Would you consider these two at #12 and #30?

[pacman5252]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

NE controlled the game with their running game, as evidenced by the Rams having only one game all year (that ridiculous one against the chiefs) where they had more offensive drives (Not including end of half drives)?

And New England would gladly move Mankins for any number of players in that draft that hit at the premiums. Guards barely have a higher hit rate in the early rounds than the actual premium spots, why play that game? Drafting a guard early is the NBA equivalent of taking a long mid range jump shot.

You can't draft a player that doesn't exist. Just because you take an Edge or OT in round 1, doesn't make him good. At the end of the first, a home run edge is like Nick Perry. You're likely just getting a 4-7 sack a year guy than a future pro bowler.

Looking at the 2005 draft and the value DL positions taken above Makins-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_Draft

E James

M Spears

M Patterson

L Castillo

In no world would you  take those guys over a pro bowl talent. NE was smart and took a good player. If there was a high level edge/OT prospect around there, yeah, you could argue it, but at end of the first you likely aren't getting those. 

On a sidenote, this is also why I'm more down than others to trade up this year. We have 30 and an extra 4. Throw in a 3 and we could get around 17 to take an edge, or an impact player at a plus position that is falling. We can live with a combo of a stop gap FA/ round 2-/4guard/TE/WR/S, not a mediocre rush.

 

 

 

[coachbuns]

3 hours ago, squire12 said:

So the QB position is not valuable is what you are saying?

Seriously, you know what he's saying ... don't be goofy.

[AlexGreen#20]

2 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

You can't draft a player that doesn't exist. Just because you take an Edge or OT in round 1, doesn't make him good. At the end of the first, a home run edge is like Nick Perry. You're likely just getting a 4-7 sack a year guy than a future pro bowler.

Looking at the 2005 draft and the value DL positions taken above Makins-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_Draft

E James

M Spears

M Patterson

L Castillo

In no world would you  take those guys over a pro bowl talent. NE was smart and took a good player. If there was a high level edge/OT prospect around there, yeah, you could argue it, but at end of the first you likely aren't getting those. 

On a sidenote, this is also why I'm more down than others to trade up this year. We have 30 and an extra 4. Throw in a 3 and we could get around 17 to take an edge, or an impact player at a plus position that is falling. We can live with a combo of a stop gap FA/ round 2-/4guard/TE/WR/S, not a mediocre rush.

 

 

 

No, but you sure as **** would take Roos who went at 41.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

In no world would you  take those guys over a pro bowl talent. NE was smart and took a good player. If there was a high level edge/OT prospect around there, yeah, you could argue it, but at end of the first you likely aren't getting those. 

The problem is you're operating under the assumption that the IOL you're drafting is a hit, and the DL is a bust.

[rcon14]

16 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

The problem is you're operating under the assumption that the IOL you're drafting is a hit, and the DL is a bust.

This is the primary problem with so many people's perceptions of the draft. When teams or people "draft" a guy, they are assuming they will hit, when the real answer of expected value is something less than their evaluation.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, coachbuns said:

Seriously, you know what he's saying ... don't be goofy.

Using a 1 game sample size to support a stance is bad.

[pacman5252]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

The problem is you're operating under the assumption that the IOL you're drafting is a hit, and the DL is a bust.

I will admit there is some confirmation bias in my example since I'm using an example that worked. You don't have to be though. The argument is

 

Great OG prospect that looks like a plug and play starter

>

Player at more valuable position that isn't hitting key measureables/indicators (IE looks like they might just be a replacement level player)

[pacman5252]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

No, but you sure as **** would take Roos who went at 41.

So you can find 1 player in the round after him that was good at an impact spot. Congrats, you found an exception.

Lets ignore that there were only  4 total OL/DL that made pro bowls after Mankins got picked (Roos 2nd, Tuck 3rd, Tren Cole 6, Jay Ratliff 7th).  I'm with you, if someone fell, take him, but things get thin at high value spots. Banging your head at impact spots with tier B/C prospects doesn't help you. Sometimes you need to get guys who can just play well.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

So you can find 1 player in the round after him that was good at an impact spot. Congrats, you found an exception.

Lets ignore that there were only  4 total OL/DL that made pro bowls after Mankins got picked (Roos 2nd, Tuck 3rd, Tren Cole 6, Jay Ratliff 7th).  I'm with you, if someone fell, take him, but things get thin at high value spots. Banging your head at impact spots with tier B/C prospects doesn't help you. Sometimes you need to get guys who can just play well.

Isn't that what you did? Picked literally the best example in the last two decades combining a very good player at guard and an absolute trash class?

For every Logan Mankins, there's a Chance Warmack.

[rcon14]

3 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

I will admit there is some confirmation bias in my example since I'm using an example that worked. You don't have to be though. The argument is

 

Great OG prospect that looks like a plug and play starter

>

Player at more valuable position that isn't hitting key measureables/indicators (IE looks like they might just be a replacement level player)

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on this. The discussion is what level of EDGE/DL/OT (insert other high value position) is equal in value to a "better" player at a less premium position. Just to keep it simple, I'll use Madden ratings (acknowledging all the problems therein, but just work with me). Is a 81 EDGE better than a 84 OG because EDGE matters more? Replacement level factors in as well. It's hard to actually find EDGE players. There just aren't many of them that you can play in the world. There are more OG. This exists at all positions. There is no tried and true answer, at least not one I've come across, but I think acknowledging these distinctions is the key to understanding the difference between "Best Player Available" and "Best Value Available"

[pacman5252]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Isn't that what you did? Picked literally the best example in the last two decades combining a very good player at guard and an absolute trash class?

For every Logan Mankins, there's a Chance Warmack.

I’m Not necessarily cherry picking. Go look at pro bowl DL drafted after pick 30. It is pretty atrocious. 3 year sample size;

2012-4 (Daniels, Jackson, Vernon, Hicks)

2013- 2 (Short, B Williams)

2014- 1- Lawrence

In these years you’ll see a lot of reaching on potential tools rushers who never amounted to anything ... if anything the pro pass rush crowd (like I’ve suggested) should be lobbying for a trade up from 30.

 

Yeah, there’s always a chance at a Warmack, I’m not pitching for us to be dumb and draft a guard top 15 though.

 

[pacman5252]

55 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on this. The discussion is what level of EDGE/DL/OT (insert other high value position) is equal in value to a "better" player at a less premium position. Just to keep it simple, I'll use Madden ratings (acknowledging all the problems therein, but just work with me). Is a 81 EDGE better than a 84 OG because EDGE matters more? Replacement level factors in as well. It's hard to actually find EDGE players. There just aren't many of them that you can play in the world. There are more OG. This exists at all positions. There is no tried and true answer, at least not one I've come across, but I think acknowledging these distinctions is the key to understanding the difference between "Best Player Available" and "Best Value Available"

Unfortunately people don’t understand this concept

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, rcon14 said:

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on this. The discussion is what level of EDGE/DL/OT (insert other high value position) is equal in value to a "better" player at a less premium position. Just to keep it simple, I'll use Madden ratings (acknowledging all the problems therein, but just work with me). Is a 81 EDGE better than a 84 OG because EDGE matters more? Replacement level factors in as well. It's hard to actually find EDGE players. There just aren't many of them that you can play in the world. There are more OG. This exists at all positions. There is no tried and true answer, at least not one I've come across, but I think acknowledging these distinctions is the key to understanding the difference between "Best Player Available" and "Best Value Available"

Couldn't have said this better myself.

[AlexGreen#20]

35 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

I’m Not necessarily cherry picking. Go look at pro bowl DL drafted after pick 30. It is pretty atrocious. 3 year sample size;

2012-4 (Daniels, Jackson, Vernon, Hicks)

2013- 2 (Short, B Williams)

2014- 1- Lawrence

In these years you’ll see a lot of reaching on potential tools rushers who never amounted to anything ... if anything the pro pass rush crowd (like I’ve suggested) should be lobbying for a trade up from 30.

 

Yeah, there’s always a chance at a Warmack, I’m not pitching for us to be dumb and draft a guard top 15 though.

 

DL isn't the only premium though.

QB, OT, CB are all premium spots.

Even WR and Safety are of more concern than OG

[Cheech]

22 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

DL isn't the only premium though.

QB, OT, CB are all premium spots.

Even WR and Safety are of more concern than OG

I'm imagining Rodgers being able to step up into a clean pocket because his interior OL can actually keep him clean.  

I'm imagining a guard getting to the 2nd level on a screen and actually blocking a linebacker with 33 patiently waiting to slice through the secondary.

 

Can you really say with a straight face that WR is a bigger need than guard?  Byron freaking Bell started for us last year.  Give McCray and Patrick all the props for battling, but my goodness, the guard position cost us at least 5 offensive plays per game where they simply ****ed the whole thing up.  

I don't care if it is a free agent or early pick (*preferably if it is an early pick you get Williams or Risner who can play RG for a year and then move to RT) but that position needs an upgrade in the worst way.