NFL Offseason Thread

[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 jack**** 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.