The development of a draft strategy

[Die Hard]

I'm just throwing this out there.... but if I were a GM building a team... I'm pretty sure my draft philosophy would be as follows:

#1. I'd keep all my draft picks every season. My focus would be on picking up new players and developing them at reasonable prices.

#2. Every single draft.... my 1st and 2nd round picks are going to be defensive linemen picks (best available defensive lineman on the board).

#3. Every single draft... my 3rd-5th round picks are going to be offensive linemen picks (best available offensive lineman on the board).

#4. Every single draft.... my 6th and 7th round picks are going to consist of special teams players (exceptional performers.... kickoff returners, linebackers, fullbacks, kickers, etc).

#5. And my skill positions would consist of signing mid-tier free agents at the skill positions (obviously not rotating every year... but until we found the right fit at QB, RB, and WR).

My rationale is this.... there's no other position in football that requires so many players (starting and depth) than the lines. Teams simply can't afford to sign so many free agents and top dollars to man all these positions. And rather than attempt to fill a few holes and premium prices... so keep drafting every year looking to upgrade and build better depth the positions without paying a premium on these players.

Additionally, I think the availability of premium defensive players - and the price they are paid - indicates that you have to go with defensive players in the first 2 rounds... before worrying about filling the offensive line.

And if winning in the "trenches" is truly the most important variable in the outcome of the game.... I gotta figure my team would have a helluva an advantage.

I look at some of the most successful teams in the past decade... and I really don't see a need to have Pro Bowl talent at all the skill positions. In fact, it would appear that all you need is serviceable talent... and a lot of it.

So what do you guys think? What kind of results would you expect from a team built like this?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think you would have a really good running team with Joey Harrington as your starting QB.

Eventually, you would be in a position where you were going to be second-round picks in training camp.

The average first round contract is five years. After five years under your plan, you would have 5 first-round D-linemen and at least 4 2nd-round d-lineman. Just based on a numbers game, you would be cutting very high draft picks before the end of their first contract.

You also don't seem to have a secondary on that team.

[H-O-G]

Your philosophy on only drafting offensive line and defensive line on day 1 of the draft is stupid. Teams have needs and taking linemen every year when there is a glaring need at WR or RB, you can't wait till the later rounds to find your star RB or reciever

[str8jacket]

That kind of sounds like the old Matt Millen strategy like when he drafted 4 wrs every year. But i do like the fact that you keep your draft picks something that hopefully our front office will learn and soon.

[Buddha]

I completely agree with keeping all your picks and doing a better job of developing young talent. However, my strategy with the 1st-2nd-3rd picks would be always to take the best available lineman or cornerback with two of the picks regardless of need, and use the third pick on a specific area of need. Just like linemen, you can never have too many good CBs.

[skinny21]

I think you would have a really good running team with Joey Harrington as your starting QB.

Eventually, you would be in a position where you were going to be second-round picks in training camp.

The average first round contract is five years. After five years under your plan, you would have 5 first-round D-linemen and at least 4 2nd-round d-lineman. Just based on a numbers game, you would be cutting very high draft picks before the end of their first contract.

You also don't seem to have a secondary on that team.

Hopefully you'd ressign these guys (or some of them at least).

I'd change the plan to this: draft D-line in the 1st (maybe, in a case of need, go with the occasional O-linemen in this round) and CBs in the second and third. Or something like that. I've always admired the way philly drafts, even though the fans seem to hate it (big surprise).

[pgitta]

So what do you guys think? What kind of results would you expect from a team built like this?


The Detroit Lions?

[gca61087]

#1. I'd keep all my draft picks every season. My focus would be on picking up new players and developing them at reasonable prices.

i don't know where people get the idea that draft picks, ESPECIALLY first round picks, are inexpensive. Reggie Bush's deal was 5yr/$62MIL and Vince Young's was 5yr/$58MIL. That's a HUGE deal.

anyways, i think that plan would be a failure. you can't be serious when you say you would draft the same way every single year forever. that is just stupid man i'm sorry. stockpiling 10 years worth of first round defensive linemen? think about that, its a waste of money and talent.

keeping all the picks is a good idea though.

[drowland]

i don't know where people get the idea that draft picks, ESPECIALLY first round picks, are inexpensive. Reggie Bush's deal was 5yr/$62MIL and Vince Young's was 5yr/$58MIL. That's a HUGE deal.


Top 5 picks are the only contracts that are really outlandish. Maybe top 10, but after that the contracts aren't that bad.

[Die Hard]

i don't know where people get the idea that draft picks, ESPECIALLY first round picks, are inexpensive. Reggie Bush's deal was 5yr/$62MIL and Vince Young's was 5yr/$58MIL. That's a HUGE deal.

anyways, i think that plan would be a failure. you can't be serious when you say you would draft the same way every single year forever. that is just stupid man i'm sorry. stockpiling 10 years worth of first round defensive linemen? think about that, its a waste of money and talent.

keeping all the picks is a good idea though.

Seriously.... you're talking about top 7 picks. Those are the largest contracts. Once you get outside the top 7... the contracts are in the $20M range with $6-8M bonuses. Once you get out the top 17... we're talking paltry contracts that are lower than top-line backups and mediocre starters.

And I don't foresee this as being a team that's going to be drafting top 10 every single year ;)

Additionally, some of you guys aren't doing the math. The length of rookie contracts is 5 years (1st rounders) and 4 years (2nd rounders). On the defensive line.... you're going to need at least 8 defensive lineman.

By the time you've hit 4 years into the plan... you're going to have guys start to play out their contract and signing their 1st FREE AGENT CONTRACT (and assuming they play up to their potential and draft status.. a hefty pay increase). That's why you continually draft their replacements.

Chances are... out of the 8 defensive linemen you've picked in the past 4 years... not all of them are going to hit. Therefore, you increase the likelihood that your starters are better if you pick 8 top prospects. That way, you have great first-line talent and some great depth.

However, if you DO hit on all 7-8 picks... then you've got abundant depth. Then, you can begin to trade some of that depth for positions of need.

And they're tradeable... because they're still on their rookie contract :)

And if you need to cut them... the cap hit is minimal.

[str8jacket]

Draft what you need to draft/and or the best player available if your team is fairly solid.

[Die Hard]

The Detroit Lions?

The Lions? Are you for real? You compare stockpiling picks at a position where all you can have on the field is 2-3 starters (receivers)... versus 2 positions (defensive and offensive linemen) that have anywhere from 4-5 on each side of the ball.

The Lions are in the trouble they are in because they keep stockpiling guys at the skill positions (WR, RB, QB) without building the lines.

[Die Hard]

Draft what you need to draft/and or the best player available if your team is fairly solid.

Drafting what you need has proven to be a faulty draft strategy.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Lions? Are you for real? You compare stockpiling picks at a position where all you can have on the field is 2-3 starters (receivers)... versus 2 positions (defensive and offensive linemen) that have anywhere from 4-5 on each side of the ball.

The Lions are in the trouble they are in because they keep stockpiling guys at the skill positions (WR, RB, QB) without building the lines.

You still don't have a secondary...or really any linebackers either for that matter.

[Die Hard]

#3. Every single draft... my 3rd-5th round picks are going to be offensive linemen picks (best available offensive lineman on the board).

Keep in mind... at this pace... you're drafting 3 offensive linemen each year. A team typically carries 10. However, the contract length of players in these rounds is typically 3 (year 4 they become RFA) or 4 years. So the rotation actually works out well. Once the guys play out their rookie contract... the backups get promoted and the new backups get drafted.

Allows the kids time to grow into the position as well.

[Die Hard]

You still don't have a secondary...or really any linebackers either for that matter.

Read the thread... linebackers, safeties, fullbacks and tight ends are found in the 6th and 7th rounds.... and the team signs some mid-tier free agents to fill some holes.

Go take a strong look at who is playing linebacker and corner for the Saints.

[Ax]

I think looking at the lines first is absolutely the way to start when making your offseason plans, but I wouldn't stay married to the plan if a position of greater need had to be filled first.

And I don't care if we draft'em, trade for'em, sign'em as free agents, or hold their family hostage and blackmail'em to get'em here.

[HOF44]

I kinda like the idea. Football at its core is about the lines. If I can sack your QB before he has a chance to get the ball out I'm in good shape regardless of whats behind that line.

Same for the O line. If you cannot get to my QB there are alot of guys than can play great without much pressure. Plus a great running game can control the whole game.

Also if you pick well, the line positions are in such demand you could trade for high picks or proven players. I think it could work if your talent evaluator was good enough.

[Die Hard]

I think looking at the lines first is absolutely the way to start when making your offseason plans, but I wouldn't stay married to the plan if a position of greater need had to be filled first.

Don't get me wrong... I haven't completely foresaken free agency. It still has its place. I just don't think you need elite talent at every position to be successful.

And contradictory to most... I think a team with great lines can siginificantly improve the play of the rest of the team. I don't think teams need superior play from their quarterback if the 0-line can pound the ball and pass protect efficiently.

And I believe the defensive line holds the key to the success of any linebackers or secondary.

[Yusuf06]

I'd tend to lean towards BPA DH, but overall I like your strategy. Certainly this team has been lacking in it's attention to drafting players for the trenches. As a result we often end up paying top dollar for positions that other teams fill with mid-late round guys, i.e. OG, RB etc. Unfortunately the sad truth is that we're probably not going to get anywhere until we address this.

However, your post points to a more important systemic issue than the fact that we haven't drafted many line players. Namely, that we don't have a coherent draft strategy at all. We don't take BPA, we often don't fill needs (which though flawed IMHO, is a plausible draft strategy) and we don't seem to stockpile certain positions. More often than not it seems we just go after the sexiest skill position pick available.

Ron Wolfe once said that he drafted a QB in the late rounds every year. Sure lots of them were busts but when you get a good one, which he did a few times, you end up creating incredible value for your team. This calculation is precisely the reason that many of the teams that do well in the draft have stockpiled a large number of mid-late round picks. They manipulate the system to get a lot of picks and they do a great job at evaluating the players so as to increase their hit:miss ratio (e.g. the Fecals). In so doing, they also keep their salary cap # low which allows them plenty of depth and room to take advantage of any F.A. opportunities.

I'd love to see us begin to approach the draft in such a shrewdly well thought out way rather than just taking the sexy pick early and whatever player Vinny's dart lands on late.

[Die Hard]

I kinda like the idea. Football at its core is about the lines. If I can sack your QB before he has a chance to get the ball out I'm in good shape regardless of whats behind that line.

Same for the O line. If you cannot get to my QB there are alot of guys than can play great without much pressure. Plus a great running game can control the whole game.

Also if you pick well, the line positions are in such demand you could trade for high picks or proven players. I think it could work if your talent evaluator was good enough.

That's just it. You have to assume that there might be a few flops in there. That's just the way it is for every team. But if you devote your resources to it... chances are you will hit on more than you miss... and it'll become an area of great depth.

And if, during a span of 1-3 years, you REALLY hit on the picks... you have enormous depth. In which case.... you can trade players for additional draft picks. And you can use THOSE picks on an elite CB, RB or QB.

But only once the lines are established do you fill in the rest of the pieces. Otherwise, it's useless anyways.

[Chris Worthy]

Makes sence. I mean if your goal on defense is to get to the QB, why not start at the closest spot, the LOS? Then you can put average to above average LB's (and you can flip=flop this around if your D-line is about average and your sheme is 3-4) and CB's that can at least cover their assignment. You got to get to the QB as fast as possible and a Corner/Safety blitz cant work every down.

[Isifhan]

It's a good strategy in theory, but realistically things happen that affect the draft. Injury to players and finding impact players are two examples. If you find impact players and have decent depth, why would you continue to draft those positions while ignoring skill positions and other areas of need? Wouldn't make much sense.

[Warpath11]

I generally agree with your strategy as I believe the trenches are the most important positions on the field. As much as I dislike the Eagles they do a great job of taking top line talent with their early picks (Patterson, Bunkley, Andrews and Justice to name a few). Again as has been said if there is a can't miss talent that is not a lineman (i.e. Sean Taylor few years back) in a particular year I'd go for the said talent regardless if they are not lined up in the trenches. Bottom line I like your general strategy...

[Die Hard]

It's a good strategy in theory, but realistically things happen that affect the draft. Injury to players and finding impact players are two examples. If you find impact players and have decent depth, why would you continue to draft those positions while ignoring skill positions and other areas of need? Wouldn't make much sense.

When you don't have to commit such a large portion of your salary cap to the 2 positions the make up the largest percentage of your roster (the LINES), you'll have enough money to have great depth at just about every position. So the injuries argument isn't there.

I dunno... I believe "impact" players are a nice luxury... I just wouldn't say they are completely necessary.

The Eagles have one guy... McNabb. And they do well with him in there... but they don't seem to lose a step when he's out. Of course, when you lose Westrbook AND McNabb.. I don't think any team can expect too much.

Look at what the Ravens are doing this year. Look at what Chargers are doing (with just LT and Merriman). Look at what the Saints are doing.

These are teams that are doing it with the draft... picking up a QB (Brees) - just like Baltimore - with experience that got thrown to the curb but with potential and talent.

And they got them at great value. But their overall philosophy has never been to pick up the BPA in FA. Things fell into their lap and everything else unfolded.

[RedskinzOwnU]

You will still have to draft skill positions high on a relatively consistent basis. You can't rely on free agency for your recievers, running backs, corners, safeties, and my god your QB.

[Ax]

And contradictory to most... I think a team with great lines can siginificantly improve the play of the rest of the team. I don't think teams need superior play from their quarterback if the 0-line can pound the ball and pass protect efficiently.



You're absolutely correct. When we won our 3 super bowls during Gibbs1, everybody talks about the 3 different QB's, and 3 different RB's. But the key was the O-line, which proves your point because the offensive lines didn't change that much.

[SkinsHokieFan]

In theory you will have great lines on both sides of the ball, but very few playmakers

This is like Martyball on steroids. Ultimately I think today's NFL is built for playmakers

The Chad Johnson, LT, Reggie Bush, Champ Bailey types

I think your drafting strategy is of an era that is gone now.

[Die Hard]

I think you would have a really good running team with Joey Harrington as your starting QB.

You also don't seem to have a secondary on that team.

With the amount of money and resources that I've seen teams put into some of these corners (Winfield, Smoot, Hall, Williams, McCallister, etc)... sorry, I'm just not seeing the types of results I would expect.

I see "elite" corners get beat by average WR's all the time... but I also see dominating performances by offensive and defensive lines change balls game. And very rarely does a talent lineman get beat.

[Die Hard]

In theory you will have great lines on both sides of the ball, but very few playmakers

This is like Martyball on steroids. Ultimately I think today's NFL is built for playmakers

The Chad Johnson, LT, Reggie Bush, Champ Bailey types

Dude... every year... you see an average runningback come through with a spectacular season. Look at Betts... look at Chester Taylor. Where was Priest Holmes before he got to KC? And that's the same line Larry Johnson is running behind now.

You don't need an elite WR to win in the NFL. The better teams with an elite pass rush are usually the ones that shut those guys down :)

You don't need LT to be an elite rushing team.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If I were going to adopt your strategy, I would have a caveat that I would draft one skilled played in the first four rounds every year. I think you would still build two elite lines with awesome depth, but I don't think you would be so reliant on cast-off QBs and running backs.

I mean, I don't care how committed to the defensive line I am, if I have a chane to draft a Peyton Manning, I think you need to do it.

[fansince62]

"And contradictory to most... I think a team with great lines can siginificantly improve the play of the rest of the team."

absolutely. and a great QB.

[GSF]

And contradictory to most... I think a team with great lines can siginificantly improve the play of the rest of the team. I don't think teams need superior play from their quarterback if the 0-line can pound the ball and pass protect efficiently.


Well the Redskins offense has proven that these last 5 weeks. Nothing against Betts or Campbell, but the oline has lead the offense in recent weeks.

Overall I like your stragety, though I would add a 1st round QB and corner to the mix. I absolutely agree that it all starts with the lines. I think teams get away from that stragety b/c it's just not glamorous enough and doesn't sell jerseys. The league is more about stars now than sound football.

If there is a team doing close to what you are saying, maybe it's the Eagles. The seem to draft lot of lineman high, WRs, backs, linebackers and corners a little lower, and add the occaisional mid tier FA.

[Die Hard]

"And contradictory to most... I think a team with great lines can siginificantly improve the play of the rest of the team."

absolutely. and a great QB.

True. However, I reason for offensive line play because it's impossible to get a "great QB". You need one.... you can only have 3 QBs on your roster... but the chances of picking that great QB are so low.

For every 10 QB's drafted every year.... the guys like Manning, Favre and McNabb (guys that consistently win and "win" games by themselves) only come every once every 4 years.

Take a look at NFL rosters... there's a wasteland of former first round picks that haven't panned out.

And any GM is going to have a hard time justifying drafting 7 QB (every round) for 3 years straight (21 QBs) to increase the likelihood they finally got their guy and can proceed from there :)

[Oldfan]

Die Hard,

your plan makes far more sense to me that the one we now have in the works, but ,for me, that's damning with faint praise. Overall, yours sounds like it's too rigid in structure for my taste.

Free agent bargains are rare, but you can't pass them up when they become available. Marcus Washington, a virtual unknown off a lackluster Colts defense, is the model I'd use. I would avoid guys like A. Randle El. You aren't going to sign him to a bargain contract coming from Pittsburgh and fresh off his great performance in the Super Bowl.

IMO trading up in the draft is rarely a good idea. When an anxious trade partner can be found, trading down is usually a good idea.

I like drafting the best player available rather than for need, as a general rule.

My RB would come out of the draft at bargain prices since it's not a position where experience adds much. Versality would be primary. I would draft more TEs than WRs and construct more of a Red Zone offense.

Since behemoths with athletic talent are few and far between, both my offensive and defensive systems would be designed for smaller, more mobile and atheltic linemen. That probably means more shotgun spread in the offense, and more 3-4 in the defense.

Drafting and training QBs doesn't appeal to me. I thought the Jets stole Ramsey for a sixth round pick, but he doesn't fit their dink and dunk offense. Philly obviously found a nice fit with Jeff Garcia. I'd look for two guys like this: bargains whose careers have suffered by virtue of being in the wrong places. They'd have to both fit the offense, of course. And, I wouldn't be afraid to use both QBs in packages in the same game.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Dude... every year... you see an average runningback come through with a spectacular season. Look at Betts... look at Chester Taylor. Where was Priest Holmes before he got to KC? And that's the same line Larry Johnson is running behind now.

You don't need an elite WR to win in the NFL. The better teams with an elite pass rush are usually the ones that shut those guys down :)

You don't need LT to be an elite rushing team.


But every year you see late round d-lineman or o-lineman develop into pretty quality players in the trenches.

You do not find that game breaking speed and playmaking ability in the late rounds. Or very rarely (TO, Jerry Rice, Colston)

I like your strategy of stocking up on lineman overall. I think you need to build a team by making the lines your stregnth. However in the NFL of today you must, absolutley must have playmakers (the Bears got lucky with Devin Hester and with all "rules" there are exceptions)

My strategy would change by picking the best available CB/WR/RB/QB in the first round. Lineman from rounds 2-5, and then rounds 6 and 7 special teamers.

I would also do my best to try and make each draft a 10 pick draft, allowing you to get more lineman

[fansince62]

die hard...not disagreeing with you. just adding in that the formula seems to be...with some exceptions...that a great QB is needed (hard to find, I know). Couldn't agree more with the inside out strategy you advocate.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I just thought of something. I assume you are going to run a 4-3.

I've always thought the 3-4 was the easier defense to build from a draft standpoint, because there seems to be a never-ending supply of undersized tackles to play DE and undersized DEs to play OLB. And since these guys never go high in the draft, you can build your entire front 7 (outside of nose tackle who almost always has to be a first-round pick) in the 3rd through 5th rounds.

It seems that that truly great 4-3 tackles and ends are few and far between.

[Die Hard]

Die Hard,

your plan makes far more sense to me that the one we now have in the works, but ,for me, that's damning with faint praise. Overall, yours sounds like it's too rigid in structure for my taste.

And yet, you didn't really say anything that has conflicted with what I've said in this thread :) I don't want to draft RBs and QB's high... if at all.

I think the RB position in the NFL is overrated. I think if anyone is given a chance... as long as they can stay healthy... should rush for 1200+ yards. And I'm not even talking about an average JOE running behind my all-star calibre line :) Or a QB standing comfortably in the pocket my stellar offensive line creates for them :) And I won't need Chad Johnson to have any sort of reliable passing game.

I also think linebackers in the NFL are overrated. With a stout defensive line... linebacking play will improve significantly.

However, I do think decent corners are an asset. I just see them as an overpriced commodity. They are the 2nd highest paid position on a football team... and they're such poor value. Even the shutdown guys aren't shutdown. You know what... I'll develop an imposing defensive line (working on rookie contracts) and take my chances with average corners.

[Mercuryrising]

I think you would have a really good running team with Joey Harrington as your starting QB.

You also don't seem to have a secondary on that team.

The Extra DL would play CB and Safety positions on his team.

I think the FANS and the Media would run you out of town on a rail if you passes up the stud QB or HB when you needed one every season to draft Mario Williams again and again and again..... Draft after Draft...

[Warpath11]

It seems that that truly great 4-3 tackles and ends are few and far between.

I think it all depends on what kind of DT technique you are running. I personally think it is relatively easy to find a DT that can flourish in a 1-gap system, where as your 2-gap guys are much harder to find. Having said that I think most teams would like to have a 2-gap guy in there stuffing the middle hence the challange in finding a really good DT.

[Die Hard]

I just thought of something. I assume you are going to run a 4-3.

I've always thought the 3-4 was the easier defense to build from a draft standpoint, because there seems to be a never-ending supply of undersized tackles to play DE and undersized DEs to play OLB. And since these guys never go high in the draft, you can build your entire front 7 (outside of nose tackle who almost always has to be a first-round pick) in the 3rd through 5th rounds.

It seems that that truly great 4-3 tackles and ends are few and far between.

Nah, they're available every year :) There's always an abundance of DT's and DE's in every draft. I'm not talking about drafting a guy who is going to earn 16 sacks every year (although, it's possible if you keep drafting your first 2 picks every year)... but you can find great talent in the first 2 rounds (and even LATE in both rounds).

You're going to get some great players... some good players... some average players and some busts. But more than likely... you're going to have a very strong defensive line across the board :)

And from what I've seen in today's NFL.... if you have a stout defense that keeps in you every game.... you'll win more games than you'll lose.

And all these stout defenses have strong defensive lines. Coincidence?

[Die Hard]

The Extra DL would play CB and Safety positions on his team.

I think the FANS and the Media would run you out of town on a rail if you passes up the stud QB or HB when you needed one every season to draft Mario Williams again and again and again..... Draft after Draft...

It's impossible to argue with people who use anamolies to counter-debate everything.

Yeah, sure, if I had the #1 overall pick for 10 years in a row... the fans would be disappointed if I drafted the same position every year. Duh.

Sorry, the realists in the group are discussing a fluctuating pattern of results and draft position.

[Mercuryrising]

Dude... every year... you see an average runningback come through with a spectacular season. Look at Betts... look at Chester Taylor. Where was Priest Holmes before he got to KC? And that's the same line Larry Johnson is running behind now.

You don't need an elite WR to win in the NFL. The better teams with an elite pass rush are usually the ones that shut those guys down :)

You don't need LT to be an elite rushing team.

You keep pointing to exceptions and acting like it is the Norm. If you are saying you will be the NFL's greatest judge of talent, then well what can anyone say excerpt the odds are against that. If it was so easy to pick good LB's in the late rounds every team would be doing it, and the guys they pick would make the team instead of being cut. If it is so easy to know which mediocre back was going to have a break out year out of the HUGE pool of mediocre backs then GM's would have been beating down the Redskins doors this pre-season when Betts looked like crap.
You are betting your career with your strategy on your ability to be a superior evaluator of talent, better than people who have spent their whole lives doing this, and I doubt that is the case.

[Die Hard]

You keep pointing to exceptions and acting like it is the Norm. If you are saying you will be the NFL's greatest judge of talent, then well what can anyone say excerpt the odds are against that. If it was so easy to pick good LB's in the late rounds every team would be doing it, and the guys they pick would make the team instead of being cut. If it is so easy to know which mediocre back was going to have a break out year out of the HUGE pool of mediocre backs then GM's would have been beating down the Redskins doors this pre-season when he looked like crap.
You are betting your career with your strategy on your ability to be a superior evaluator of talent, better than people who have spent their whole lives doing this, and I doubt that is the case.

Clearly, you haven't read this thread and you've become reactionary.

Your post is in direct conflict with what I've stated multiple times in this thread already.

So try again.

[Mercuryrising]

It's impossible to argue with people who use anamolies to counter-debate everything.



and yet you used the Saints LB corp as proof you dont need to draft LB's high, and you used Betts as proof mediocre backs can break out. Both anamolies...

[Die Hard]

and yet you used the Saints LB corp as proof you dont need to draft LB's high, and you used Betts as proof mediocre backs can break out. Both anamolies...

Willie Parker
Travis Henry
Thomas Jones
Marion Barber
Chester Taylor
Frank Gore
Maurice-Drew Jones

Are you seriously underestimating the fact that there are plenty of examples of RB's in the NFL that come from nowhere (draft or the NFL scrap heap) and contribute significantly to their team's success?

[Goaldeje]

You keep pointing to exceptions and acting like it is the Norm. If you are saying you will be the NFL's greatest judge of talent, then well what can anyone say excerpt the odds are against that. If it was so easy to pick good LB's in the late rounds every team would be doing it, and the guys they pick would make the team instead of being cut. If it is so easy to know which mediocre back was going to have a break out year out of the HUGE pool of mediocre backs then GM's would have been beating down the Redskins doors this pre-season when Betts looked like crap.
You are betting your career with your strategy on your ability to be a superior evaluator of talent, better than people who have spent their whole lives doing this, and I doubt that is the case.


That's not what he's said at all. His contention is simply that an excellent offensive line will make an average RB look very good. And that an outstanding D-line will make an average LB corps look good. And secondary for that matter. Quick, can someone tell me who the CBs were for Carolina when they lost to the Patriots in the Super Bowl? How about their D-line? Right. Buckner, Peppers, Jenkins... CB? Manning, Jr, and, um, well, I dunno.

DH to your point, I like it. I hope you realize it will never be adopted with the present decision makers in place. But in theory, I think it would work. Like it or not, it has worked very well for Philly. Very well. Though they do draft CB higher than you suggest.

I think the Skins place too much emphasis on the big hitters (which inevitabley end up being LBs) early in the draft, and then subsequently fill holes with the late rounds. Backwards, imo.

As has been said before, if you develop a glaring position of need, I think the front office should stay flexible enough to change plans when needed. But for the most point, I agree.

[Die Hard]

and yet you used the Saints LB corp as proof you dont need to draft LB's high, and you used Betts as proof mediocre backs can break out. Both anamolies...

Actually, look at the top 10 defenses in the NFL right now (with the exception of the Baltimore Ravens.... who devoted their resources this past offseason to upgrading their defensive line). Check out the linebackers that play for those defenses.

I'd be willing to bet you couldn't name another linebacker on the Dolphins except Zach Thomas, or any Raiders linebacker, or Jacksonville linebacker, or any Chargers linebacker except Merriman, or any Vikings linebacker, or any Panthers linebacker (sorry, Dan Morgan is on IR).

And yet, you know what all those teams have in common? You might have guess strength in their defensive line.

[Dan T.]

I thought I'd look at defensive lineman the Redskins have drafted in the 1st or 2nd round. Here it is, since 1982:

82 - none
83 - none (though Charles Mann was taken in round 3)
84 - Bob Slater DT Oklahoma and Steve Hamilton DE East Carolina (both in round 2)
85 - none
86 - Markus Koch DE Boise State (2nd round)
87 - none
88 - none
89 - none
90 - none
91 - Bobby Wilson DT Michigan State (1st round)
92 - Shane Collins DE Arizona State (2nd round)
93 - none
94 - none
95 - none
96 - none
97 - Kenard Lang DE Miami (1st round)
98 - none
99 - none
00 - none
01 - none
02 - none
03 - none
04 - none
05 - none

Slim pickings. Only Kenard Lang has had much of an NFL career, mostly outside of DC. It looks like through the 80's they followed the Die Hard formula, but abandoned it early in the 90's.

[Darth Tater]

A good GM will find between 2-3 marginal guys each year and a superstar guy every other year through the draft. If you restrict yourself thusly, you may find 1-2 marginal guys per year and a superstar every 2 or three years (assuming you and your scouts are top-drawer when it comes to finding talent).

[Oldfan]

Die Hard -- And yet, you didn't really say anything that has conflicted with what I've said in this thread :) I don't want to draft RBs and QB's high... if at all.

You want to emphasize drafting dominant talent on both the offensive and defensive lines. I want to use scheme to utilize smaller, more mobile athletes on both sides of the ball.

I would use a first day draft pick on my RB position and look for versatility. In 2004, my pick would have been Steven Jackson rather than Sean Taylor. In a shotgun spread, since both are outstanding receivers, Jackson and Betts could rotate or go in the same backfield. We wouldn't need a big, dominant line to open holes for them.

[Die Hard]

A good GM will find between 2-3 marginal guys each year and a superstar guy every other year through the draft. If you restrict yourself thusly, you may find 1-2 marginal guys per year and a superstar every 2 or three years (assuming you and your scouts are top-drawer when it comes to finding talent).

Huh? I'm still drafting players in every round. What makes you think that marginalizes the potential of getting a quality player at that position?

[chipwhich]

I thought I'd look at defensive lineman the Redskins have drafted in the 1st or 2nd round. Here it is, since 1982:



I have been saying this forever.

The Redskins organization REFUSES to draft d-lineman
in the early rounds.

If they draft one in 2007 I might have a heart attack.

Meanwhile up the road in Baltimore, the are stacked on d...but
if a stud d lineman is on the board....they take him.

I think the Skins have a mental block when they see the draft boards.

I agree somewhat with die hard....although typically in the first round you definitely take best player available....period...or trade down.

[Mercuryrising]

Clearly, you haven't read this thread and you've become reactionary.

Your post is in direct conflict with what I've stated multiple times in this thread already.

So try again.

I have read the thread, and it was you who became reactionary. You used examples, and yet when I used an example you played to the crowd with a dismissive: "you cannot argue with someone who uses anomolies"

You used anomolies yourself, that was my point.

Your strategy relies on your ability to spot the hidden gems other teams are also trying to spot, except you need to be right a higher % of the time on them than the other teams, because if you are wrong you have huge gaping holes in your team, and some stout lines.

I would propose to you that any player who is obviously very talented will not fall to later rounds. So you are betting your job and your franchise on being able to be right about guys who may not appear to be highly talented, but whom you suspect will make an impact for your team. It would all boil down to how good of a judge of talent your staff ulltimately is. If they are the best the NFL has ever seen, you are a genius. Anything less and you go down in flames.

[Dan T.]

I like the notion of building dominant lines, but would question how rigidly you would hold to the DL in rounds 1 and 2 and OL in rounds 3 and 5. To pass up a superstar at another position only to hold to this strategy would be unwise.

Do you stick to this philosophy even in years when the stock of NFL-caliber linemen is thin? Then you're drafting mediocre talent, leaving far superior talent on the board.

[Mercuryrising]

Willie Parker
Travis Henry
Thomas Jones
Marion Barber
Chester Taylor
Frank Gore
Maurice-Drew Jones

Are you seriously underestimating the fact that there are plenty of examples of RB's in the NFL that come from nowhere (draft or the NFL scrap heap) and contribute significantly to their team's success?

Now name all the guys who went in the same range who ended up as being nothing.
I am not arguing that they cannot be found. I am stating the odds are against that you will be the one GM who can always find them...

[chipwhich]

Do you stick to this philosophy even in years when the stock of NFL-caliber linemen is thin? Then you're drafting mediocre talent, leaving far superior talent on the board.

It amuses me when people use the phrase...talent in a particular draft is thin...

IMO you stick to your draft strategy. Whether or not the talent is there is seen once players play in the NFL....not before the draft.

[Die Hard]

Do you stick to this philosophy even in years when the stock of NFL-caliber linemen is thin? Then you're drafting mediocre talent, leaving far superior talent on the board.

I'll tell you what. I don't really buy into the whole "this draft is deep in" and "this draft is thin at" analogies.

Every year.... I see that argument put to bed. Every year... we hear about the next dominating Tackle that is supposed to be the next "______". Same with the WR position... same with the QB position.

It's hype. I don't believe in drafting players by hype. Grab the player you want.

[Die Hard]

Now name all the guys who went in the same range who ended up as being nothing.
I am not arguing that they cannot be found. I am stating the odds are against that you will be the one GM who can always find them...

Are you seriously kidding me?

I just listed at least 7 players alone... each on different teams... for a single position. It's not that hard to see at least 1000 more examples of players with marginal talent or underestimated.... exceeding expectations and contributing greatly to their teams.

I've never said I would always find them.... again, you're being completely ignorant.

The point is... if you draft 10... the chance of getting at least 5 good lineman increases.

Is that completely beyond your comprehension?

[Die Hard]

It amuses me when people use the phrase...talent in a particular draft is thin...

IMO you stick to your draft strategy. Whether or not the talent is there is seen once players play in the NFL....not before the draft.

Exactly. Sean Taylor was supposed to be the next Ronnie Lott. Every year we hear about a receiver that is supposed to be the next Jerry Rice or the next Randy Moss - without the attitiude. Every hyped up tackle is supposed to be the next Orlando Pace or Jonathan Ogden.

Until you put the friggin pads on and play in the NFL.... it's just hype.

There's no such thing as a can't miss prospect.

[Dirk Diggler]

The problem with this strategy is that the strength of the draft is probably going to dictate how successful you are. Rather than how smart your people are or how well you draft. Also, deciding ahead of time that you are only going to focus on 1 or 2 units is a recipe for a reach.

Let's say for example that we're picking #20 in each round. And let's say it's a top heavy draft: we have 3 defensive lineman among our top 15 overall players with the 4th defensive lineman being the 40th rated player and the 5th being rated the 70th best player. Let's say all 3 of those top rated Dlineman go before we pick at #20. By your rules - Because of the way the draft fell and the relative scarcity of defensive lineman available, we just reached twice by taking the 40th best player at #20 and the 60th best player at #53.

I've stomped my feet over the way we've neglected the defensive line over the years - I'm as frustrated as anyone. I think this strategy might be ok to implement here and there but I don't see it as a plan that should be followed year after year.

[Mercuryrising]

Are you seriously kidding me?

I just listed at least 7 players alone... each on different teams... for a single position. It's not that hard to see at least 1000 more examples of players with marginal talent or underestimated.... exceeding expectations and contributing greatly to their teams.

I've never said I would always find them.... again, you're being completely ignorant.

The point is... if you draft 10... the chance of getting at least 5 good lineman increases.

Is that completely beyond your comprehension?

Why do you keep having to go for the cheap attacks because I disagree with you? I have not called you any names or questioned your mental faculties, though I think your strategy is severely flawed.
No you are right it is so easy to just pick in the later rounds and plug in gems (especially with 20/20 hindsight vision). It is a wonder the real GM's don't have better success.... Good luck to you.

[Die Hard]

The problem with this strategy is that the strength of the draft is probably going to dictate how successful you are. Rather than how smart your people are or how well you draft. Also, deciding ahead of time that you are only going to focus on 1 or 2 units is a recipe for a reach.

Let's say for example that we're picking #20 in each round. And let's say it's a top heavy draft: we have 3 defensive lineman among our top 15 overall players with the 4th defensive lineman being the 40th rated player and the 5th being rated the 70th best player. Let's say all 3 of those top rated Dlineman go before we pick at #20. By your rules - Because of the way the draft fell and the relative scarcity of defensive lineman available, we just reached twice by taking the 40th best player at #20 and the 60th best player at #53.

I've stomped my feet over the way we've neglected the defensive line over the years - I'm as frustrated as anyone. I think this strategy might be ok to implement here and there but I don't see it as a plan that should be followed year after year.

I understand you aren't a big fan of "reaches". I just don't believe in them. If that's the player you want.... you take him. Regardless of where Mel Kiper has ranked players.

Players fall every draft... and there are reaches in every draft. Some fail, some succeed. There simply isn't an exact formula for the draft yet.

Look at the Patriots... who draft "reaches" every year. It's not about their public draft rank... it's about what fits best for you and your system. It's when you draft guys in pre-determined slots... that's what kills teams.

[Oldfan]

There's no such thing as a can't miss prospect.

You're right on any individual pick. But when several TEs are listed as prospects and few WRs, as was the case last year, the likelihood of teams being wrong on all those picks is not the same as being wrong on any individual pick.

So, saying the draft is deeper in TEs and short on WRs was valid.

[Darth Tater]

Huh? I'm still drafting players in every round. What makes you think that marginalizes the potential of getting a quality player at that position?
Huh back. Your response doesn't make sense in light of what I said. Maybe I didn't communicate well.

A marginal player is a guy who makes the final roster but doesn't really do anything beyond that. With 7 shots, a good GM will usually find no more than 3 guys like that (heck, that's maybe a little high) and maybe another guy who turns into an impact player. Then you start looking at only certain positions in the draft, this will cripple you even further.

[Dan T.]

The problem with this strategy is that the strength of the draft is probably going to dictate how successful you are. Rather than how smart your people are or how well you draft. Also, deciding ahead of time that you are only going to focus on 1 or 2 units is a recipe for a reach.

Let's say for example that we're picking #20 in each round. And let's say it's a top heavy draft: we have 3 defensive lineman among our top 15 overall players with the 4th defensive lineman being the 40th rated player and the 5th being rated the 70th best player. Let's say all 3 of those top rated Dlineman go before we pick at #20. By your rules - Because of the way the draft fell and the relative scarcity of defensive lineman available, we just reached twice by taking the 40th best player at #20 and the 60th best player at #53.

I've stomped my feet over the way we've neglected the defensive line over the years - I'm as frustrated as anyone. I think this strategy might be ok to implement here and there but I don't see it as a plan that should be followed year after year.

Good point, Dirk, but Die Hard doesn't care. He picks that 40th best player at #20. I see that as a flawed strategy, but he views the importance of linemen as so great that he is willing to forgo picking a top prospect at another position for a lower rated lineman.

[Beaudry]

I generally agree with what Die Hard is saying. Generally. I think the 1st and 2nd round picks should be OL or DL, not just DL. QB, RB, TE, FB, LB, S should only be taken in round 5, 6 or 7. Rounds 3 or 4 for CB, WR, OL, DL.

Here are the Saints 1st two round of the drafts for the last 10 years or so. They are sorted by position, not year. 5 total wr/te/rb/qb, 5 OL, 4 DB, 5 DL, 1 LB. You can see that even though some bust, like Neole or Sullivan, by contiuing to draft the same position they found some keepers, like Jammal Brown and Will Smith.

Josh Bullocks DB
Rob Kelly DB
Alex Molden DB
Jerod Cherry DB
Jared Tomich DL
Will Smith DL
Johnathan Sullivan DL
Charles Grant DL
Darren Howard DL
Courtney Watson LB
Jammal Brown OL
Jonathan Stinchcomb OL
LeCharles Bentley OL
Kyle Turley OL
Chris Naeole OL
Deuce McAllister RB
Ricky Williams RB
Cameron Cleeland TE
Devery Henderson WR
Donte Stallworth WR


You do not find that game breaking speed and playmaking ability in the late rounds. Or very rarely (TO, Jerry Rice, Colston)

I would disagree with this in a very strong way. My point of responding was to let you know that Jerry Rice was a 1st round pick.


I've always thought the 3-4 was the easier defense to build from a draft standpoint, because there seems to be a never-ending supply of undersized tackles to play DE and undersized DEs to play OLB.

I don't personally like the 3-4 defense, but this is very true. The undersized DE is really only of value to the few teams that run the 3-4, so they can wait to draft him until a later round.

[Die Hard]

Why do you keep having to go for the cheap attacks because I disagree with you? I have not called you any names or questioned your mental faculties, though I think your strategy is severely flawed.
No you are right it is so easy to just pick in the later rounds and plug in gems (especially with 20/20 hindsight vision). It is a wonder the real GM's don't have better success.... Good luck to you.

Again, no one is suggesting I'm going to find a Pro Bowl linebacker in the 7th round. No one is expecting I'm going to draft a RB in the 6th round and have him run for 2000 yards.

You see what guys like Reuben Droughns, Mike Bell, Mike Anderson, Willie Parker, etc. when given an opportunity? And I don't even consider 1000 yards a yardstick any more. If ANY RB can stay healthy... he should get 1000 yards if he plays full-time. Heck, even Ron Dayne nearly has a grand in Texas.

It's funny that you haven't named any of these all-star Pro Bowl linebackers that those top 10 defenses have :) Surprised?

[Dirk Diggler]

I understand you aren't a big fan of "reaches". I just don't believe in them. If that's the player you want.... you take him. Regardless of where Mel Kiper has ranked players.

Players fall every draft... and there are reaches in every draft. Some fail, some succeed. There simply isn't an exact formula for the draft yet.

Look at the Patriots... who draft "reaches" every year. It's not about their public draft rank... it's about what fits best for you and your system. It's when you draft guys in pre-determined slots... that's what kills teams.

So let's say last season we're picking at #2 in the draft. Mario Williams just went #1. By your system, we are going to pass on Vince Young, Matt Leinart, or Reggie Bush for Haloti Ngata or Broderick Bunkley? Ngata's been a nice player for Baltimore but is he going to be a threat at some point for Defensive MVP? Doubtful. However, those same defensive players make a lot more sense in the middle of the 1st dont they?

[Die Hard]

Good point, Dirk, but Die Hard doesn't care. He picks that 40th best player at #20. I see that as a flawed strategy, but he views the importance of linemen as so great that he is willing to forgo picking a top prospect at another position for a lower rated lineman.

Correct. You see what Marquis Colston is doing in New Orleans? And who did they get rid of this year? Their former 1st round pick Donte Stallworth. Imagine that. :)

Get what you value.

I guess my argument is..... a good defensive lineman is worth an equivalent receiver, runningback or cornerback. I mean, you only have to find 2 starting receivers.... but you have to find at least 4 defensive linemen.

[Yomar The Nifty]

too extreme, if Randy Moss falls to you in the draft, you have to take a shot, but the general idea of building from the lines out makes sense to me... I think great line play can make everyone else on the field look a lot better, don't think it works as well the other way...

[Dirk Diggler]

I understand you aren't a big fan of "reaches". I just don't believe in them. If that's the player you want.... you take him. Regardless of where Mel Kiper has ranked players.

Players fall every draft... and there are reaches in every draft. Some fail, some succeed. There simply isn't an exact formula for the draft yet.

Look at the Patriots... who draft "reaches" every year. It's not about their public draft rank... it's about what fits best for you and your system. It's when you draft guys in pre-determined slots... that's what kills teams.

All teams reach to some extent. The question is, how much is too much? If the Skins grabbed a defensive lineman with the 20th pick that I mentioned while having 6 or 7 other players rated higher - I could live with it. But passing on 19 or 20 players they deemed "better" at their respective positions? Gimme the safety or tight end with the solid 1st round grade over the defensive lineman with the mid-2nd round grade. I'll figure out the rest later. :)

[Die Hard]

So let's say last season we're picking at #2 in the draft. Mario Williams just went #1. By your system, we are going to pass on Vince Young, Matt Leinart, or Reggie Bush for Haloti Ngata or Broderick Bunkley? Ngata's been a nice player for Baltimore but is he going to be a threat at some point for Defensive MVP? Doubtful. However, those same defensive players make a lot more sense in the middle of the 1st dont they?

Why did Philadelphia trade up to get Bunkley? Because the better defensive linemen prospects never last until the middle rounds :) You can start picking them up again in the late first round and early second rounds.

If you're drafting in the top 10... and there is an elite defensive lineman available... I'm going to draft him.

I don't think it's necessary to waste top 10 picks with offensive lineman, runningbacks and receivers.

And the only way I'd draft a QB is after a 4-year rotation once my defensive line and offensive line has been established.

[trez]

Gotta draft for need, not the same position every draft ala the Lions

[Beaudry]

Just a sidenote about needing high draft picks at WR, here are the top 10 WR's from this year:

Harrison
Owens
Wayne
Holt (top 10 pick)
Walker
C.Johnson
Driver
Burress
D. Jackson
Houshmanzadeh

[Die Hard]

Gimme the safety or tight end with the solid 1st round grade over the defensive lineman with the mid-2nd round grade.

That safety and tight end is merely a luxury on a football team :) You really want to waste a 1st round pick on a safety or tight end? You can get yourself a decent TE on the FA market at the same price. Oh yeah, they're there... they just don't make headlines because they aren't flashy signings.

[Dan T.]

Well, again I'm in favor of building lines as a first priority, but I think rigidly drafting as you outlined, without flexibility, is a recipe for disaster.

[Beaudry]

Die Hard, you can't be a GM now because you just gave away your strategy!

What if you had the 8th pick and the top 7 DL were already drafted?

[Die Hard]

Gotta draft for need, not the same position every draft ala the Lions

You can't use the Lions as an example to debunk the strategy.

#1. Drafting receivers is a completely different approach than drafting linemen.
#2. On the offense, on any given play.. all you need are 2 WRs. So when you draft 3 WRs... in the top 10... you've already exceeded your need. It's overkill.

However, a team needs at least 4 STARTING defensive linemen... and another 4 reserves.

Now, unless you advocate signing 8 free agent defensive lineman..... how do you propose filling those spots?

Where you pay top dollar for most starters - and you need 1-2- and leave nothing for depth... or you can draft 8 kids - with elite "potential" and pay them under $2M a piece. And if you draft well.... you can have some trade leverage.

[Die Hard]

Die Hard, you can't be a GM now because you just gave away your strategy!

What if you had the 8th pick and the top 7 DL were already drafted?

You trade up when you need to :)

You guys need to start thinking outside of the box :laugh:

[hitmandm]

Drafting what you need has proven to be a faulty draft strategy.

In the first couple rounds, you draft TALENT. Later rounds you either draft need or roll the dice on high ceiling high risk players.

Of course, you would want to combine Talent and Need and you can make a small trade off, but to pass up a clearly superior player for less talent that fills a need is a blueprint for a draft disaster in the higher rounds.

[Die Hard]

I know the formatting is going to suck.... but here's a list of all the 1st round picks of defensive linemen for the past 9 years:

1997 NFL DRAFT
2 Oakland Darrell Russell DT Southern California
14 Cincinnati Reinard Wilson DE Florida State
17 Washington Kenard Lang DE Miami
18 Tennessee Kenny Holmes DE Miami
21 Jacksonville Renaldo Wynn DE Notre Dame
25 Philadelphia Jon Harris DE Virginia
28 Denver Trevor Pryce DE Clemson

1998 NFL DRAFT
3 Arizona Andre Wadsworth DE Florida State
6 St. Louis Grant Wistrom DE Nebraska
8 Dallas Greg Ellis DE North Carolina
14 Carolina Jason Peter DE Nebraska
19 Green Bay Vonnie Holliday DT North Carolina

1999 NFL DRAFT
15 Tampa Bay Anthony McFarland DT Louisiana State
16 Tennessee Jevon Kearse DE Florida
20 Dallas Ebenezer Ekuban DE North Carolina
22 Seattle Lamar King DE Saginaw Valley State
24 San Francisco Reggie McGrew DT Florida
29 Minnesota Dimitrius Underwood DT Michigan State
30 Atlanta Patrick Kerney DE Virginia

2001 NFL DRAFT
3 Cleveland Gerard Warren DT Florida
4 Cincinnati Justin Smith DE Missouri
6 New England Richard Seymour DE Georgia
10 Green Bay Jamal Reynolds DE Florida State
12 St. Louis Damione Lewis NT Miami
13 Jacksonville Marcus Stroud DT Georgia
19 Pittsburgh Casey Hampton NT Texas
29 St. Louis Ryan Pickett NT Ohio State

2002 NFL DRAFT
2 Carolina Julius Peppers DE North Carolina
6 Kansas City Ryan Sims DT North Carolina
9 Jacksonville John Henderson DT Tennessee
11 Indianapolis Dwight Freeney DE Syracuse
12 Arizona Wendell Bryant DT Wisconsin
15 Tennessee Albert HaynesworthDT Tennessee
22 N.Y. Jets Bryan Thomas DE Ala.-Birmingham
25 New Orleans Charles Grant DE Georgia

2003 NFL DRAFT
4 N.Y. Jets Dewayne Robertson DT Kentucky
6 New Orleans Johnathan Sullivan DT Georgia
9 Minnesota Kevin Williams DT Oklahoma State
10 Baltimore Terrell Suggs DE Arizona State
12 St. Louis Jimmy Kennedy DT Penn State
13 New England Ty Warren DE Texas A&M
14 Chicago Michael Haynes DE Penn State
15 Philadelphia Jerome McDougle DE Miami
18 Arizona Calvin Pace DE Wake Forest
25 N.Y. Giants William Joseph DT Miami

2004 NFL DRAFT
14 Chicago Tommie Harris DT Oklahoma
18 New Orleans Will Smith DE Ohio State
20 Minnesota Kenechi Udeze DE Southern California
21 New England Vince Wilfork DT Miami
23 Seattle Marcus Tubbs DT Texas

2005 NFL DRAFT
16 Houston Travis Johnson DE Florida State
18 Minnesota Erasmus James DE Wisconsin
20 Dallas Marcus Spears DE Louisiana State
28 San Diego Luis Castillo DE Northwestern
31 Philadelphia Mike Patterson DT Southern California

[Die Hard]

Here are the 2nd round picks of defensive linemen during that same period:

1997 NFL DRAFT
31 N.Y. Jets Rick Terry DT North Carolina
32 Atlanta Nathan Davis DE Indiana
39 New Orleans Jared Tomich DE Nebraska
52 Buffalo Marcellus Wiley DE Columbia
59 New England Brandon Mitchell DE Texas A&M

1998 NFL DRAFT
31 Oakland Leon Bender DT Washington State
41 Pittsburgh Jeremy Staat DT Arizona State
49 Miami Kenny Mixon DE Louisiana State
56 N.Y. Jets Dorian Boose DE Washington State

1999 NFL DRAFT
38 Carolina Mike Rucker DE Nebraska
40 Oakland Tony Bryant DE Florida State
52 Tennessee John Thornton DT West Virginia
56 Jacksonville Larry Smith DT Florida State
58 Denver Montae Reagor DT Texas Tech

2001 NFL DRAFT
33 New Orleans Darren Howard DE Kansas State
35 San Francisco John Engelberger DE Virginia Tech
42 N.Y. Giants Cornelius Griffin DT Alabama
55 Minnesota Fred Robbins DT Wake Forest
56 Minnesota Michael Boireau DE Miami

2002 NFL DRAFT
34 Arizona Kyle Vanden Bosch DE Nebraska
44 Carolina Kris Jenkins DT Maryland
46 Buffalo Aaron Schobel DE Texas Christian
51 Denver Paul Toviessi DE Marshall
57 Minnesota Willie Howard DE Stanford
61 Detroit Shaun Rogers DT Texas

2003 NFL DRAFT
48 Buffalo Chris Kelsay DE Nebraska
56 N.Y. Giants Osi Umenyiora DE Troy
57 San Francisco Anthony Adams NT Penn State
64 Tampa Bay Dewayne White DE Louisville

2004 NFL DRAFT
35 San Diego Igor Olshansky DE Oregon
36 Kansas City Junior Siavii DT Oregon
42 Tennessee Travis LaBoy DE Hawaii
47 Chicago Tank Johnson DT Washington
51 Baltimore Dwan Edwards DT Oregon State
57 Tennessee Antwan Odom DE Alabama
63 New England Marquise Hill DE Louisiana State

2005 NFL DRAFT
37 Detroit Shaun Cody DT Southern Californi
46 Miami Matt Roth DE Iowa
59 Atlanta Jonathan Babineaux DT Iowa

2006 NFL DRAFT
1 Houston Williams, Mario DE 6-7 294 North Carolina State
12 Baltimore Ngata, Haloti DT 6-4 337 Oregon
13 Cleveland Wimbley, Kamerion DE 6-3 241 Florida State
14 Philadelphia Bunkley, Brodrick DT 6-3 307 Florida State
20 Kansas City Hali, Tamba DE 6-3 275 Penn State
26 Buffalo McCargo, John DT 6-2 301 North Carolina State
32 N.Y. Giants Kiwanuka, Mathias DE 6-6 265 Boston College
63 Seattle Tapp, Darryl DE 6-1 251 Virginia Tech

[Die Hard]

Now hell, I realize that some picks look leaner than other years. But if you EVER want a refresher course... go here: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history

And take a look at all the first round busts. It's actually a very small percentage that actually lives up to a 1st round billing.

The reality is... I believe the strength of a team is relative to its line play... with a premium on defensive linemen. And you need 4 of them that start (and another 4 reserves). So, you increase the likelihood of getting 4 great defensive line starters (on their rookie contracts playing for peantus) if you keep drafting at that position and stockpiling.

Because you're also anticipating you're going to miss :) However, let's face facts here. I can put all these names in a hat right now... and pull out a random name from both the 1st round and second round... right back from 1997. And I might miss on a few... but I'd guarantee there would be enough talent of the makeup that we'd have the best defensive line in the NFL. And I'm almost tempted to try it :)

[Mercuryrising]

It's funny that you haven't named any of these all-star Pro Bowl linebackers that those top 10 defenses have :) Surprised?

Well for our discussions purposes, what I would have to do is analyse 2 or 3 of the top 10 defenses. Break down how every player other than DT and DE were acquired. Discard everyone who was in the top 2 rounds and are not DL, since you would not have taken them. Then try to piece together a correlation between their DL and what yours would look like based on your draft strategy etc. Rather complex and it might take some time. Not sure i want to spend that kind of time. Might just let you think taking Chris Macintosh over Brian Urlacher in 2000 or Justin Smith over LT in 2001 or Toniu Fonoti over Ed Reed in 2002 are all good things over the long term for your team. I could keep going with these if you think it is just obscure anomolies of where taking the top rated lineman over another position player looks bad.

But I do like your notion of focusing on the lines. I really do. I just think reaching for them in rounds 1-2 in all cases and leaving more talented players on the board for other teams, and relying on FA castoffs and late round picks for skill positions would doom your franchise to Lion's type status.

[Mooka]

Not bad.

Here's my draft strategy. *Always draft the best player avaliable. (only exceptions can be made at the skill positions)

[Dirk Diggler]

That safety and tight end is merely a luxury on a football team :) You really want to waste a 1st round pick on a safety or tight end? You can get yourself a decent TE on the FA market at the same price. Oh yeah, they're there... they just don't make headlines because they aren't flashy signings.

I think we can all agree that Baltimore, New England, and Pittsburgh have drafted as well as any teams this decade (since 2000). Not surprisingly, they're all in the playoffs quite regularly. But even more notable...these teams have won a collective 5 of the last 6 Lombardi trophies given out. That's a pretty good percentage.

These teams haven't been shy about taking safeties or tight ends in the 1st round of the draft either. I tally 6 TEs or Ss in the last 5 years. Among the "wasted" draft picks are:

Ed Reed, Troy Polamulu, Heath Miller, Todd Heap, and Ben Watson. Couple of players who are Defensive MVP caliber and 3 Pro Bowl caliber TEs right there. The 6th player is pretty solid as well - Daniel Graham. Not too shabby.

[Die Hard]

Might just let you think taking Chris Macintosh over Brian Urlacher in 2000 or Justin Smith over LT in 2001 or Toniu Fonoti over Ed Reed in 2002 are all good things over the long term for your team. I could keep going with these if you think it is just obscure anomolies of where taking the top rated lineman over another position player looks bad.

You see... it's THAT draft thinking that requires a GM to be perfect in evaluating talent. Hey, I need a safety... I'll just wait for Ed Reed to fall into my lap. Done... 1 for 1. Now, to fill the next position with another quality starter that will fill that position on the team for the next 10 years.

Hey Ed Reed, Sean Taylor... nice luxuries to have. But you don't need those types of players if your defensive line is applying pressure and shutting down the run. Seriously.

You might pass up individual talent at some positions.... but positions that just aren't as critical to a team's success.

Look at what Sean Taylor did for this defense this year? Urlacher was a completely different player once he lost his 2 NT's a few years ago.... but look at his level of play since the Bears decided to rededicate themselves to building their defensive line!

LaDanian Thomlinson is nice... maybe one of the best ever... but I've seen teams win the Super Bowl in the past 6 years and not once did I notice the Chargers in the big game. BTW, did you notice the personnel the Chargers have at receiver? Apparently, you don't need Randy Moss to win ball games either.

There's no doubt there are some great players at different positions in the NFL. But in my mind... nothing contributes greatly to a TEAM'S success than dominating line play.

Dominanting defensive line plays changes field position, time of possession, turnovers and even scores points. Give me defensive linemen :)

And I'll find enough marginal offensive skill position players to score 17 points per game :)

[Die Hard]

I think we can all agree that Baltimore, New England, and Pittsburgh have drafted as well as any teams this decade (since 2000). Not surprisingly, they're all in the playoffs quite regularly. But even more notable...these teams have won a collective 5 of the last 6 Lombardi trophies given out. That's a pretty good percentage.

These teams haven't been shy about taking safeties or tight ends in the 1st round of the draft either. I tally 6 TEs or Ss in the last 5 years. Among the "wasted" draft picks are:

Ed Reed, Troy Polamulu, Heath Miller, Todd Heap, and Ben Watson. Couple of players who are Defensive MVP caliber and 3 Pro Bowl caliber TEs right there. The 6th player is pretty solid as well - Daniel Graham. Not too shabby.

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/article166/

Saturday, February 04, 2006
Steelers and Seahawks Used High Draft Picks to Build Strong Offensive Lines

If you want to understand how the most successful franchises use the draft to build their teams, a good place to start is to analyze the starting units of the Super Bowl contestants. Both the Seattle Seahawks and the Pittsburgh Steelers have starting lineups whose trenches are more often manned by high draft picks than are the so called skill positions. In short, winning football is played by real men, not by tippy-toed, small, finesse players.

The Seattle Seahawks will likely start seven first round draft choices in the Super Bowl (four on offense and three on defense) while the Pittsburgh Steelers will send eight first round starters onto the field (5 on offense and 3 on defense). But you may be surprised at the positions those high draft choices play. Not one is a wide receiver. Only two of the eight defensive backfield starters are first rounders, cornerback Marcus Trufant of the Seahawks and hard-hitting safety Troy Polamulu of the Steelers, who plays almost like an additional linebacker. The Seahawks and Steelers each have only one skill position player on offensive drafted in round one, running back Shaun Alexander for Seattle and quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for Pittsburgh.

Both the Steelers and the Seahawks have focused on building strong lines through the draft. On offense, Pittsburgh will start three linemen drafted in the first round (guards Alan Faneca and Kendall Simmons and center Jeff Hartings, who was actually drafted by the Lions). Toss in tight end Heath Miller and four of the six front-line blockers are first round picks. Then note that left tackle Marvel Smith was taken with the seventh pick in round two and you'll truly realize where the draft focus of the Steelers has been the past decade. Seattle also expended top picks to build the left side of the line to protect Matt Hasselbeck's backside and to clear half the field for the running of Shaun Alexander. Perennial all-pro left tackle Walter Jones, perhaps the best in the business, was taken with the sixth pick of the 1997 draft. His sidekick, left guard Steve Hutchinson was taken with the 17th pick of the first round in 2001. Toss in tight end Jerramy Stevens and three of the six members of the offensive line are first rounders.

Amazingly, there have only been 10 guards taken in the first round of the draft since 1996, about one per year, two of whom have been switched to center and one to tackle. More amazingly, four of the 10 will be playing in the Super Bowl this year (Hutchinson for the Seahawks and Faneca, Simmons and Hartings, who will be playing center, for the Steelers). Even yet more amazingly, two of the remaining six (Jermane Mayberry of the Eagles and Ross Verba who was drafted by the Packers and later played tackle for the Browns) also played in the Super Bowl.

The only guards drafted in the first round in the past decade who have not gone to the Super Bowl are Chris Naeole, Pete Kendall, Vernon Carey and Logan Mankins. Naeole was picked by the Saints in 1997 and is now playing with the Jacksonville Jaguars, a team with reasonable Super Bowl aspirations. Kendall was drafted by the Seahawks in 1996 and now plays center for the Jets. Vernon Carey was drafted by the Dolphins in 2004, another team that can easily be envisioned as a Super Bowl participant in the next few years if they can improve at quarterback. Mankins was drafted with the last pick of round one in 2005 and contributed to the Patriots' second-half surge that led to the playoffs after the team was decimated earlier in the season by injuries.

The focus of this year's Super Bowl contestants on amassing high draft picks to man the offensive line is in sharp contrast to the fact that in recent years there have been more defensive backs and wide receivers taken in the first round than any other position. During the past five drafts the first round picks have included: 29 defensive backs, 25 wide receivers, 21 defensive ends, 20 defensive tackles, 15 quarterbacks, 14 tackles, 13 running backs, eight tight ends, eight linebackers, four guards and two centers. In each of those years, either defensive back or wide receiver was the position with the most players selected in round one. (Defensive end tied defensive backs with six picks each in 2003).

On defensive, there are also a few surprises. Both the Steelers and the Seahwaks have formidable defenses. In the AFC, only the Indianapolis Colts allowed fewer points than the Steelers. In the NFC, only the Chicago Bears and the Carolina Panthers allowed fewer points than the Seahawks. Yet both the Steelers and the Seahawks have fewer first round starters on defense than on offense.

The Seahawks will play a 4-3 defense with first round draft picks Marcuss Tubbs and Grant Wistrom on the line and Marcus Trufant in the defensive backfield. The Steelers will counter with a 3-4 defense with one first rounders Casey Hampton at nose tackle, James Farrior at inside linebacker (originally drafted by the Jets) and Troy Polamalu at safety.

Now don't get the impression that the Steelers and the Seahawks are infallible in their draft selections or that they have a consistent strategy that sets them apart from all other teams. We know that isn't true because they have both made first round selections that just haven't worked out for the team and that have been inconsistent with the idea that they have focused entirely on using high picks to build their lines. The Steelers, for instance, expended first round picks on wide receivers Troy Edwards (1999) and Plexico Burress (2000) and defensive back Chad Scott (1997). Those picks never paid big dividends for Pittsburgh. The Seahawks missed badly when they selected wide receiver Koren Robinson with the ninth pick in 2001 and never made it very far with defensive back Shawn Springs, the third pick in 1997, who is an all-pro player who eventually became too expensive for the Seahawks to keep. The Seahawks also didn't receive any benefit from drafting tackle Chris McIntosh with the 22nd pick in 2000.

Nevertheless, it would be wise for teams with Super Bowl aspirations to note that this year's Super Bowl teams are built around high draft picks on the offensive lines and that the defensive line has not been overlooked either.

[Die Hard]

These teams haven't been shy about taking safeties or tight ends in the 1st round of the draft either. I tally 6 TEs or Ss in the last 5 years. Among the "wasted" draft picks are:

Ed Reed, Troy Polamulu, Heath Miller, Todd Heap, and Ben Watson. Couple of players who are Defensive MVP caliber and 3 Pro Bowl caliber TEs right there. The 6th player is pretty solid as well - Daniel Graham. Not too shabby.

Hey, I never claimed to have a perfect formula :) Though, I'd love to try it :) In fact, I might just do that from now on.. using the Redskins draft slot as a guide. Actually, scratch that... since the Skins never seem to have any draft picks to work with anyways. I'll pick another random team in the middle of the pack.

My approach is very different than most philosophies... but I'm throwing it out there for discussion. I'm pretty confident in it though :)

[Mercuryrising]

I will give you it is a very interesting theory. I will not argue the value of trench play. I am willing to give you your assertion that with stout DL you can plug later round player into the mix. I am going to think on this for a while..... nice thread!

[chipwhich]

My approach is very different than most philosophies... but I'm throwing it out there for discussion. I'm pretty confident in it though :)

You could probably go back and see who you WOULD have drafted for the Redskins the last 10 years....one thing is for certain, you couldn't have done much worse than our draft-ers :cheers:

[Oldskool]

You should know by now that Im a solid believer that a team wins with its Offensive and Defensive lines. That a solid Defense is build from the D line to the LBs and then to the secondary. That unless you have a beast of a O line to blow holes for the RB and pass protect for the QB, the offense will suffer, no matter the talent level you have at QB/RB/TE/WR.

We should be drafting linemen first and foremost each and every year unless there is a superb talent at a different position in the first round.

The Eagles have learned this and thrive with their O and D lines. We need to realize this.

[Mercuryrising]

You could probably go back and see who you WOULD have drafted for the Redskins the last 10 years....one thing is for certain, you couldn't have done much worse than our draft-ers :cheers:

Well geez, can you set the bar any lower for him?!?!?!?! :laugh:

[Die Hard]

We should be drafting linemen first and foremost each and every year unless there is a superb talent at a different position in the first round.

You know why I'm so adamant about sticking to the plan and NOT making exceptions?

Because every year... you can make a strong argument to pick another player (a player whose draft stock has fallen) who falls into your lap. Ever year. And you can do that for 15 years before you realize that you haven't drafted a lineman in a very long time.

Nah, you can't make exceptions... UNTIL the lines are completely solidified. In which case... I'm already 4-5 years into my plan so I might be flexible enough to do it once :)

[Oldskool]

You know why I'm so adamant about sticking to the plan and NOT making exceptions?

Because every year... you can make a strong argument to pick another player (a player whose draft stock has fallen) who falls into your lap. Ever year. And you can do that for 15 years before you realize that you haven't drafted a lineman in a very long time.

Nah, you can't make exceptions... UNTIL the lines are completely solidified. In which case... I'm already 4-5 years into my plan so I might be flexible enough to do it once :)

The only way I'd make an exception are years like this. This is one of the thinnest classes at DT/NT and almost non existent at DE, and unless the team were able to land Alan Branch, then there are other holes that could be filled with a 1st round pick.

But for the most part im 100% behind lineman with the 1st round pick.

[Isifhan]

Read the thread... linebackers, safeties, fullbacks and tight ends are found in the 6th and 7th rounds.... and the team signs some mid-tier free agents to fill some holes.

Go take a strong look at who is playing linebacker and corner for the Saints.

Again, in practice I just think there has to be some flexibility. Are you saying that you would have passed on Chris Cooley and drafted one of these guys?

Stephen Peterman (started 5 games in his career)
Sean Locklear (right tackle starter for Seattle)
Tony Hargrove (9 sacks in three years)
Travelle Wharton (IR 2006, switched between starting left guard and tackle for Carolina)

knowing that there was a good chance that you had a special talent in Cooley like our FO did? The two you could make a case for would be Locklear and Wharton, but we had Samules and Jansen already. So, you would be passing on a cheap, potentially excellent skill player for a backup at best (when they were drafted) offensive lineman. I guess that's a good plan I dunno.

[Die Hard]

Again, in practice I just think there has to be some flexibility. Are you saying that you would have passed on Chris Cooley and drafted one of these guys?

Stephen Peterman (started 5 games in his career)
Sean Locklear (right tackle starter for Seattle)
Tony Hargrove (9 sacks in three years)
Travelle Wharton (IR 2006, switched between starting left guard and tackle for Carolina)

knowing that there was a good chance that you had a special talent in Cooley like our FO did? The two you could make a case for would be Locklear and Wharton, but we had Samules and Jansen already. So, you would be passing on a cheap, potentially excellent skill player for a backup at best (when they were drafted) offensive lineman. I guess that's a good plan I dunno.

Yes, in my strategy... I would have drafted either of them.

Here are the offensive linemen drafted in the 3rd round:

3 66 Nick Hardwick Chargers C Purdue
12 75 Max Starks Steelers T Florida
20 83 Stephen Peterman Cowboys G Louisiana State
21 84 Sean Locklear Seahawks G North Carolina State
31 94 Travelle Wharton Panthers T South Carolina

Most of those guys are solid starters :) Now, straight up, Cooley is a better player at his position (one not critically important though) than any of those guys... but you know what I'm saying.

You start building up your offensive line... and some depth whereby injuries along the offensive line shouldn't cripple your offense... and same with the defense.... and I claim you don't need a guy like Cooley so much :)

[Isifhan]

Yes, in my strategy... I would have drafted either of them.

Here are the offensive linemen drafted in the 3rd round:

3 66 Nick Hardwick Chargers C Purdue
12 75 Max Starks Steelers T Florida
20 83 Stephen Peterman Cowboys G Louisiana State
21 84 Sean Locklear Seahawks G North Carolina State
31 94 Travelle Wharton Panthers T South Carolina

Most of those guys are solid starters :) Now, straight up, Cooley is a better player at his position (one not critically important though) than any of those guys... but you know what I'm saying.

You start building up your offensive line... and some depth whereby injuries along the offensive line shouldn't cripple your offense... and same with the defense.... and I claim you don't need a guy like Cooley so much :)

Hadwick and Starks were gone when we picked so really you are choosing between Wharton, Locklear and Peterman. I know what you are saying and I can see your point but we already had solid starters at their drafted position, who are the same starters that we currently have. So unless you think they would have beaten out (knowing our coaching staff and their views on Veterans) Samuels (a two time pro-bowler when drafted) and Jansen (a veteran who was considered at the time one of the best RT's in the game) then you are passing on a bona fide starter (in Cooley) for depth. Yes there iis a case to be made for that but there has to be room for flexibility when there is a chance to draft a player that can make an immediate impact IMO.

[thinker]

It's isn't as important what position you draft as drafting a quality prospect. You just can't go draft after draft not getting a bunch of quality players.

[Oldskool]

It's isn't as important what position you draft as drafting a quality prospect. You just can't go draft after draft not getting a bunch of quality players.

As opposed to picking ala carte players that are the best athlete at their positions in the draft, screw what we actually need?

No thanks, this league has proven over and over again that great depth and good talent wins over good depth and great talent.

[Yusuf06]

That's not what he's said at all. His contention is simply that an excellent offensive line will make an average RB look very good. And that an outstanding D-line will make an average LB corps look good. And secondary for that matter. Quick, can someone tell me who the CBs were for Carolina when they lost to the Patriots in the Super Bowl? How about their D-line? Right. Buckner, Peppers, Jenkins... CB? Manning, Jr, and, um, well, I dunno.

DING!!:idea: I picked against the Panthros early and often that season under the premise that their CBs were horrible and they'd never be able to cover. After I got tired of missing picks I realized that their CBs didn't have to cover all that well all the time since many times when they got toasted nobody noticed because the opposing QB was spitting out teeth while the WRs ran free downfield.

It was a lesson well learned. Pass rush pressure can often cover for a wealth of warts in the secondary. In our case with a ball hawking S like Taylor and one very good CB in Springs (when he's in the game) adding some pass rush pressure from the front four should allow us to improve our pass defense significantly...including the all important turnover ratio.

As I've said before, it's either "It's about the lines stupid" or you're going to find yourself saying ":doh: It's about the stupid lines!"

[Oldfan]

At the college level, teams that couldn't compete with the traditional powerhouse rushing teams like Nebraska and Ohio State, went to the WCO and Shotgun Spread because those schemes don't need massive athletes on the O line to move the football.

Their strategies worked so well that the traditional powerhouses had to go back to the drawing board to remain competitive.

With the available talent spread evenly over 32 NFL rosters, I would think that the smartest move would be to begin with schemes that don't rely on having hugely talented offensive and defensive lines.

I think your planning has to begin with the schemes you will use. Your drafting strategy follows that.

[Goaldeje]

As I've said before, it's either "It's about the lines stupid" or you're going to find yourself saying ":doh: It's about the stupid lines!"


And that's the crux on DH's arguement. A dominant pair of lines can mask mediocrity elsewhere. Alternatively, a great secondary can mask a deficient defensive line, but not as well, and not as often. The Defensive Line is much more key than the secondary, imo.

I see what DH is saying with this. It makes sense on a lot of levels. If you draft the lines well, you can make up for other positions. Think about us last year with Brunell. We protect him, he looks great, should have been in the Pro Bowl. This year, we switch to a new blocking scheme, our line looks horrible, we can't keep defenses off Brunell, and we all know what happens...

The Eagles have had plenty of misses in their drafts, but they have more than made up for that with their successes.