Let's Bottom Line the Draft Thread

[hitmandm]

1. Myth: Dont trade tons of picks to move up in draft. We have too many holes to fill.

a. In the past several years, how many draft picks have we used to acquire a QB? 2 first rounders (Ramsey, and Campbell), a third rounder (Brunnel), a fifth rounder (Palmer) and a 7th rounder (Brennan). So there isn't much of a draft pick difference bewteen trading a boatload of picks for a franchise guy(if shanny thinks he is) or wasting the picks slowly over the years and never having one.

b: Let's look at a recent real world example. The Giants were picking 4th overall becaused they sucked and had tons of holes to fill. What did they do? Trade more picks away to get a franchise QB. They traded away 3 Pro Bowl players. What happened--Giants SB victory. Franchise QBs are the most important thing.

2. Myth (sort of). We need a franchise LT to win.

a. We been down that road. We drafted a franchise Pro Bowl LT in Samuels a decade ago. We had no QB. We didn't get far. The Browns drafted a Pro Bowl LT Thomas. They have no QB. They didn't get far. Look at the Rams and Carolina last year. Top 10 LTs. Didn't get far. I wouldnt include Cincy because Smith didn't even play.

b. except for the Jets who drafted D'Brickshaw, no playoff last year team really spent top draft picks on OL. The Steelers won how many SBs this decade with what top drafted OL? Indy? Giants?

c. JC needs an OL. Until this past season, JCs Oline the past couple of seasons had a first round LT and Guard, a 2nd round ORT and a 3rd round guard. He still sucked and we didn't win. Indy, Pittsburgh, NO and other playoff teams except the Jets didn't have even remotely close to that level of OL in terms of draft position.

Drafting top OL is a good thing, but it hardly correlates to success (see Cleveland, See Rams, see KC) The most important thing is having a franchise QB.

[Conn]

I'm pretty sure Brennan was a 6th rounder. Also, we traded up for Campbell, so it was actually more picks.

I agree with some of your points about being able to fill the OL with good players outside the first round.

But I will say that in referencing the rounds that our OL have come from last couple of seasons, you are leaving out the most important factor: Age. The problem was never that the line didn't have enough high draft picks on it. It was that it didn't have ANY recent draft picks on it, or waiting in the wings. Our line was old and a plan for the future was never put into place.

I don't get your thread title, though.

[krisco750]

1. Myth: Dont trade tons of picks to move up in draft. We have too many holes to fill.

a. In the past several years, how many draft picks have we used to acquire a QB? 2 first rounders (Ramsey, and Campbell), a third rounder (Brunnel), a fifth rounder (Palmer) and a 7th rounder (Brennan). So there isn't much of a draft pick difference bewteen trading a boatload of picks for a franchise guy(if shanny thinks he is) or wasting the picks slowly over the years and never having one.

No one wants us to "waste" draft picks obviously. God forbid we use the draft picks we don't trade away and actually get some good players.

b: Let's look at a recent real world example. The Giants were picking 4th overall becaused they sucked and had tons of holes to fill. What did they do? Trade more picks away to get a franchise QB. They traded away 3 Pro Bowl players. What happened--Giants SB victory. Franchise QBs are the most important thing.

It worked out for the Giants. That doesn't mean it's a formula for success. To this day I still don't think Eli Manning was worth what they gave away for him. They did win a SB though, so I will give them that. It's pretty silly to say that just because the Giants happened to win a Super Bowl after getting taken to the cleaners for their QB it will work for us.

2. Myth (sort of). We need a franchise LT to win.

a. We been down that road. We drafted a franchise Pro Bowl LT in Samuels a decade ago. We had no QB. We didn't get far. The Browns drafted a Pro Bowl LT Thomas. They have no QB. They didn't get far. Look at the Rams and Carolina last year. Top 10 LTs. Didn't get far. I wouldnt include Cincy because Smith didn't even play.

You can't have it both ways. The Giants won their Super Bowl because of their stellar offensive line. They had the luxury of being able to trade away their picks because they had a great offensive and defensive line in place already and just needed a final piece.

b. except for the Jets who drafted D'Brickshaw, no playoff last year team really spent top draft picks on OL. The Steelers won how many SBs this decade with what top drafted OL? Indy? Giants?

Obviously every lineman doesn't have to be a 1st round pick. However, when there isn't a single player on your offensive line that would start on another team it, you don't really have much choice but to invest in it.

c. JC needs an OL. Until this past season, JCs Oline the past couple of seasons had a first round LT and Guard, a 2nd round ORT and a 3rd round guard. He still sucked and we didn't win. Indy, Pittsburgh, NO and other playoff teams except the Jets didn't have even remotely close to that level of OL in terms of draft position.

You're insane if you think our offensive line has been good over the last couple years. Chris Samuels was awesome, but last time I checked there are 4 other guys on the line of scrimmage. It doesn't matter what round they were drafted in if they're old and injury prone.

Drafting top OL is a good thing, but it hardly correlates to success (see Cleveland, See Rams, see KC) The most important thing is having a franchise QB.

Not every team has a "franchise" QB. It's a luxury for a reason.. they don't come along often. Even if we did have one, they wouldn't be able to do anything with a shoddy supporting cast. Football is a _team_ sport. All the pieces have to line up.

I'm not saying we HAVE TO take a lineman with our first round pick or even that I'm completely opposed to taking a QB (although I'd rather not this year). I'm just saying that taking one, even if he is the most amazing QB ever, is not going to automatically make us a contender. You could have put Tom Brady behind our line last year and he would have looked just as dismal as Jason Campbell.

What I do know is that we have a servicable QB (trust me.. i have no delusions of JC being an amazing player or our future), but last year we had probably the worst offensive line in the league. We can hold off on QB another year. We can't afford to neglect OL.

[Arsenic]

I'm hoping like hell that the inept strength conditioning, offensive strategy, or possible lack of QB play had more to do with the OL woes than the seemingly poor talent assembled along the unit (huh huh, he said unit).

The NFL should institute some rule changes, imo, to diminish the importance of any single team player. Wicked Sick QB's (yeh i said it) are just too hard to come by. It almost seems unfair.

For example, if the QB of all QB's were coming out next year, and his future impact was completely obvious, how many teams would purposely tank some games so that they can have a winner for the next decade? It would be worth it, you must admit.

To me, it was very obvious that we started intentionally putting ourselves in position to lose games, once the seasons outcome turned bleak, somewhere around the time testicular fortitude was returned to Jim Zorn.

If a draftee were THAT good... and I mean single-handedly able to takeover games (rare, yes) there could be alot of teams purposely tanking, threatening the structure of the league. For all we know, this isn't an uncommon practice..

im pretty drunk so i hope this makes sense.. ill touch it up later, if not

HAIL@yerface! :whoknows: haha

[Conn]

^^^

Wut?

:doh:

[Chris0894]

c. JC needs an OL. Until this past season, JCs Oline the past couple of seasons had a first round LT and Guard, a 2nd round ORT and a 3rd round guard. He still sucked and we didn't win. Indy, Pittsburgh, NO and other playoff teams except the Jets didn't have even remotely close to that level of OL in terms of draft position.

Really? I'm curious, how many games have those lineman actually played in the last few years?

[hitmandm]

I'm pretty sure Brennan was a 6th rounder. Also, we traded up for Campbell, so it was actually more picks.

I agree with some of your points about being able to fill the OL with good players outside the first round.

But I will say that in referencing the rounds that our OL have come from last couple of seasons, you are leaving out the most important factor: Age. The problem was never that the line didn't have enough high draft picks on it. It was that it didn't have ANY recent draft picks on it, or waiting in the wings. Our line was old and a plan for the future was never put into place.

I don't get your thread title, though.

I agree about the line not having ANY picks in it. You are absolutely right.

The thread title is about everyone saying these top things about what we should do in the draft. If we bottom line it, teams dont have success based upon drafting OLTs first, but drafting franchise QBs....unless I am wrong.

[hitmandm]

No one wants us to "waste" draft picks obviously. God forbid we use the draft picks we don't trade away and actually get some good players.

It worked out for the Giants. That doesn't mean it's a formula for success. To this day I still don't think Eli Manning was worth what they gave away for him. They did win a SB though, so I will give them that. It's pretty silly to say that just because the Giants happened to win a Super Bowl after getting taken to the cleaners for their QB it will work for us.

You can't have it both ways. The Giants won their Super Bowl because of their stellar offensive line. They had the luxury of being able to trade away their picks because they had a great offensive and defensive line in place already and just needed a final piece.

Obviously every lineman doesn't have to be a 1st round pick. However, when there isn't a single player on your offensive line that would start on another team it, you don't really have much choice but to invest in it.

You're insane if you think our offensive line has been good over the last couple years. Chris Samuels was awesome, but last time I checked there are 4 other guys on the line of scrimmage. It doesn't matter what round they were drafted in if they're old and injury prone.

Not every team has a "franchise" QB. It's a luxury for a reason.. they don't come along often. Even if we did have one, they wouldn't be able to do anything with a shoddy supporting cast. Football is a _team_ sport. All the pieces have to line up.

I'm not saying we HAVE TO take a lineman with our first round pick or even that I'm completely opposed to taking a QB (although I'd rather not this year). I'm just saying that taking one, even if he is the most amazing QB ever, is not going to automatically make us a contender. You could have put Tom Brady behind our line last year and he would have looked just as dismal as Jason Campbell.

What I do know is that we have a servicable QB (trust me.. i have no delusions of JC being an amazing player or our future), but last year we had probably the worst offensive line in the league. We can hold off on QB another year. We can't afford to neglect OL.

It not only worked out for the Giants, it hasnt worked out for teams that do the opposite. Draft OL high and try and find a QB in round 2.

Im sure the Giants had a stellar OL. They got it by drafting OL in the later rounds...which is exactly my point. Again...the Giants were drafting 4th overall becaused they sucked. By saying a bunch of low round OL were stellar, you prove my point that teams dont need to draft an OL high.

The OL was good prior to this last year. It was good for Todd Collins. It allowed Portis to gain 1000+ years multiple times. You cannot have a bad OL and have a guy rush for 1000 yards. If that is the case, the problem lies elsewhere.

Youre right...not every team has a franchise QB. Those are the teams that dont make the playoffs. A franchise QB isnt a luxury...its a necessity to going into the playoffs deep and winning a SB. First round OL are luxuries.

[Laron Burgundy]

You know, I kinda support this, but you can't force a player to be a franchise qb. Just cause you draft him in the top 5 doesn't mean he's a great player. I'd rather not reach for a guy.

And the most aggravating thing to me is when people tout the franchise qb line and call players like Roethlisberger, Sanchez and Eli as franchise qb's. The only reason you call them that is because their teams win. Their stats are pretty mediocre and if they played on the skins or even worse teams you wouldn't consider them franchise qb's. Eli and Roethlisberger are CLUTCH you say, but they also have the best pass rush in the league and decent running games. If those two had average defenses like Brady, Manning or Rivers they would be one and done in the playoffs. Are they better than Campbell? Probably. Are they that much better that we should use a top 5 pick on a similar player to replace Campbell? Probably not. Now, if we think a qb in the draft is significantly better than those two then by all means draft him, but don't draft game manager qb's in the 1st.

[Veretax]

Stats are meaningless, how many games has Peyton won because he called runs instead of passes? Irrelevant.

[p0rtis26]

I'd rather trade all our picks for Bradford than draft Clausen at number 4.