NFL Offseason Thread

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
My take:
1. Oakland - JaMarcus Russell You know Big Al is sick and tired of having no QB.
2. Calvin Johnson - Logic dictates Detroit trade down with Tampa. Either way, CJ goes here
3. Cleveland - Owners want Brady Quinn; coaches want Adrian Peterson. This should be interesting.
4. Tampa Bay (or Detroit) - Gaines Adams
5. Arizona - Joe Thomas

Right there they've proven they know very little about Detroit.

[SlowwHand]

I agree with you more than this writer.

What if you're Detroit at #4 after the deal with the Bucs, and Cleveland takes Peterson. Detroit sitting in position where they can take Quinn.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Yeah, you can't be too attached to the pick worth chart. Variables are need and quality of players in the draft. A trade may be worthwhile even if the points don't add up.

But it's probably too much to expect Millen to understand that.

It's actually out of Millen's hands. The bottom line is this: The top draft picks cost so much that it creates salary cap issues for the teams that have them. That's the main reason it's unlikely Detroit will swing a trade. No one wants to spend and extra $10-15MM for an unproven player.

That's why the Bears turned down the Washington deal.

From Chicago sportswriter Don Pierson, writing for msnbc.com:

Mario Williams and Reggie Bush, last year's 1-2 picks, each got contracts worth up to $62 million with incentives, including signing bonuses of more than $26 million.

There was a $25 million difference between the fifth pick and the top two, begging the question, "Is Mario Williams really worth that much more than A.J. Hawk?"

Having the top pick is supposed to be a reward of sorts, or at least a consolation prize, for being the worst team in the league. Instead, it has become a double whammy, insult on top of injury. It has become punishment for being so bad.

IMO, the sacred "trade value chart" deperately needs a rethinking. The cost liability of those top picks, coupled with the near-certainty that one or two of them won't pan out, makes them pretty unattractive.

So while Matt Millen is most assuredly an idiot, in this case it's not really his fault. Well, except for the whole "win some damned games" thing...

[OzzyKP]

The coaches don't want Quinn. (Millen might.. but I dunno) The coaches really like Kitna. Martz can really work with any QB. If we get the 4 spot we'll take Thomas (again if we're smart, which won't happen).

I doubt anyone is interested in Peterson. True our running game sucks (with Jones hurt last season) but I don't think it is our biggest need.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I agree with you more than this writer.

What if you're Detroit at #4 after the deal with the Bucs, and Cleveland takes Peterson. Detroit sitting in position where they can take Quinn.

If that happened, I'd try to trade down again. Kitna actually threw for 4,000 yds last year. You could look it up. With Quinn, Joe Thomas and Gaines Adams all available outside the top 3, someone should want to move up for a guy they're in love with.

Detroit needs to stockpile for team infrastructure. They have no quality depth, and it really shows once the inevitable injuries happen. For a team like the Lions, a mid-to-late #1 and a bunch of 2nd and 3rd rounders is the way to go.

[Lord Avalon]

The problem with trading down is that it requires someone to trade up. And who's going to want to do that if they have to shell out #2 money?

I wonder why there isn't a rookie salary cap.

[SlowwHand]

Recent history won't influence Lions' pick


By Todd McShay
Scouts Inc.


Assuming QB JaMarcus Russell is the top overall pick by the Raiders, the most dramatic 15 minutes of the 2007 draft will occur when Detroit goes on the clock with pick No. 2.

The most recent information I'm getting is the Lions have basically boiled it down to two options. Their top priority is to trade out of the second pick, acquire additional selections and select the best available prospect (ideally Clemson DE Gaines Adams) with their new pick later in the first round.

If they can't strike a reasonable deal, Georgia Tech WR Calvin Johnson becomes the choice. He is the top overall prospect on their value board, the Lions are prepared to deal with the criticism that likely would come with selecting Johnson, since they have drafted three first-round wide receivers in the past four drafts. It's a tough pill to swallow, but GM Matt Millen would be making the right choice.

[Guynemer]

I'm sorry, but there is no way any WR is good enough for a top 5-10 pick. No matter how good he is, no WR is gonna touch the ball more than 6-10 times a game, and usually less than that. Sure, he may open up the field for other guys, but that doesn't make him much more valuable.

Linemen, QBs, RBs, defense, absolutely. WR? Come the **** on.

[-Jrabbit]

Sorry, guy, but that argument is idiotic. If I ran an NFL team, I would pray for someone you to be drafting ahead of me.

It's a team game. You need all the pieces, and excellence at the offensive skill positions is makes a huge difference.

WR is a skill position, and Calvin Johnson's measureables are freakishly strong -- once-in-a-decade strong. He has speed, agility, great hands, height, strength... I guarantee you that virtually every team in the league would HAPPILY draft him at #2, and most of them at #1. And they'd be right.

[Guynemer]

The same things were said about Charles Rogers...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
The same things were said about Charles Rogers...

I doubt it. No one seriously considered Rogers to be the #1 talent in the draft.

[Lord Avalon]

Johnson is a couple inches taller, ~15lbs heavier, and yet a little faster than Rogers was.

[OzzyKP]

The problem is not that Johnson isn't worth a #2 pick, or that Rogers wasn't. The problem is that so much is broken about the Lions right now that a high skill WR is doomed to failure on the team. If the Lions drafted a young Jerry Rice instead of Charles Rogers he wouldn't be a shadow of the Jerry Rice we all know.

Calvin Johnson may be the best player in the draft and the best WR in the last 10 years, but he isn't right for Detroit.

Which is why Detroit should absolutely trade him to a team who would really benefit from him.

[OzzyKP]

One can only hope Millen will be as wise as this article suggests:


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...des/index.html

Draft deals cooking
Teams maneuvering to take WR Johnson, LB Willis

With the NFL Draft kicking off in fewer than 72 hours, here's what we're hearing around the league:

• While everyone has focused on No. 4 Tampa Bay as the most likely trading partner for No. 2 Detroit in the Calvin Johnson Sweepstakes, it's the No. 8 Falcons who might truly be in the driver's seat. Sources say Falcons owner Arthur Blank has pretty much ordered Atlanta general manager Rich McKay to do everything he can to put the team into position to land Johnson at No. 2.

Blank wants Johnson for a couple of reasons. First, Johnson played at Georgia Tech and would help sell tickets to disillusioned Falcons fans who have endured two non-playoff seasons after Atlanta went to the NFC title game in 2004. Second, the Falcons still have their long-standing need of a reliable big-play receiver for quarterback to play pitch and catch with.

With seven picks in the first four rounds (including two second-rounders and three in the fourth), Atlanta definitely has the ammo to make the deal with Detroit. The Falcons could send the Lions their picks at 8, 39 and 44 for the No. 2 spot, and still have a third-rounder and three fourth-rounders to fill other needs.

The Lions are known to covet middle linebacker Patrick Willis of Mississippi and would be perfectly situated at No. 8 to select him. Picking up at least two extra second-rounders in the process would meet Matt Millen's goal of turning the No. 2 slot into a first-day package of picks. Detroit is likely to draft a quarterback with its own second-round pick at No. 34. Stanford's Trent Edwards remains slightly favored over Michigan State's Drew Stanton.

• At No. 4 and not wanting to give up the majority of their four picks in the draft's first 68 slots, Tampa Bay is not likely to move up in an attempt to compete for Johnson. The Bucs need defensive help and appear to be more likely to take Clemson defensive end Gaines Adams if they stay put. Wisconsin offensive tackle Joe Thomas is another option at No. 4, but so too is trying to move down a few spots with the intention of taking Louisville defensive tackle Amobi Okoye, who some in the organization are likening to a young Warren Sapp.

[-Jrabbit]

Ozzy, I don't dispute that. I absolutely agree that Detroit would maximize its progress by trading this pick, assuming a fair deal can be had.

But Guynemer's contention that WR is never worthy of a top5/top10 pick is ludicrous on the face of it. There have been plenty of high-profile busts in the draft, skill positions and linemen, offense and defense. And there have been plenty of undrafted free agents who made the Pro Bowl. It's a crapshoot.

That said, Millen's not the guy I'd want rolling the dice for me.

[SlowwHand]

Come on. Three drafts of last four and it's been WR? I'm with Guy. They've proved in redundancy that drafting a WR isn't the answer to advancing. Someone ultimately has to actually throw the ball to them.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I'm sorry, but there is no way any WR is good enough for a top 5-10 pick. No matter how good he is, no WR is gonna touch the ball more than 6-10 times a game, and usually less than that. Sure, he may open up the field for other guys, but that doesn't make him much more valuable.

Linemen, QBs, RBs, defense, absolutely. WR? Come the **** on.

Tell that to the 2000 St Louis Rams. Their starting quarterback missed half the season, and they still passed for 5500 yards. That's what having great wide receivers can do for you. Bruce and Holt produced 3100 yards of passing offense by themselves, which is more than many entire teams get. Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt proved that with two great receivers, you can literally take a local grocery bagger and have him throw 40 touchdowns. The other quarterback, Trent Green, left for Kansas City in 2001, and his QB rating dropped 30 points. Since then, he has improved, but he never reached his 2000 numbers in Kansas City.

Why is that? It wasn't the offensive line. Willie Roaf and Will Shields are going to be in the Hall of Fame one day, and Weigmann and Waters are both great interior linemen. It wasn't the running backs; Priest Holmes is one of only three players ever to score more touchdowns than Marshall Faulk in a season. It definitely wasn't the tight end: Gonzalez is another Hall of Famer, and the Rams didn't have anyone. It wasn't the fullback; Tony Richardson is a two-time Pro Bowler.

So why did Green's numbers nosedive, and never return to their 2000 levels? It's the wide receivers. It's because Trent Green struggled through a year of Marvin Minnis and Derrick Alexander. Eventually Eddie Kennison became a solid player, but he's no Torry Holt.

Meanwhile, in Saint Louis, a sixth round draft pick, Marc Bulger, took over as QB in 2002. He immediately posted a rating of 100+, making him the third QB on the team to do so. No sixth round pick in history has ever passed so efficiently so quickly. Not even Tom Brady. Why is that? Mostly because Bulger had much better receivers.

Just because your receiver picks have sucked doesn't mean it's a bad strategy.

[-Jrabbit]

Sloww, the fact that Millen has been an idiot in the past has no connection to the decision he now faces. The fact that the best player in the draft is a WR is ironic, yes.

Detroit has a QB who threw for 4,000 yds last year. You combine another stud receiver with Roy Williams (and Mike Furrey) and you've got potential for something special. Oh, and BOTH JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn sport lower draft grades than Vince Young, Matt Leinart, AND Jay Cutler had last year.

As previously posted, I believe trading down is the best path for Detroit. But if no one offers them a fair deal, they should definitely take Calvin Johnson, who is the clearcut #1 talent in the draft. If you're drafting #2, you're on the hook for the huge salary no matter what. You should get your money's worth.

[-Jrabbit]

Further to Jaguar's post, Detroit's offense is run by the same guy who ran that Rams offense, Mike Martz.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
IMO, the sacred "trade value chart" deperately needs a rethinking. The cost liability of those top picks, coupled with the near-certainty that one or two of them won't pan out, makes them pretty unattractive.

Well, those picks are still great ones to have. Believe it or not, the top five pick guys are still underpaid. Guys like Palmer and Tomlinson are way underpaid by their rookie contracts, and end up making up for guys like Harrington and Rogers. (It's kind of sad that the first two busts I thought of off the top of my head were both Lions.)

The problem is that the top five guys aren't nearly as underpaid as the guys at the bottom of the first round. Reggie Bush's rookie contract is worth about five to eight times as much as Joseph Addai's. That's silly. Obviously, even if Bush turns out to be a significantly better player than Addai, the Colts got a better pick, because they've got money to spend on other stuff. Addai is WAY underpaid right now.

There were some guys who computed the value of draft picks, and they found that the picks closest to #43 overall are the most efficient with cap space. Overall, the team with the top overall pick does get the best value, but it's closer than one might imagine. The Superbowl winner and the team with the worst record basically get six picks that are equivalent. (#32 and #33, for example.) The only difference is that the former gets the Mr. Irrelevant pick, and the latter gets the #1 overall pick. Mr. Irrelevant is worthless, #1 overall is good but risky.

There are some ways to temper the risks of the #1 overall pick a little bit. One important thing about the high picks is that the salaries remain roughly equivalent regardless of position. That means that if you draft a QB at #1 overall, he's paid like a better-than-average starter. If you draft a RB at #1 overall, he'll be paid like one of the best in the league. If you draft a DT at #1 overall, he'll likely get the largest DT contract in history. QB is easily the highest-paid position, so even if you don't think Brady Quinn is as good a player as some of the other prospects, you might want to pick him anyway.

I'm on record as saying the Lions, Raiders, Bills, and Texans all would be better off with Matt Leinart than with the people they picked over him, and I'll say the same if too many teams pass on Quinn this year.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Jaguar

The top five guys aren't nearly as underpaid as the guys at the bottom of the first round. Reggie Bush's rookie contract is worth about five to eight times as much as Joseph Addai's. That's silly. Obviously, even if Bush turns out to be a significantly better player than Addai, the Colts got a better pick, because they've got money to spend on other stuff. Addai is WAY underpaid right now.

No, Bush is way overpaid. Somehow, there needs to be a review given, like after 3 years. You pay me or I walk. AFTER they prove something. Rookies don't deserve jackshit on college reputation.

[Jaguar]

I don't think there's anything wrong with paying more money to the ones who look like they'll be better players. Calvin Johnson should get more money than Anthony Gonzalez, and both of them should get more money than guys who go undrafted.

Another way to look at it. The Cardinals gave monster contracts to two players last year: Edgerrin James and Matt Leinart. Neither one had done a damn thing for the Cardinals before 2006. Why should it matter that James previously played for the Colts and Leinart previously played for the USC Trojans?

As for Bush, he's not overpaid yet, but he will be if he doesn't improve. The rookie contracts scale upwards really quickly after each year. Last year he wasn't paid all that much, but by year three he'll be paid at an Edgerrin James-type level. If he doesn't reach that level, he'll be overpaid. Which is fine, because other #2 overall picks, like Julius Peppers and Donovan McNabb, have been way underpaid.

[SlowwHand]

Yet. Key word. I think you get paid for contribution, not potential.

I could climb onto some earth mover and they might think I wold be real good. Let's see their attitude after I knock over some buildings. I can drive a truck. I might could drive an earth mover. Same difference.

[-Jrabbit]

Actually, that's a really poor analogy, Sloww. This is not a business where you get paid by the rushing yard or by the tackle. NO professional team sport works that way, and for good reason.

It would be great if there was more sanity in rookie NFL contracts, but the simple fact is, you ARE paying for potential. Potential all-stars, potential injuries, potential drug busts.

The NFL is actually pretty well off, since contracts are not guaranteed, and the salary cap prevents totally stupid individual contracts.

[Guynemer]

Jag, re: your 2000 Rams post... yes, they had a great set of receivers. But how many of those receivers were top 5 picks?

I think you're more likely to get a great "sleeper" WR in later rounds than other skill positions, and that top-rated WRs are more likely to end up busts than other skill positions. I just don't think drafting a WR early is likely to pay off the way teams want.

[-Jrabbit]

Torry Holt was drafted #6 overall.
Isaac Bruce was a 2nd rounder (#33).

I think the concept of the early-pick bust is a fairly equal-opportunity phenomenon. WR, QB, safety, DL -- doesn't matter. Plenty of examples at all positions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep... it really isn't MORE frequent for a certain position. It is just that WR is highly dependant on a good QB... probably more dependant on other players than most other positions.

And many aren't drafted so high, so the mistakes look more glaring than, say, a failed offensive tackle (are teams shying away because Galley didn't turn out to be a world beater like he was supposed to?)

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I'm sorry, but there is no way any WR is good enough for a top 5-10 pick. No matter how good he is, no WR is gonna touch the ball more than 6-10 times a game, and usually less than that. Sure, he may open up the field for other guys, but that doesn't make him much more valuable.

Linemen, QBs, RBs, defense, absolutely. WR? Come the **** on.

ESPN has an interesting article on their Page 2 section today. It looks at the last 15 years of NFL drafts and rates each position boom-or-bust.

First-Round Bust Percentages
QB -- 53 percent
RB -- 49 percent
WR -- 45 percent
DT -- 33 percent
OL -- 31 percent
DE -- 31 percent
CB -- 29 percent
LB -- 16 percent
S -- 11 percent

First-Round Pro Bowl Percentages
(Percentage of players making at least one Pro Bowl)
S -- 53 percent
DT -- 40 percent
LB -- 39 percent
RB -- 36 percent
DE -- 33 percent
QB -- 33 percent
WR -- 31 percent
OL -- 26 percent
CB -- 23 percent

Players Picked in First Round
OL -- 70
DE - 55
CB - 52
WR -- 51
LB -- 48
DT - 42
RB -- 41
QB -- 30
S -- 19

See the article for the definition of a bust for each position. By this criterion, skill position players are easily the most risky, and you want to draft defense to minimize your chances of a bust.

[SlowwHand]

How is it a poor analogy? It's not, that's how.
It doesn't matter about number of tackles. The veteran is good enough to keep, or you wouldn't be keeping him. You don't even know that much about a rookie.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit


ESPN has an interesting article on their Page 2 section today. It looks at the last 15 years of NFL drafts and rates each position boom-or-bust.

Okay, according to that, WR are more or less as risky as QB or RB. Fair enough. The QB and RB will still have a greater impact on the game.

Either way you look at it, the O-line and defense is the way to go.