Oldskool Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 3 rounds (2000-2008):8 - Patriots 8 - Giants 7 - Steelers 6 - Colts 3 - Redskins Here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 2 rounds (2000-2008): 7 - Patriots 5 - Giants 4 - Colts 4 - Steelers 1 - Redskins As is common knowledge, winning teams draft lineman on a regular basis. /thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedevilhimself Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I guess that's why between 1982 and 1991 the Redskins actually drafted 15 offensive linemen because they didn't want to replenish the line?? You meen before full free agency when the draft was 12 rounds long we also drafted 20 DBs, 7 Qbs, 13 Wrs etc etc ... The draft was the main way you got players ... Between 1982-1991 we had a 1st round pick twice .. We actually picked up as many starters off the street as from the draft in that period e.g. UDFA (Joe Jacoby) and Philly long snapper cast off Jeff Bostic , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 3 rounds (2000-2008):8 - Patriots 8 - Giants 7 - Steelers 6 - Colts 3 - Redskins Here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 2 rounds (2000-2008): 7 - Patriots 5 - Giants 4 - Colts 4 - Steelers 1 - Redskins Awesome post. :applause:This is pretty much all there is to this topic. You want to win in this league? Take linemen, on both sides of the ball, in the first 3 rounds of the draft. And take at least one every year somewhere in those rounds, if not two or maybe even three depending on the team's need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 3 rounds (2000-2008):8 - Patriots 8 - Giants 7 - Steelers 6 - Colts 3 - Redskins Here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 2 rounds (2000-2008): 7 - Patriots 5 - Giants 4 - Colts 4 - Steelers 1 - Redskins Your stats confirm that the Redskins did not draft as many linemen as the winning teams you listed. That's a given in this discussion. However, the teams you listed spent less of their draft resources on linemen than on non-linemen. [9 of 22 positions are on the line -- 40.9%] The two most successful teams spent the least. Source: The Post article Team, overall pct., pct. rounds 1-4 Patriots - -- 28.6 --- 28.6 --- 101 wins Giants --- 32.8 --- 35.3 --- 80 wins Colts --- 29.7 --- 23.7 --- 101 wins Steelers --- 39 --- 36.1 --- 94 wins Dolphins --- 40 --- 43.3 --- 62 wins Cardinals --- 41.5 --- 43.6 --- 52 wins BTW, the Cards and Phins picked nine linemen each in rounds 1-3 in 2000-2008, more than any of the winning teams you listed. Winning teams build through the draft. We already knew that. Winning teams are better at talent evaluation. We knew that also. There is no evidence that winning teams "build the trenches first" as LaCanafora suggests in the article. In fact, the stats show that winning teams spend relatively less draft resources on linemen than on non-linemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Correction: I just realized that the list of stats in the previous post, taken from the Post article, is somewhat deceptive because the teams that play a 3-4 have eight line positions while those playing the 4-3 have nine. 9 of 22 = 40.9% 8 of 22 = 36.4 % Patriots - -- 28.6 --- 28.6 --- 101 wins Giants --- 32.8 --- 35.3 --- 80 wins Colts --- 29.7 --- 23.7 --- 101 wins Steelers --- 39 --- 36.1 --- 94 wins Dolphins --- 40 --- 43.3 --- 62 wins Cardinals --- 41.5 --- 43.6 --- 52 wins So, the Colts and the Patriots numbers should be compared to 36.4%. My conclusion is still true, both teams spend relatively more of their draft resources on non-lineman, but the difference isn't as great as the stats indicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Oldfan,Wouldn't the Redskins 1981 draft support the theory of building the lines as setting the table for sustained success?? May Grimm Manley Grant I've seen you make reference to that draft in other threads about how that set the table for Gibbs I, why is that philosophy lost on you now? You misread me. I'm not downgrading the importance of line play. I'm arguing against the "build the trenches first" theory and the idea that the lines are the dominant factor in building a team. That Beathard's 1981 rookie crop included May, Grimm and Jacoby (UDFA) to meld perfectly with Riggins and Joe's power run game was an outrageous piece of luck. You can't plan to build a team that way. Beathard never came close to the 1981 success again in his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Source: The Post article Team, overall pct., pct. rounds 1-4 Patriots - -- 28.6 --- 28.6 --- 101 wins Giants --- 32.8 --- 35.3 --- 80 wins Colts --- 29.7 --- 23.7 --- 101 wins Steelers --- 39 --- 36.1 --- 94 wins Dolphins --- 40 --- 43.3 --- 62 wins Cardinals --- 41.5 --- 43.6 --- 52 wins BTW, the Cards and Phins picked nine linemen each in rounds 1-3 in 2000-2008, more than any of the winning teams you listed. For what it's worth, the Dolphins had 72 wins and the Patriots had 102 wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geneva Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Teams draft to fill needs. You don't draft linemen if you don't need to fill a problem on your O &D Line....Then there are teams that you can never understand how or why they draft some players. Example the Redskins & Detroit..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Teams draft to fill needs.... It's a question of emphasis. It's my sense is that the most successful teams emphasize taking the best player on the board with need as a secondary consideration.The college drafts come loaded with talent at some positions, weak at others, so needs aren't so easily filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 There is no evidence that winning teams "build the trenches first" as LaCanafora suggests in the article. That's because JLC is no authority on how winning teams are built. Not every team with an above average or even great offensive or defensive line is destined for the playoffs. His premise is an oversimplification. In fact' date=' the stats show that winning teams spend relatively less draft resources on linemen than on non-linemen.[/b'] I would venture a guess and say that strong front offices build winning teams through a few avenues; trades, free agency, both of the drafted and undrafted variety, and by scouring different leagues for players. And the strength of those front offices, in addition to the talent they choose, is supplementing the draft by those aforementioned means. Certainly, there are more ways than one to address the lines. A point not covered in JLC's latest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 I would venture a guess and say that strong front offices build winning teams through a few avenues; trades, free agency, both of the drafted and undrafted variety, and by scouring different leagues for players. And the strength of those front offices, in addition to the talent they choose, is supplementing the draft by those aforementioned means...Certainly, there are more ways than one to address the lines. A point not covered in JLC's latest. The Redskins would be a much better team today if they had made no trades at all. It's a vicious cycle. The trade for Kendall was necessary because we lacked depth caused by trading away earlier picks. But seven draft picks won't fill a roster. Some use of free agency is needed and the critics of the front office should recognize that both lines have been maintained or improved through free agency. It's not as though they neglected the lines entirely. Most positions were neglected in the draft, not just the lines. We traded away too many picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDevinThomas Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 We need line, you can argue how we're going to get them, trading, FA, or draft, we need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 The thing that's not been mentioned in this thread is that it's not just about plugging bodies in there when a lineman goes down. You want someone who has knowledge of the system, knows the guys he's next to. That's where, IMO, the hidden value of drafting linemen are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 The thing that's not been mentioned in this thread is that it's not just about plugging bodies in there when a lineman goes down. You want someone who has knowledge of the system, knows the guys he's next to. That's where, IMO, the hidden value of drafting linemen are. Wouldn't you expect a free agent vet like Randy Thomas to come in and adjust to his mates faster than a rookie draft pick, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The two most successful teams spent the least. Here are the percent of linemen drafted in the first 3 rounds (2000-2008): 0.33 - Giants 0.32 - Patriots 0.27 - Steelers 0.22 - Colts 0.14 - Redskins Here are the percent of linemen drafted in the first 2 rounds (2000-2008): 0.41 - Patriots 0.31 - Giants 0.25 - Colts 0.24 - Steelers 0.067 - Redskins However, the teams you listed spent less of their draft resources on linemen than on non-linemen. [9 of 22 positions are on the line -- 40.9%] I guess I missed this part the first time around. Actually the Patriots did spend 40.9% of their picks in the first 2 rounds on linemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Winning teams are better at talent evaluation. We knew that also. If you really did know that, you would stop bringing up the Cardinals and Dolphins in the conversation. Also, the Dolphins are 11-5 and won their division, and the Cardinals are in the Super Bowl. When was the last time we could say those things about the Redskins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've noticed something about Oldfan. Great, interesting insight into the X's and O's and the actual physical part of the game. But I'm sorry buddy, there are times where you're really far out in left field when it comes to the management part of franchise building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Mister Happy: Here are the percent of linemen drafted in the first 3 rounds (2000-2008):0.33 - Giants 0.32 - Patriots 0.27 - Steelers 0.22 - Colts 0.14 - Redskins Here are the percent of linemen drafted in the first 2 rounds (2000-2008): 0.41 - Patriots 0.31 - Giants 0.25 - Colts 0.24 - Steelers 0.067 - Redskins Once again, you are using stats to prove a point that's not at issue. I'm not claiming that the Redskins drafted as many linemen as those other teams. The Redskins have used free agency to build their lines. If you really did know that, [that winning teams are better at talent evaluation] you would stop bringing up the Cardinals and Dolphins in the conversation. I brought them in because 1) LaCanafora uses them in his argument which I am debating and, 2) they prove, by contrast with the winning teams, that drafting more linemen doesn't correlate to wins. Actually the Patriots did spend 40.9% of their picks in the first 2 rounds on linemen. Yes, the Patriots drafted seven linemen with the first two picks spread over a nine-year span, but there's nothing unusual about that. What's amazing is that they never missed with those picks. So, their success appears to be related to their ability to draft better than others teams and not to "building the trenches first" -- which was LaCanafora's argument and a position that is widely held in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've noticed something about Oldfan.Great, interesting insight into the X's and O's and the actual physical part of the game. But I'm sorry buddy, there are times where you're really far out in left field when it comes to the management part of franchise building. I don't follow the crowd on much of anything. I take it you're a "we should build the trenches first" kinda guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've heard this claim before. I've never seen evidence of its validity. Moreover, I doubt it -- because the draft isn't a supermarket. You don't just decide to build your lines first and voila! ...the great players appear on the draft board to fill your needs.Well, maybe you don't think draft percentages mean anything, but those arguing that you build from the trenches obviously do. We have two threads on the first page using the skins low draft percentage in supporting that arguments. welll....I don't doubt it for a second. the Pats defense has been stellar for years for many reasons: scheme, game coaching, talent, talent replenishment/roster strategy. I remember early on how they went after Seymour and then when things faltered they went after wilfolk. d-line has always been a priority for them. it sets everything up for the LB corps. look...I don't care if the Skins are completely in over their heads when it comes to uncovering line talent in the draft..though I would agree with those who assert that is a better, cheaper way of building for long-term success than the idiotic, FAILED strategy they have persued over the years - the evidence of which is obvious and clear: NO Championships. you are working a one-dimensional argument against JLC. fine. not so interesting to me how the straight up numbers arguement works - although one could snidely argue that teams with demonstrated...ummm...difficulties unearthing line talent in the draft should play the numbers game. the key is what the philosophy/strategy is for this team and whether it is consistent over time. and that is manifestly not the case. relay to us in 25 words or less what the football building philosophy/priorties for this team has been over the last 10 years...one consistent, unerring idea structure that has guided how football business is done irrespective of who is coaching. you can't. and that is the problem in a nutshell. and it has manifested itself in average to slightly above average line play over the course of 10 (really 16) seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 one consistent, unerring idea structure that has guided how football business is done irrespective of who is coaching. Great minds I've been saying it for years- the knock on Dan Snyder from my perspective is exactly what most fans think is so great about him. His willingness to bring in a new coach and give that coach exactly what he needs/wants. Sounds great on the surface, but it is probably the worst thing you can do. Hell, look at the results. Strong and successful organizations, imo, bring in coaches to fit into what it is that they are already doing. In other words, the coach fits into an existing framework... the framework isn't tailored to fit the coach. Which is why bringing in a WCO guy to take over Joe's team is incredibly puzzling. As for the thread itself, I'm normally a proponent of the BPA strategy. I mean, what good does "filling a need" do if the guy you're filling it with isn't any good? That's ridiculous. That said, it's also ridiculous to take a guy like Fred Davis in the 2nd round when you already have Cooley. One thing is certain though- the Redskins Olines and Dlines are both in serious need of repair. Where we are not pitifully old, we're pitifully bad. I just don't think we can afford to take BPA... at least not over the next 2 drafts. We're going to need to suck it up and spend some draft picks to shore up the lines, even if it means leaving a higher potential guy still on the board. And we can only thank ourselves for the pickle we're in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinisin Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 true also bring in every undrafted free agent offense and defense no skill positions what ever up grading and getting young is the major priority ith this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinisin Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 besides football is about imposing your teams will on the other teams that is were it all starts and ends poor lines poor production Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrButz65 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 uh, yeah since OL is a weakness on this team. I'd say it is a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yes, the Patriots drafted seven linemen with the first two picks spread over a nine-year span, but there's nothing unusual about that. What's amazing is that they never missed with those picks. So, their success appears to be related to their ability to draft better than others teams and not to "building the trenches first" -- which was LaCanafora's argument and a position that is widely held in this forum. Their success probably also caused to knock down the number of picks they needed to build their lines. Therefore, they DID build the trenches first and were just lucky or good enough to not have to re-visit the trenches. I tried to make this point a couple days ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.