his replacement.

 

[JGalligan]

If an existing player does far better once a team has drafted a threat to his job. Does it matter that that threat of a player doesn't do well? Was it a good pick then?

To reiterate-

Suppose a quarterback has been struggling. The team drafts a QB who never plays but the starter goes from struggling to being a quality pro just by working harder because a rook was about to take his job. Does that make the rook a good draft pick then?

no. The quality of a pick should be based on the player chosen. If a team uses draft picks to motivate vets, chances are that strategy will fail a lot less than it will work. NFL players jobs are always threatened by the players beneath them on the depth chart. If a player needs the signal of a high draft pick used at their position to "get the message", I doubt they will ever get it. For every vet that gets his act together there are 10 that end up sliding the way the team envisioned when they took his replacement.

 

[Biabreakable]

I agree with Bloom that you need to look at what the player drafted is able to accomplish as far as if the pick was worthwhile or not.

However from a strategic standpoint a team that doubles up at a position is insuring some sort of improved production from the position based on thier investment.

If that means the rookie taking over or supplimenting the starter or if the starter performs better after the drafting of compitition still is success for the team.

QB is somewhat different of course than the other positions that have multiple starters or starters sharing positions.

Thomas Jones. DeAngelo Williams. Joe Addai?

 

[FUBAR]

no, Matt Leinart is still a bad pick.

 

[FUBAR]

I agree with Bloom that you need to look at what the player drafted is able to accomplish as far as if the pick was worthwhile or not.However from a strategic standpoint a team that doubles up at a position is insuring some sort of improved production from the position based on thier investment.If that means the rookie taking over or supplimenting the starter or if the starter performs better after the drafting of compitition still is success for the team.QB is somewhat different of course than the other positions that have multiple starters or starters sharing positions.Thomas Jones. DeAngelo Williams. Joe Addai?

RB is the key position we see this from, but it's also important for DL. Perhaps more so, it just isn't as obvious.

 

[Zoomanji]

no, Matt Leinart Kevin Kolb is still a bad pick.

Fixed :X

 

[AB in DC]

no, Matt Leinart Kevin Kolb Philip Rivers is still a bad pick.

Fixed

And again fi...umm, never mind.

 

[The Future Champs]

I think the main effect that we see from rookie picks on vets is on the vets contract demands and potential holdouts, such as TJones and Greene, and that can have a big effect on the vets production. But it doesn't alter the value of that rookie.

 

[Bri]

If an existing player does far better once a team has drafted a threat to his job. Does it matter that that threat of a player doesn't do well? Was it a good pick then?To reiterate-Suppose a quarterback has been struggling. The team drafts a QB who never plays but the starter goes from struggling to being a quality pro just by working harder because a rook was about to take his job. Does that make the rook a good draft pick then?

no. The quality of a pick should be based on the player chosen. If a team uses draft picks to motivate vets, chances are that strategy will fail a lot more than it will work. NFL players jobs are always threatened by the players beneath them on the depth chart. If a player needs the signal of a high draft pick used at their position to "get the message", I doubt they will ever get it. For every vet that gets his act together there are 10 that end up sliding the way the team envisioned when they took his replacement.

good pointAs far as the message part, don't you think a team could appear to be sending a message when really they just picked for need in this situation? An under performing starter seems like a need to me.Bloom let me ask another Q, if ya don't mind.A team like the Titans that more often than not drafts a replacement in a contract year rather than pay big or decent money....do you feel they are getting better? or treading water with such a philosophy?But three examplesLendale White and Scaife are in the last year of their deals and they've drafted a TE and RB the last two years in the draft. Jason Jones drafted last year, Albert Haynesworth in WAS.There are examples like their Ts where they do spend some $ but often it's replacing a contract year player with a drafted player. Are they getting better that way?

 

[Bri]

I think the main effect that we see from rookie picks on vets is on the vets contract demands and potential holdouts, such as TJones and Greene, and that can have a big effect on the vets production. But it doesn't alter the value of that rookie.

I think the public has helped with this. There might not be much the fans can truly do but I think a player hears it loud and clear that they hate him holding out.Previous holdouts getting injured helps as well, but I think the fans deserve most credit.

 

[Bri]

QB is somewhat different of course than the other positions that have multiple starters or starters sharing positions.

I flat out hate how some teams use their backup QB spots.Vet backup prepared to start. Youthful backup developing to someday start. Those are good.Many rosters are littered with guys that have no chance in starting unless you're unrealistic.

 

[Biabreakable]

I hope Bloom answers that as I would like to hear his opinion on it also.

Just wanted to say that in the case of Haynesworth he was going to be too expensive to re-sign. I think the Titans are being more careful now after going through salary cap hell for a couple years there.

Titans have been building through the draft almost exclusivly since then (I don't recall a high profile FA they have signed lately). But also seem to have a very BPA approach compared to drafting for need. They have been needing WR forever and they just finaly got a chance to get one this year.

I think it is a combination of upgrading a position moreso than a pick for need as far as their track record. But they draft both lines heavily. I think moreso than most teams over past 5 years but maybe I'm wrong. Would have to look it up. Those picks would probably be considered need more than BPA. But the way they prioritize positions may make those players BPA for them where they took them all. No way to know that for sure.

 

[Biabreakable]

QB is somewhat different of course than the other positions that have multiple starters or starters sharing positions.

I flat out hate how some teams use their backup QB spots.Vet backup prepared to start. Youthful backup developing to someday start. Those are good.Many rosters are littered with guys that have no chance in starting unless you're unrealistic.

Well there are only so many QBs available. Teams like to hoard them if they can.That is why in dynasty I would be slow to give up on any highly rated QB even if they haven't done much in their 1st 5 years in the league. There are always teams that need a QB. And some of these guys do really well in thier later years.For example. I am really skeptical of Vince Young ever being useful. But he is still so young. Won't suprise me to see him get 3-5 more chances to start in his career anyways.

 

[FUBAR]

QB is somewhat different of course than the other positions that have multiple starters or starters sharing positions.

I flat out hate how some teams use their backup QB spots.Vet backup prepared to start. Youthful backup developing to someday start. Those are good.Many rosters are littered with guys that have no chance in starting unless you're unrealistic.

yeah, guys like Matt Cassel, David Garrard and Tony Romo don't belong in the NFL.

 

[Bri]

QB is somewhat different of course than the other positions that have multiple starters or starters sharing positions.

I flat out hate how some teams use their backup QB spots.Vet backup prepared to start. Youthful backup developing to someday start. Those are good.

Many rosters are littered with guys that have no chance in starting unless you're unrealistic.

yeah, guys like Matt Cassel, David Garrard and Tony Romo don't belong in the NFL.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

If an existing player does far better once a team has drafted a threat to his job. Does it matter that that threat of a player doesn't do well? Was it a good pick then?To reiterate-Suppose a quarterback has been struggling. The team drafts a QB who never plays but the starter goes from struggling to being a quality pro just by working harder because a rook was about to take his job. Does that make the rook a good draft pick then?

no. The quality of a pick should be based on the player chosen. If a team uses draft picks to motivate vets, chances are that strategy will fail a lot more than it will work. NFL players jobs are always threatened by the players beneath them on the depth chart. If a player needs the signal of a high draft pick used at their position to "get the message", I doubt they will ever get it. For every vet that gets his act together there are 10 that end up sliding the way the team envisioned when they took his replacement.

good pointAs far as the message part, don't you think a team could appear to be sending a message when really they just picked for need in this situation? An under performing starter seems like a need to me.Bloom let me ask another Q, if ya don't mind.A team like the Titans that more often than not drafts a replacement in a contract year rather than pay big or decent money....do you feel they are getting better? or treading water with such a philosophy?But three examplesLendale White and Scaife are in the last year of their deals and they've drafted a TE and RB the last two years in the draft. Jason Jones drafted last year, Albert Haynesworth in WAS.There are examples like their Ts where they do spend some $ but often it's replacing a contract year player with a drafted player. Are they getting better that way?

It's a fine line. I understand why they wouldn't want to commit to Scaife or Haynesworth. Scaife has a long history of injuries from college and he's not really a game changer. I understand franchising him to get one more year to develop a replacement then cutting him loose just like the Eagles did with LJ Smith last year. Haynesworth misses time every year, he's not the most stable character guy, and he could easily have been playing for contract in the last two seasons. Like you said, they locked up their tackles, so it's not a one size fits all approach. So the answer really is it depends on the player. Sometimes you have to overpay to keep players at hard to replace positions, or players that are crucial behind-the-scenes lynchpins of your team. With the cap going up every year, teams are encouraged to pay a little more than market value for key players because a lot of teams have cap room to toss around. The fiscal discipline shown by teams like the Steelers and Eagles may not be appropriate now - but you still have to avoid the Dan Snyder/Al Davis syndrome that makes teams throw money at players like Javon Walker and Adam Archuleta, when they are clearly past their prime.