A direct correlation in drafting a 1st round OT and immediate offensive improvement

[JoeSkins]

The fact that he plays so well despite those mental limitations says something.

It means he has a physical advantage in college that he won't have in the professional game, and also that he'll struggle in the NFL where defenses get a lot more complex. :2cents:

[Rufus T Firefly]

That isn't a problem. The only valid criticism of the OP stats is that the sample size is small. That other factors contributed is a given. The correlation for each factor is unaffected by the existence of other factors.

Let's assume that 26 factors can contribute to offensive improvement (that's probably a low number) and we had a long-term statistical study on this. We'll label those factors A-Z. Logically, I would expect the correlations to turn out something like this:

A) New and better offensive scheme 0.78

New and better quarterback 0.70

C) New and better blindside tackle 0.60

Imagine D thru Z with descending correlations

That all sounds nice. But the point of the original post was 'draft a T, get better immediately'. But looking deeper at the examples, here's is what appears to be the case:

Draft a T, get better at QB, you improve

Draft a T, don't get better at QB, you get worse

Draft a T, get better at QB, you improve, even if the T doesn't contribute much (the Sam Baker case)

So, despite the nice research by the OP (who I'm in no way trying to bash), the whole premise of a "direct correlation" between drafting a T and immediate improvement doesn't really exist at all.

What are you arguing at this point? That getting better talent improves an offense? That LT is one of the more important areas to have talent on offense? I haven't seen anyone trying to dispute either of those claims. But none of that makes the "direct correlation" claim any more valid.

[Rufus T Firefly]

It means he has a physical advantage in college that he won't have in the professional game, and also that he'll struggle in the NFL where defenses get a lot more complex. :2cents:

That's basically what I was going to respond, though my post likely would have been more rambling and incoherent.

I read the book, which I thought was excellent, I find his story compelling, and I am rooting for him to succeed. But I would still be leery (at the very least) about drafting a guy who can't read a playbook or learn his assignments after several years of personal tutoring.

[Recent Vintage]

If we can draft a swing RT-LT guy like Oher I'd be extremely excited.

With pick 13 we should be targeting Oher, Monroe, or Smith at tackle, BJ Raji at DT, and if Aaron Curry falls it would be a crime not to take him.

Of course it depends on how things go, but trading down is an option as well, but I'd hope to stay in the first round.

[Laron Burgundy]

It means he has a physical advantage in college that he won't have in the professional game, and also that he'll struggle in the NFL where defenses get a lot more complex. :2cents:

He obviously has physical advantages but, to note, he does play in the SEC. That means he plays against several pro-caliber defensive ends a year. Now, I have no doubt defensive coordinators will try to take advantage of him, so his best position may be to just move inside and play guard, or, at the very least, stick at right tackle.