Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[Ernie5]

Nope but I now have to make like a banana and split.

Longshot, Oldfan, Pwyl, and Ernie5 its been my pleasure sitting here today and talking with you guys. Please don't take anything I said to heart, you all are great and I look forward to talking with you guys more down the road. But I gotta go play in a texas hold em tournement now. Take care guys!!!

Good luck. Discussions like this are why I come here.

[Oldfan]

You've lost me. Last time I checked a coin flip was 50% going to be heads, 50% going to be tails. Now there is always that chance it lands on the edge and its neither but the point is that a coin flip is 50% one way, 50% another. If it's not then please tell me what it is

My wording was clumsy. I'm saying that a 50% draft hit rate can't be compared to a coin flip because the natural odds of the coin flip is 50/50 whereas the natural odds against a 50% draft hit rate purely by chance are huge. The point is that the crapshoot and the coin flip represent purely random events, so they are not like the drafting process which requires skill.

[Oldfan]

Nope but I now have to make like a banana and split.

Longshot, Oldfan, Pwyl, and Ernie5 its been my pleasure sitting here today and talking with you guys. Please don't take anything I said to heart, you all are great and I look forward to talking with you guys more down the road. But I gotta go play in a texas hold em tournement now. Take care guys!!!

I enjoyed it, Amigo.

[Skinsinparadise]

We may not have passed on any obvious stud, but we did pass on players that we could have reasonably expected to contribute a lot more. For example, Calais Campbell or Jason Jones or Mike Pollak. Heck, even DeSean Jackson as a punt returner... Though that is kind of a stretch.

OK, now that's a fair debate, lets talk specific players. Them taking Jackson though sort of goes against the grain of your point which is to draft on the lines. I don't recall an outcry about not drafting Jackson, yeah he worked out with the Eagles but that's 20/20 hindsight.

We have Calais Campbell's past college coach on staff, and am gathering he knows him well. The rap on Calais was he's boom or bust player. Apparently his past college coach is expecting him to be a bust, so far its true.

As for Jones, yeah I liked him as a prospect but he wasn't one of the top tier touted De's, he was projected I recall a late 2nd and at best in some mocks drafts 3rd to 5th. But yeah he looks like he can turn out well. But he didn't seem like a slam dunk. If I recall he had 5 sacks this year?

[turbodiesel#44]

We are talking about a draft strategy. You can't make the trade down part of your strategy because a partner willing to pay a premium to trade up is needed.

So you find a partner. duh. If the guy is as great at a position as you say he is, shouldn't be a problem.

In the 20 years (1983 -2002) drafting a lineman for need would have been a good idea 10 times. Doesn't that tell you that the draft isn't like Home Depot. You can't just go into it expecting to fill your needs list.

You continue with this idiocy where you are going BACK in time to predict PAST draft value. Really, you are starting to look senile. Like I said, there is no consensus on a draft value rating for a guy AFTER HE HAS COMPLETED HIS CAREER. You keep pulling Dan Marino up. WTF??? If I'm building a shelf and Home Depot is out of #3 screws, I get #4 screws, not drain cleaner.

You and your partners in this thread can't get it right even in hindsight. Given the choice, you passed up Tony Gonzales, a sure-fire HOF tight end, for a Trevor Price or a Reynaldo Wynn because we need linemen more than TEs. You are living proof that we could do a lot worse than Vinny in the front office.

I'm done with this thread.

[Shilsu]

OK, now that's a fair debate, lets talk specific players. Them taking Jackson though sort of goes against the grain of your point which is to draft on the lines. I don't recall an outcry about not drafting Jackson, yeah he worked out with the Eagles but that's 20/20 hindsight.

We have Calais Campbell's past college coach on staff, and am gathering he knows him well. The rap on Calais was he's boom or bust player. Apparently his past college coach is expecting him to be a bust, so far its true.

As for Jones, yeah I liked him as a prospect but he wasn't one of the top tier touted De's, he was projected I recall a late 2nd and at best in some mocks drafts 3rd to 5th. But yeah he looks like he can turn out well. But he didn't seem like a slam dunk. If I recall he had 5 sacks this year?

The thing is, you're now trying to rationalize not taking those players because of what you consider limited production... But the problem is they all still outproduced Fred Davis. And I don't blame that on Fred Davis.

[Skinsinparadise]

The thing is, you're now trying to rationalize not taking those players because of what you consider limited production... But the problem is they all still outproduced Fred Davis. And I don't blame that on Fred Davis.

It doesn't seem like you are reading my posts that closely if that's your take. I flat out said at the time I didn't like the Davis pick but at the same time didn't say to myself darn we missed out on an obvious OT or DE that I was into.

But what the heck I'll play along. Davis really didn't play for the most part, so now its one and done for rookie TE's and Wr's? As for Calais Campbell he played a little more but he didn't put up any numbers.

Were you touting Deshawn Jackson and said right after the draft the Skins blew it at the time by not drafting him? If so, cool, but if not easy to say that kind of stuff after a season plays out.

It's easy a year later to say well that guy played well so we should have taken him. Same idea would apply to Chris Horton, all those teams that blew it by not taking him, easy to say now, but at the time I doubt there was an outcry about it.

At least on this board, I noticed people clamoring for Jamal Anderson when we took Landry. I don't recall people saying darn we should have taken Deshaun Jackson instead when we took Fred Davis -- Calais Campbell yeah, Jones, nope. Some people I recall wanted Merling as opposed to trading down. But not drafting Jackson and Jones, don't recall an outcry at the time, but if you say it happened am open to being wrong.

[Shilsu]

But what the heck I'll play along. Davis really didn't play for the most part, so now its one and done for rookie TE's and Wr's?

So you can't judge Fred Davis after one year, but you can judge the other players?

[skinny21]

I disagree with the philosophy....you don't draft the best possible player in all instances. if you have a good TE...you can pass up on a Gonzales and draft another player who provides incremental improvement to THE TEAM at a different position who makes the team stronger more broadlly.

The BPA philosphy is one I start to get on board with and then I'm swayed by this one. My guess is that teams grade out their current players and the draftees and then draft whoever (they believe) will help them the most. In other words, whoever provides them with the most "incremental improvement". I wonder if the major difference between teams is how far ahead they look.

On a side note... given our red zone woes this past season I'm glad we picked three pass catchers last year (Davis was the questionable one but its my impression at least that the value was easily the greatest).

I'd also be curious how comments would have played out had Cooley been injured (last year or this next year). Would I have preferred a very good DE/T to an elite TE (based on their grades at the time, of course)? Definitely. Did we have an opportunity to do this? Not that I can tell (I'm with you there elkabong).

[Going Commando]

Do you hold a crystal ball or something? Can you tell the future? No you can't, no one can. Why do people think they can do this? Seriously with comments like this you'd think we should be named Ms. Cleo or something :doh:

Note the key words What if at the beginning of my post. Of course I don't know what is going to happen which is why I began my post that way instead of with "This will definitely happen:"

The scenario I described is entirely possible, in fact, its not even that far fetched. Not wanting it to happen doesn't mean it can't possibly happen. I was merely pointing out the foolishness of the mentality that we absolutely must draft an offensive lineman in the first round no matter what.

[jflow78]

I didn't know Matt Millen was on this site?! Isn't this exactly why the Lions are in a hole right now?

The point that talent at certain positions fluxuates from year to year is true, but if, for four years in a row the #1 guy on the board at that time is a WR, you're an idiot if you pick 4 Wide outs with your #1. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Then you're paying a good quarter of your cap to 2 great WRs and 2 great WRs that don't see the field much.

I say pick the best player at a position of need unless you have the luxury and flexibility of picking the best overall, and unless the drop off in talent is like choosing between a starter and a backup.

[Going Commando]

It isn't about predicting the future. It is the very realistic idea that the top 4 tackles could be off the board when we pick. Then what? Do we reach for Ebon Britton, who is probably going to be the next lineman off the board? Do we do that over BJ Raji, Rey Maualuga or Brian Orakpo, if any of those players are there? I don't think so, because those players are probably better overall than Britton.

If anything, LB is probably the biggest need of all right now because we don't really have a guy who can play the Mike position now.

I agree with you and you backed me up. But did you mean sam or will instead? Or did you mean mike (a couple seasons down the road)? London Fletcher has still got it.

Nevermind, I just found where you changed it.

[Going Commando]

I didn't know Matt Millen was on this site?! Isn't this exactly why the Lions are in a hole right now?

The point that talent at certain positions fluxuates from year to year is true, but if, for four years in a row the #1 guy on the board at that time is a WR, you're an idiot if you pick 4 Wide outs with your #1. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Then you're paying a good quarter of your cap to 2 great WRs and 2 great WRs that don't see the field much.

I say pick the best player at a position of need unless you have the luxury and flexibility of picking the best overall, and unless the drop off in talent is like choosing between a starter and a backup.

The Lions got into trouble not by taking BPA, but because WR wasn't the best position available when they drafted those 4 in 5 years and they picked one anyway. They completely and utterly whiffed on two of them. Johnson looks like a homerun, and Williams was very good for them and they were able to leverage him into an excellent trade.

[SkinsFTW]

I'm done with this thread.

Exactly, because if Vinny says that a guy is the next Gonzales it must be true. :rotflmao::rotflmao:

[Going Commando]

You're the king of the strawman today.

Haha. You figured it out right there. Just let it go, you will feel better.

[jflow78]

The Lions got into trouble not by taking BPA, but because WR wasn't the best position available when they drafted those 4 in 5 years and they picked one anyway. They completely and utterly whiffed on two of them. Johnson looks like a homerun, and Williams was very good for them and they were able to leverage him into an excellent trade.

Really? Calvin Johnson was by far the best player available, and even though they'd already picked 3 WRs in 4 years, NO ONE made a big deal out of it because he WAS the best player in the draft.

ESPN gave the Lions a B for the draft in 05 when Mike Williams was the selection, one scouting site even said, "Taking Mike Williams, the best player in the draft, was a great decision. All of the Lions' draft choices were great, especially DE/DT Shaun Cody in round two, CB Stanley Wilson in round three and Bill Swancutt in round six." Footballfutures gave them an A and said, "--I really like what the Lions did this weekend. Mike Williams fell to 10, and the Lions snagged him up immediately. He did not fill a pressing need, but you simply cannot pass on a talent like him."

In 04, when they drafted Roy Williams, Kiper gave them an A and said he was a, "great pick to compliment Charles Rogers." Pro Football Weekly agreed with Kiper, gave them an A and said, "Stayed true to Steve Mariucci’s plan of landing three to four starters by trading down. Added two playmakers in Roy WIlliams and Kevin Jones and two solid defenders." Ironically this is the only one where I saw no one calling him the "bpa" and instead saying he was the best player at a need position and not a reach, and he actually worked out.

And last but not least, in 03, when they picked up Charles "the bust" Rogers, the stories were the same, "Not only is Charles Rogers rated as the top NFL Draft prospect at wide receiver, many scouts feel he is the best player in the draft." That coming from footballabout.com, and you'll have to excuse the reference, it's kind of hard to find articles for the draft that far back.

My point is, it looks to me like they took the "Best Player Available" in all but maybe one of those selections.

[Going Commando]

The title of this thread should of been, drafting for need is stupid, and it is.

But building a team, trenches first is a must. You can have a ton of skill players, even HOF skill players, and they aren't going to win a championship without decent trench players.(see: New Orleans Saints) On the otherhand, a team can win with quality trench players even though they may not have skill players who put up gawdy statistics.(see: Tennessee Titans)

Now ideally, you want both. But leaning towards drafting/trading for/signing quality skill players is much more damaging to a team than leaning towards drafting/trading for/signing quality trench players.

I agree with you, but I think you picked a bad example with New Orleans. They have a very good offensive line, one of the best in the league. Jamaal Brown and Jahri Evans are two of the best at their positions and are both fairly young players.

Their defensive line will get better two, because I think Will Smith is competent and I still think Sedrick Ellis is a blue chipper. Its actually the defensive skill position players on the Saints that are god awful. Outside of Vilma they have nothing except maybe Tracy Porter. They aren't a championship caliber team because their running game is really inconsistent and their defense is plain bad, not because of ineptitude in the trenches.

You'd be surprised about how much of the game is played out in the Secondary these days. People say you can have great coverage in the world and it wont matter if the QB has all day to throw the ball. Its just as true that you can get lots of pressure on the QB and it won't matter if his receivers are always open. We focus on the dline because we can see how much of a pass rush we mount on our tvs, we can't see our DB's pressing and jockeying for position in the backfield.

[Going Commando]

Really? Calvin Johnson was by far the best player available, and even though they'd already picked 3 WRs in 4 years, NO ONE made a big deal out of it because he WAS the best player in the draft.

ESPN gave the Lions a B for the draft in 05 when Mike Williams was the selection, one scouting site even said, "Taking Mike Williams, the best player in the draft, was a great decision. All of the Lions' draft choices were great, especially DE/DT Shaun Cody in round two, CB Stanley Wilson in round three and Bill Swancutt in round six." Footballfutures gave them an A and said, "--I really like what the Lions did this weekend. Mike Williams fell to 10, and the Lions snagged him up immediately. He did not fill a pressing need, but you simply cannot pass on a talent like him."

In 04, when they drafted Roy Williams, Kiper gave them an A and said he was a, "great pick to compliment Charles Rogers." Pro Football Weekly agreed with Kiper, gave them an A and said, "Stayed true to Steve Mariucci’s plan of landing three to four starters by trading down. Added two playmakers in Roy WIlliams and Kevin Jones and two solid defenders." Ironically this is the only one where I saw no one calling him the "bpa" and instead saying he was the best player at a need position and not a reach, and he actually worked out.

And last but not least, in 03, when they picked up Charles "the bust" Rogers, the stories were the same, "Not only is Charles Rogers rated as the top NFL Draft prospect at wide receiver, many scouts feel he is the best player in the draft." That coming from footballabout.com, and you'll have to excuse the reference, it's kind of hard to find articles for the draft that far back.

My point is, it looks to me like they took the "Best Player Available" in all but maybe one of those selections.

You are relying on the likes of Kiper to determine the ratings it sounds like. He was notoriously high on Mike Williams, and he was simply wrong. There are more competent sources than him to determine player value rankings. Notably, whoever ran the Redskins draft in '05 would be one since they didn't think that much of Mike Williams and chose Rogers instead even though WR was arguably a greater position of need.

Also, it sounds like you are quoting sources in the Draftnik community. I really don't think you can put too much stock into early draft analysis like that or anyone who takes themselves to seriously when they do it. So much of the analysis is built upon its own self sustaining hype machine.

Undoubtedly, the Lions drafted who they thought the best player available was at the time. The problem was their scouts were bad. Their draft board was bad. Their strategy didn't fail, their scouting did.

[Going Commando]

Here's an interesting thought for you:

I would trade forward every year if it meant more picks. Meaning I would always trade this year's first for a first and _____ (third or higher probably) next year.

How about always trading future picks. Just say, hey, I'll trade you my 1st next year for your first this year, and then keep doing it every single year so that you would never have to pay that piper. Theoretically, couldn't you do this? The only downside I guess would be if you always sucked and were trading off top 5 picks for mid to late round ones. But then you just wouldnt be drafting very well.

[Oldfan]

ttr77: So you find a partner. duh. If the guy is as great at a position as you say he is, shouldn't be a problem.

So, part of your strategy is that the GM must be a silver tongued devil who can talk teams into moving up?

You continue with this idiocy where you are going BACK in time to predict PAST draft value. Really, you are starting to look senile. Like I said, there is no consensus on a draft value rating for a guy AFTER HE HAS COMPLETED HIS CAREER. You keep pulling Dan Marino up. WTF??? ...

Using hindsight to learn from the past is an accepted concept. I would imagine that the approach I used here is similar to more extensive studies, done with entire drafts, by every GM in the NFL. It can be used to determine how often trading up is successful as opposed to trading down. It could be used to look for common characteristics in good and bad draft picks as well.

...If I'm building a shelf and Home Depot is out of #3 screws, I get #4 screws, not drain cleaner.

False analogies. The draft is not like Home Depot and building a football team is not like building a shelf. Drafting the BPA is a long-term strategy to add more value to the roster rather than settle for a mediocre player to fill a hole. If that's what you want, you can use a cheap free agent like Belichick did in 2001.

I'm done with this thread.

Oh my. I didn't have you figured for the sensitive type. In your last post, you said I was starting to look senile, then at its close, you get miffed when I imply that Vinny is doing a better job than you would.

[Oldfan]

jflow78: I didn't know Matt Millen was on this site?! Isn't this exactly why the Lions are in a hole right now?

Seems to me that the Lions are in a hole because Millen was a poor judge of talent.

The point that talent at certain positions fluxuates from year to year is true, but if, for four years in a row the #1 guy on the board at that time is a WR, you're an idiot if you pick 4 Wide outs with your #1.

Not if you draft well and can eventually trade a couple of those players for greater value than a #1 pick as the current FO did with Roy Williams.

I say pick the best player at a position of need unless you have the luxury and flexibility of picking the best overall, and unless the drop off in talent is like choosing between a starter and a backup.

I won't pass up a grade A player to take a grade B player at a position of need. Mine is a long-term strategy more concerned with breaking out of the mediocre middle and less concerned with filling a hole for next season.

[Oldfan]

Exactly, because if Vinny says that a guy is the next Gonzales it must be true. :

If Vinny's multi-million dollar scouting system grades the TE as the next Tony Gonzales, would you pass on him to take a player graded like the next Reynaldo Wynn because he's a lineman?

If you are so desperate to win right away, why not pick up a mediocre free agent to fill the hole temporarily? Why spend a #1 pick on a mediocre player?

[Oldfan]

How about always trading future picks. Just say, hey, I'll trade you my 1st next year for your first this year, and then keep doing it every single year so that you would never have to pay that piper. Theoretically, couldn't you do this? The only downside I guess would be if you always sucked and were trading off top 5 picks for mid to late round ones. But then you just wouldnt be drafting very well.

Your strategy is a win-now approach because the premium you are paying for the rights to current draft picks lowers the overall value of your annual seven selections increasingly each season.

[Veretax]

I disagree, yet agree... If the draft class is not good enough then your better drafting BPA that I agree with however. I think taking aside the realities, filling your trenches first is a good way to ensure long term success.

[jflow78]

You are relying on the likes of Kiper to determine the ratings it sounds like. He was notoriously high on Mike Williams, and he was simply wrong. There are more competent sources than him to determine player value rankings. Notably, whoever ran the Redskins draft in '05 would be one since they didn't think that much of Mike Williams and chose Rogers instead even though WR was arguably a greater position of need.

Also, it sounds like you are quoting sources in the Draftnik community. I really don't think you can put too much stock into early draft analysis like that or anyone who takes themselves to seriously when they do it. So much of the analysis is built upon its own self sustaining hype machine.

Undoubtedly, the Lions drafted who they thought the best player available was at the time. The problem was their scouts were bad. Their draft board was bad. Their strategy didn't fail, their scouting did.

I agree, but where else are you going to get your draft analysis. If we could all have the post draft analysis before the draft, then you wouldn't have draft busts. And I think I only used one Kiper quote, one Pro Football Weekly quote, and a few other sites. Mike Williams had "tons of potential" and no one knew what to expect from him.

I agree, the Lions FO is the NFL equivalent to the 3 stooges, but at that time, it was the best info available. If you have another source, I'd love to hear it because I'll start reading it along with the others.