Risk/Reward Players at the Top of the Draft? (1 Viewer)

[The Duff Man]

Everything I have seen and read about Russell indicates that he is a higher risk, higher reward player than some of the other options at 1.1

That leads to question, if you have a high NFL pick, should you pick a high risk/high reward player or a more known quantity with a lower ceiling?

It is not like picking for a fantasy team. I think if you are in the unfortunate position of having a top 5 pick you really can't get blinded by a players "upside". If you do and miss you are going to be stuck picking at the top of the draft for years. No need to mention which teams do this, everyone knows who they are.

With all of the time spent scouting players, interviewing them and getting to know them, I really question why so many teams miss so often with early first round picks and wonder if it is because they are blinded by the "upside" the player has.

Obviously a problem arises when a "can't miss" player misses. Here is one scouting report I found on Robert Gallery.

Positives: Gallery is by far the best true left tackle in the draft. He has a big frame with long arms and is very athletic for his size. He possesses good quickness, agility, and speed. He's a great pass blocker, but he also a very effective run blocker. He has great footwork and uses his hands well... delivers a very effective punch. He works very hard on every play and finishes well. Very competitive... attacks the defender.

Negatives: There are no major weaknesses in his game

So you can miss regardless of who you pick. Coaching, environment, etc all plays a role in how a player develops once he has been picked. If you are picking at the top of the draft, let's assume you are lacking in these areas, increasing the probability that a higher risk player will but.

Given two players, one of whom has a higher ceiling but lower floor, shouldn't you take the more steady option if you are picking at the top of the draft?

 

[jurrassic]

I don't think you can take a risk on a guy that high in the draft. With the current state of salaries in the NFL, and the thin line between success and failure, you can not take the chance. I would much rather have a Johnson or Thomas than take a risk on Russell.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, any college player is a risk as we have seen many times can't miss prospects that have essentially bombed. I do think that the Top 10 is not a place to be shopping for projects or guys that *COULD* turn out with seasoning or better coaching (say Troy Williamson). I personally would shy away from guys that may have problems picking up systems, may not be great fits for schemes, etc. So I would minimize risks in those areas but I would not shy away from guys that may be boom or bust as a high percentAge of players may bust anyway.

 

[SSOG]

IMO, any college player is a risk as we have seen many times can't miss prospects that have essentially bombed. I do think that the Top 10 is not a place to be shopping for projects or guys that *COULD* turn out with seasoning or better coaching (say Troy Williamson). I personally would shy away from guys that may have problems picking up systems, may not be great fits for schemes, etc. So I would minimize risks in those areas but I would not shy away from guys that may be boom or bust as a high percentAge of players may bust anyway.

I came to say pretty much this exact thing.I haven't been fond of going for the "sure thing" at the top of the draft ever since I heard Robert Gallery called the safest pick in the last 20 years.

 

[Jiggyonthehut]

Two words. Dwayne. Jarrett.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

With the current state of salaries in the NFL, and the thin line between success and failure, you can not take the chance. I would much rather have a Johnson or Thomas than take a risk on Russell.

The contracts these guys get locked into are massive. Yes, the cap is growing, but you really handicap your franchise when a top pick misses.

 

[SSOG]

With the current state of salaries in the NFL, and the thin line between success and failure, you can not take the chance. I would much rather have a Johnson or Thomas than take a risk on Russell.

The contracts these guys get locked into are massive. Yes, the cap is growing, but you really handicap your franchise when a top pick misses.

I think that's all the more reason to grab a QB, OT, DE, or CB early, instead of a WR/RB/TE/Safety.You see, a QB/OT/DE/CB are going to cost a fortune, anyway. They're the highest paid positions in the league. Sure, you might have to spend $10 mil a year to get a QB #1 overall, but to get a decent one in free agency you'd have to spend that much, anyway (for comparison, I think Jake Plummer was running $7 mil a year in the last two years of his contract). Meanwhile, you could spend $10 million a year to get a runningback, or you could get a good one in free agency for $5 million. It's best to spend early draft picks on players at an already expensive position, because then the opportunity cost (the cost differential between the draft pick and a moderately priced free-agent alternative) is much, much lower.To get back to Reggie Bush and use him as an example... Reggie Bush is the highest-paid RB in the entire NFL. In order for Bush to live up to his contract status, he's going to have to perform better than all the other RBs in the entire NFL. Mario Williams, on the other hand, was only one of the ten highest-paid DEs in the NFL. In order to live up to HIS contract status, to perform at a level high enough that GMs agree he is worth the cost, he's only going to need to be the 10th best DE in the NFL.If I had to burn the #1 draft pick, I would much rather burn it on a "risky QB" than I would on a "sure-fire WR", especially given the horrible track record of "sure-fire" draft picks recently (again, Robert Gallery).Another thing to take into consideration... some positions are readily available elsewhere in the draft. For instance, if you list the top-10 WRs in the NFL, less than half of them will be 1st rounders. Guys like Steve Smith, Terrell Owens, Chad Johnson, and Anquan Boldin are all superstuds, and they all came from outside the first round. On the other hand, I saw some numbers a year back saying that of the 32 starting left tackles in the NFL, only about 8 of them came from outside of the first round, and only 2-3 came from outside the first day of the draft. What does this mean? You're better off holding off at WR and looking for a Marques Colston (7th rounder) than you are holding off at LT and looking for a Matt Lepsis (UFA). There are a hell of a lot more Marques Colstons than there are Matt Lepsises.

 

[Da Guru]

I don't think you can take a risk on a guy that high in the draft. With the current state of salaries in the NFL, and the thin line between success and failure, you can not take the chance. I would much rather have a Johnson or Thomas than take a risk on Russell.

I agree!