Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

2017 OL Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 51, 52, 53 ... 55, 56, 57  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 68412
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
Just trying to help here, does everyone agree on the following:

1. LT's are paid more than G & C?
2. More T's are drafted early than interior linemen?

If we all agree there, then the concept of market inefficiency holds if you believe interior OL is nearly as, or just as important as T play. The market might overvalue T because it's generally seen as harder to find LT, given the demands on agility, length, footwork, and functional strength - you need all 4 (some combine agility with footwork, which is fair, but I incorporate the ability to bend and move quickly, which is more than footwork alone) to play LT well, barring a few notable exceptions. But it's hard to argue there isn't a market inefficiency when you look at how pretty average LT's are paid in FA, versus better interior OL. And where the top T prospects go, in relation to the best C and G prospects. That's a difficult point to argue with.

If you don't believe interior OL play is as important....well, have at it, debate-wise. Maybe ppl can just agree to disagree there.


That's exactly what I'm saying. Scarcity and traditionalism drive LT value.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 68412
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iamcanadian wrote:

Right now, all I see you putting forward is a theory with very little to support it, no facts. It is just an idea in your mind and nothing more. Spotting trends is one thing, making them up is quite another.


You don't get to demand facts. I corrected a number of your inaccurate statements and broad generalizations. For example, you were flatly wrong about interior DLs not being paid comparably well to edge rushers. Rather than admit that you were wrong, you tried to backtrack and build up a strawman to act like your argument was vindicated. There's no point in me bringing facts to the table. You aren't going to be swayed by facts. Like 95% of people on the internet, you aren't interested in what I have to say. You're only interested in what you have to say. Hell, here's yet another statement from you that is 100% wrong when you look at the actual facts:
Iamcanadian wrote:
Even the RT's make more than interior OLmen.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/guard/
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/right-tackle/

Yes, I am putting forth a theory. My theory is grounded in a nuanced view of the game. My theory is that many NFL GMs are making the same mistakes that baseball GMs made prior to sabermetrics. They are adhering to traditionalist notions rather than adapting to the times and recognizing inefficiencies. Changes to football have caused those traditionalist notions to become antiquated. The Cowboys are an example of a team smart enough to recognize that and adapt.

What you don't recognize is that you aren't arguing against my theory. You are completely whiffing on addressing my theory. My theory is that there is an economic efficiency in the market because interior OLs are underpaid while LTs are overpaid. Your means of addressing my theory is pointing out that interior OLs are paid less than LTs and drafted later. That's exactly the point my theory makes. You're providing evidence for my theory. To address my theory, you'd need to get into a nuanced discussion of football itself to determine the value of positions. That isn't something you've done successfully. Instead, you've provided evidence of the flawed pay structures and drafting that my theory points to as inefficiencies, appealed to authority, and made generalized arguments about positional value that don't show a strong understanding of football.

To put it bluntly, you haven't demonstrated the knowledge sufficient to understand the nuanced aspects of the points I'm making. It's why you generalize and fall back on appeals to authority. I recommend that you read this article:
http://www.sbnation.com/2016/12/27/14066912/nfl-pass-protection-offensive-line-how-to

It's informative and will offer some of the nuance needed to consider this issue. Once you can get past your strict adherence to the idea that it's 1-on-1 and 3-on-2 and that can't change, then we'll be able to talk about this further.

The reality is, though, that a theory like this only works if you have coaches who are willing to adapt and evolve.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iamcanadian


Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 228
Location: Wallaceburg, Ontario, Canada
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:

Right now, all I see you putting forward is a theory with very little to support it, no facts. It is just an idea in your mind and nothing more. Spotting trends is one thing, making them up is quite another.


You don't get to demand facts. I corrected a number of your inaccurate statements and broad generalizations. For example, you were flatly wrong about interior DLs not being paid comparably well to edge rushers. Rather than admit that you were wrong, you tried to backtrack and build up a strawman to act like your argument was vindicated. There's no point in me bringing facts to the table. You aren't going to be swayed by facts. Like 95% of people on the internet, you aren't interested in what I have to say. You're only interested in what you have to say. Hell, here's yet another statement from you that is 100% wrong when you look at the actual facts:
Iamcanadian wrote:
Even the RT's make more than interior OLmen.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/guard/
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/right-tackle/

Yes, I am putting forth a theory. My theory is grounded in a nuanced view of the game. My theory is that many NFL GMs are making the same mistakes that baseball GMs made prior to sabermetrics. They are adhering to traditionalist notions rather than adapting to the times and recognizing inefficiencies. Changes to football have caused those traditionalist notions to become antiquated. The Cowboys are an example of a team smart enough to recognize that and adapt.

What you don't recognize is that you aren't arguing against my theory. You are completely whiffing on addressing my theory. My theory is that there is an economic efficiency in the market because interior OLs are underpaid while LTs are overpaid. Your means of addressing my theory is pointing out that interior OLs are paid less than LTs and drafted later. That's exactly the point my theory makes. You're providing evidence for my theory. To address my theory, you'd need to get into a nuanced discussion of football itself to determine the value of positions. That isn't something you've done successfully. Instead, you've provided evidence of the flawed pay structures and drafting that my theory points to as inefficiencies, appealed to authority, and made generalized arguments about positional value that don't show a strong understanding of football.

Well, as you have already pointed out, my mistake in the pay structure for OG's, you cannot have it both ways. If the best OG's are getting good money once they prove themselves in the NFL, how can you say there is an inefficiency that is taking place ???



To put it bluntly, you haven't demonstrated the knowledge sufficient to understand the nuanced aspects of the points I'm making. It's why you generalize and fall back on appeals to authority. I recommend that you read this article:
http://www.sbnation.com/2016/12/27/14066912/nfl-pass-protection-offensive-line-how-to

It's informative and will offer some of the nuance needed to consider this issue. Once you can get past your strict adherence to the idea that it's 1-on-1 and 3-on-2 and that can't change, then we'll be able to talk about this further.

What strict adherence, I already said many times that TE can help OT's when needed and that RB's can also be used in this way. Ability of the position player will always come into play, but for the most part LT's are on an island on their own and that is why their skill set is so unique compared to other OLmen.

And your argument that authority isn't worth looking at re: the draft and is therefore inefficient does nor make it true. Using nuances as a means of proving your point IMO is a slippery slope that works both ways.

The reality is, though, that a theory like this only works if you have coaches who are willing to adapt and evolve.


Txs a lot for the site on wages, I have added it to my keeper list.

Your article still clearly states that the primary responsibility for the 2 OG's and the OC is to keep the center of the OL firm., before trying to help OT's. The parts about TE's helping out and RB's as well, I already said I agree with, so there isn't much new in these facts. So the 3 vs 2 for the interior OLmen still holds true as far as their primary responsibility.

After all, for the OC or the OG to help out the OT on passing plays has to be pretty difficult, how long does a DE need to reach the QB, only a few seconds, somewhere around 4 to 5 and for an interior OLman to confirm the center is firm and then to get out to block a pass rushing DE, has to be extremely difficult in that short a time frame and nowhere does he say that an OT will help the interior OLmen to pass block, so the one on one still carries weight especially for the LT. Remember also that the article says that the RB is often used to support the middle and not just the OT's.

I would also say that most teams definitely prefer to use their TE's and RB's as pass catchers rather than as blockers and will only use them as blockers if one of the OT's is being totally and consistently beat or if the center of the OL isn't firm and the RB is needed to help out, it isn't their primary role in a game.

You are right, coaches must change if your general theory is to work( a possible small admission that perhaps it isn't being applied today), and I believe the GM's would have to be on board as well, considering the draft is their main responsibility.

I really appreciate it when I come across someone who does their homework and can point out my mistakes in knowledge, but it still doesn't make your theory correct, especially as long as that ugly authority, the draft, does not support it. There is a solid reason why LT's need a special skill set to handle top pass rushers and you are attempting to ignore it in your theory or at least downgrade it to the point that you claim interior Olmen are just as important as LT's.

I've watched an awful lot of pro football and been a draftnik for over 65 years and I believe my eyes which for me has shown that LT's for the most part, are left on an island in pass protection unless they totally stink at playing the position and there is no possible way that interior OLmen are equal to the LT's ability to pass block. LT's will continue to be drafted top 5 to 10 on a very consistent basis, because every team needs one to protect their QB from serious injury coming from the QB's blindside. That is never going to change unless somehow QB's are no longer the ultimate player needed for success on a football team.

I don't believe you will see the draft philosophy of drafting LT's much higher than interior OLmen ever change as long as the NFL is a pass first league, it will only change if the NFL reverts to a run first league. And as you have clearly shown, interior OLmen are making solid money once they prove themselves, so where is the inefficiency?

I am sure we will no doubt have a few discussions in the future and I like to think we may occasionally agree on subjects, but any theory that suggests that LT's are overrated gets me riled up and to further say that interior OLmen are just as important as LT's definitely gets me into a debate. I'm new to this site, but not new to discussing the draft and as long as my health permits, you can expect me to offer incites into the draft . Of course I'm 73 so it may be a short run, but I am sure you will appreciate my input over time.
_________________
and proud of it!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CalhounLambeau


Joined: 05 May 2011
Posts: 11534
Location: WI
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iamcanadian wrote:
I've been a draftnik for over 65 years.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ragnarok


Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 852
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CalhounLambeau wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:
I've been a draftnik for over 65 years.



That's means he started following the draft in 1952. And if he was...let's go low and say 12 years old when he really got into the draft, he was born in 1940. So he'd be 77 years old at best.

Yeah, I'll just call bulls*t on that claim. Because you'd think that someone who was that old would have learned how to not use a straw man argument to make a point roughly 76% of the time. Or he has early onset dementia. Which would make sense...
_________________
Come join BDL!

Seriously, we're awesome. We all may or may not have mild-at-best psychological issues, but we are damn fun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iamcanadian


Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 228
Location: Wallaceburg, Ontario, Canada
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ragnarok wrote:
CalhounLambeau wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:
I've been a draftnik for over 65 years.



That's means he started following the draft in 1952. And if he was...let's go low and say 12 years old when he really got into the draft, he was born in 1940. So he'd be 77 years old at best.

Yeah, I'll just call bulls*t on that claim. Because you'd think that someone who was that old would have learned how to not use a straw man argument to make a point roughly 76% of the time. Or he has early onset dementia. Which would make sense...


I'd say anyone who relies on insults to make a point has a pea sized brain. Rolling Eyes
_________________
and proud of it!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ragnarok


Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 852
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iamcanadian wrote:
Ragnarok wrote:
CalhounLambeau wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:
I've been a draftnik for over 65 years.



That's means he started following the draft in 1952. And if he was...let's go low and say 12 years old when he really got into the draft, he was born in 1940. So he'd be 77 years old at best.

Yeah, I'll just call bulls*t on that claim. Because you'd think that someone who was that old would have learned how to not use a straw man argument to make a point roughly 76% of the time. Or he has early onset dementia. Which would make sense...


I'd say anyone who relies on insults to make a point has a pea sized brain. Rolling Eyes


You can say that. You'd be wrong, but you can say it. Because there's still the fact that you'd have to be a 77 year old that argues online like you're 11 to make your claims true. And I'll take my chances on being right in that regard.
_________________
Come join BDL!

Seriously, we're awesome. We all may or may not have mild-at-best psychological issues, but we are damn fun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 68412
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iamcanadian wrote:
Your article still clearly states that the primary responsibility for the 2 OG's and the OC is to keep the center of the OL firm., before trying to help OT's. The parts about TE's helping out and RB's as well, I already said I agree with, so there isn't much new in these facts. So the 3 vs 2 for the interior OLmen still holds true as far as their primary responsibility.


You're not looking past the surface here. The 3 vs. 2 doesn't hold true. Any coach is capable of deviating from that.

If you have three quality interior OLs, you can trust them with 1-on-1s. That means that you can slide your protection to help out either of your OTs without keeping the TE or HB in to block. You can also use the TE or HB (even when they're running routes) to slow down edge rushers.

The point here is the 3-on-2 and 1-on-1 dynamic only exists if you have an inflexible coach.

Thus, it makes no sense to waste resources because traditionally LTs have played on an island. If you're smart and willing to adapt, you more efficiently use the resources that you have. The teams that are able to most efficiently use their resources are usually the best teams (because teams are dealing with finite resources).

Quote:
After all, for the OC or the OG to help out the OT on passing plays has to be pretty difficult, how long does a DE need to reach the QB, only a few seconds, somewhere around 4 to 5 and for an interior OLman to confirm the center is firm and then to get out to block a pass rushing DE, has to be extremely difficult in that short a time frame and nowhere does he say that an OT will help the interior OLmen to pass block, so the one on one still carries weight especially for the LT. Remember also that the article says that the RB is often used to support the middle and not just the OT's.


It's not, though. You can accomplish it through a myriad of ways. Let's assume that you need to help your LT.
1. You can slide protection to the left. Have your LG pass off the DT to the Center and have him take the inside against the RDE/ROLB. The LT can then over-set to take away the edge knowing that he has help if the RDE/OLB tries to use an inside move.

2. If you can't slide protection left due to where the UT lines up, you can line the TE up outside of the LT and slide protection right if you need to help out your RT. The LT can then under-set knowing that the TE will be there to help him if the RDE/OLB attacks the edge.

3. You can also use chips from the TE and HB if you don't want to keep them in while sliding protection to the right to help out the RT if needed.

This idea that you have to leave the LT on an island is exactly the type of flawed traditionalist thinking that I'm talking about.

QBs are taking shorter drops on average and getting the ball out more quickly. Teams are spreading the field horizontally instead of vertically. LTs simply don't have the same value that they did in the days of deep drops and vertical passing.

Quote:
I really appreciate it when I come across someone who does their homework and can point out my mistakes in knowledge, but it still doesn't make your theory correct, especially as long as that ugly authority, the draft, does not support it. There is a solid reason why LT's need a special skill set to handle top pass rushers and you are attempting to ignore it in your theory or at least downgrade it to the point that you claim interior Olmen are just as important as LT's.


Again, this doesn't undermine my theory. This is my theory. Teams are inefficiently using their resources. The fact that they are valuing LTs so highly and valuing interior OLs so lowly (relative to LTs) only supports a theory of teams overvaluing LTs and undervaluing interior OLs.

If teams valued them equally, there would be no inefficiency to take advantage of, so there would be no point in making this argument.

However, other factors also come into play with the draft. The #1 factor is scarcity. Additionally, the traditionalist mindset has created a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is the inefficiency in the market.

Quote:
I've watched an awful lot of pro football and been a draftnik for over 65 years and I believe my eyes which for me has shown that LT's for the most part, are left on an island in pass protection unless they totally stink at playing the position and there is no possible way that interior OLmen are equal to the LT's ability to pass block. LT's will continue to be drafted top 5 to 10 on a very consistent basis, because every team needs one to protect their QB from serious injury coming from the QB's blindside. That is never going to change unless somehow QB's are no longer the ultimate player needed for success on a football team.


That's what created this inefficiency. The idea that you need to leave your LT on an island. It leads to teams overvaluing LTs. If you dispel with that notion, you can take advantage of the inefficiencies in the market. Don't leave your LT on an island. Spend less money and less assets to get great interior OLs; then, you don't have to leave your LT on an island.

The Saints recognized this. They thrived with a guy like Jermon Bushrod at LT because they had two All Pro OGs (Carl Nicks and Jahri Evans).

Quote:
I don't believe you will see the draft philosophy of drafting LT's much higher than interior OLmen ever change as long as the NFL is a pass first league, it will only change if the NFL reverts to a run first league. And as you have clearly shown, interior OLmen are making solid money once they prove themselves, so where is the inefficiency?


This thread is a perfect example of the inefficiency. Posters argued that Forrest Lamp should stay at LT if he's an average LT rather than allowing him to become an elite OG or C. That's an inefficient use of an asset.

The inefficiency also exists because the top OGs/Cs are making significantly less per year than the top LTs. They are also getting drafted significantly later.

Forrest Lamp is EASILY the best OL in this draft. However, because he's not a LT, he's likely not going to be picked until the 15 to 35 range. Taking a lesser player over Lamp is an inefficient use of resources.

Quote:
I am sure we will no doubt have a few discussions in the future and I like to think we may occasionally agree on subjects, but any theory that suggests that LT's are overrated gets me riled up and to further say that interior OLmen are just as important as LT's definitely gets me into a debate. I'm new to this site, but not new to discussing the draft and as long as my health permits, you can expect me to offer incites into the draft . Of course I'm 73 so it may be a short run, but I am sure you will appreciate my input over time.


I look forward to future debates. I hope that it won't be a short run.

Positional value is completely dependent on scheme. My point is that if coaches are willing to throw traditionalist notions out the window, the rationale for LTs being more valuable vanishes.

As it stands now, RTs are arguably the lowest paid OLs.(it's close between them and Centers) Yet, what is the difference between RTs and LTs? You can make the blind-side distinction, but that isn't the most significant one. RTs certainly aren't facing easier pass rushers anymore (guys like Von Miller, Justin Houston, Jason Pierre-Paul, J.J. Watt [when against an OT], Michael Bennett, etc. generally battle with the RT). The truth is that RTs are less valued because they receive much more help in pass pro. That is a salient point because if LTs received the same level of help, it stands to reason the position would be significantly devalued.

That's the crux of my theory. Stop feeling that you must leave your LT on an island. Use your resources more efficiently by building an awesome interior OL and then give your LT help. That'll be a better use of your resources than overpaying for a LT because you feel you must adhere to how things have been done for the past 40 or 50 years in the NFL.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Techbert


Joined: 24 Apr 2014
Posts: 997
Location: Orion Spur
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iamcanadian wrote:

...been a draftnik for over 65 years...


I'd like to test this a bit. So what were your primary sources of information before the internet? Before ESPN?

There's a couple of names I would expect you to mention to validate your claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reamer


Joined: 15 Feb 2010
Posts: 484
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still can't believe that Kofi Amichia gets such little press. He's extremely athletic, moves well, has long arms that he extends through contact, good feet to redirect with balance, frequently climbs from block to block (walls off a DT, goes and finds a LB, might finish the play blocking a safety), and runs downfield to help with blocking on plays where the other OL have long since stopped jogging. He's not a big drive blocker or anything, but he is definitely capable of playing guard in a zone scheme. I think he's a major sleeper in this draft, but for some reason he isn't even listed as draftable based on most big boards I've seen. I have him as my #5 guard this year. Am I crazy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BowlesDawgDX


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 1152
Location: Athens, GA
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techbert wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:

...been a draftnik for over 65 years...


I'd like to test this a bit. So what were your primary sources of information before the internet? Before ESPN?

There's a couple of names I would expect you to mention to validate your claim.


He runs a pretty well known site to the draft community, but it will be up to him if he wants to share which one
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3530
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BowlesDawgDX wrote:
Techbert wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:

...been a draftnik for over 65 years...


I'd like to test this a bit. So what were your primary sources of information before the internet? Before ESPN?

There's a couple of names I would expect you to mention to validate your claim.


He runs a pretty well known site to the draft community, but it will be up to him if he wants to share which one


I say this as someone who sided more on the market inefficiency side of the discussion - is this really necessary? A poster should be judged on the merits of his content. If someone has been around that long, it will show up over time. If it's BS, it will show up pretty easily. Guys who have zero idea what they are talking about generally out themselves quickly. You can't fix stupid.


Now, if a newbie is kind of a jerk about stuff, and makes crazy statements about why their opinion is better than anyone else's with claims that can't be backed up, just be skeptical, and by all means, call BS where you see it content-wise. I just don't see how going after the poster themselves helps move any discussion forward. The comment about his experience made was not made to demean jrry in any way that I can see. Taking it out of context and then calling out newbies to prove themselves is not the way to encourage new posters to add to meaningful discussions.

I get ppl are trying to sniff out BS, and that's fair game content-wise but there's a better way to do it when it comes to the personal side (and yes, I get the OP brought it up first, so not like others started this). It's just that personal info shouldn't have to be a show-me-yours-and-I'll-show-you-mine deal. The merits of the posts should speak for themselves. FF should be better than this. Just my 2 cents.

_______

Back to the thread - tying in the NFL rumor talk to market inefficiency theory - one small (and completely unscientific, to be fair) way to show that some GM's are catching on to market inefficiency? If Lamp goes as top OL. Someone mentioned LAC at 7 taking Lamp. That would be bold, and frankly, as I have Lamp as a top 12 player overall, not a horrible reach (as opposed if you went T at 7, that would be nuts IMO, they rank in the 20's overall).

As Lamp is just head and shoulders above the rest of the OL top tier IMO, I'm going to be fascinated to see if he goes as first OL off the board or not.
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 68412
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reamer wrote:
I still can't believe that Kofi Amichia gets such little press. He's extremely athletic, moves well, has long arms that he extends through contact, good feet to redirect with balance, frequently climbs from block to block (walls off a DT, goes and finds a LB, might finish the play blocking a safety), and runs downfield to help with blocking on plays where the other OL have long since stopped jogging. He's not a big drive blocker or anything, but he is definitely capable of playing guard in a zone scheme. I think he's a major sleeper in this draft, but for some reason he isn't even listed as draftable based on most big boards I've seen. I have him as my #5 guard this year. Am I crazy?


Myself and Calhoun had a brief chat about him earlier this year. Based on the couple games I saw, I thought he had some nice tools. Calhoun felt similarly. I'd say Day 3 seems appropriate for him and agree that he's a better fit as an OG in a zone scheme.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 68412
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
BowlesDawgDX wrote:
Techbert wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:

...been a draftnik for over 65 years...


I'd like to test this a bit. So what were your primary sources of information before the internet? Before ESPN?

There's a couple of names I would expect you to mention to validate your claim.


He runs a pretty well known site to the draft community, but it will be up to him if he wants to share which one


I say this as someone who sided more on the market inefficiency side of the discussion - is this really necessary? A poster should be judged on the merits of his content. If someone has been around that long, it will show up over time. If it's BS, it will show up pretty easily. Guys who have zero idea what they are talking about generally out themselves quickly. You can't fix stupid.


Now, if a newbie is kind of a jerk about stuff, and makes crazy statements about why their opinion is better than anyone else's with claims that can't be backed up, just be skeptical, and by all means, call BS where you see it content-wise. I just don't see how going after the poster themselves helps move any discussion forward. The comment about his experience made was not made to demean jrry in any way that I can see. Taking it out of context and then calling out newbies to prove themselves is not the way to encourage new posters to add to meaningful discussions.

I get ppl are trying to sniff out BS, and that's fair game content-wise but there's a better way to do it when it comes to the personal side (and yes, I get the OP brought it up first, so not like others started this). It's just that personal info shouldn't have to be a show-me-yours-and-I'll-show-you-mine deal. The merits of the posts should speak for themselves. FF should be better than this. Just my 2 cents.

_______

Back to the thread - tying in the NFL rumor talk to market inefficiency theory - one small (and completely unscientific, to be fair) way to show that some GM's are catching on to market inefficiency? If Lamp goes as top OL. Someone mentioned LAC at 7 taking Lamp. That would be bold, and frankly, as I have Lamp as a top 12 player overall, not a horrible reach (as opposed if you went T at 7, that would be nuts IMO, they rank in the 20's overall).

As Lamp is just head and shoulders above the rest of the OL top tier IMO, I'm going to be fascinated to see if he goes as first OL off the board or not.


I agree. Being in the game for 65 years or 5 months doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is the substance of your posts. There's no reason to challenge the guy to prove it. It just isn't meaningful. I didn't take it as a dig or an insult. Frankly, he was civil throughout our conversation and was responding to a comment of mine that was a slight low-blow.

I'm all for new blood in this forum. Let the guy be. Cool
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iamcanadian


Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 228
Location: Wallaceburg, Ontario, Canada
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:
Your article still clearly states that the primary responsibility for the 2 OG's and the OC is to keep the center of the OL firm., before trying to help OT's. The parts about TE's helping out and RB's as well, I already said I agree with, so there isn't much new in these facts. So the 3 vs 2 for the interior OLmen still holds true as far as their primary responsibility.


You're not looking past the surface here. The 3 vs. 2 doesn't hold true. Any coach is capable of deviating from that.

If you have three quality interior OLs, you can trust them with 1-on-1s. That means that you can slide your protection to help out either of your OTs without keeping the TE or HB in to block. You can also use the TE or HB (even when they're running routes) to slow down edge rushers.

The point here is the 3-on-2 and 1-on-1 dynamic only exists if you have an inflexible coach.

Thus, it makes no sense to waste resources because traditionally LTs have played on an island. If you're smart and willing to adapt, you more efficiently use the resources that you have. The teams that are able to most efficiently use their resources are usually the best teams (because teams are dealing with finite resources).

Quote:
After all, for the OC or the OG to help out the OT on passing plays has to be pretty difficult, how long does a DE need to reach the QB, only a few seconds, somewhere around 4 to 5 and for an interior OLman to confirm the center is firm and then to get out to block a pass rushing DE, has to be extremely difficult in that short a time frame and nowhere does he say that an OT will help the interior OLmen to pass block, so the one on one still carries weight especially for the LT. Remember also that the article says that the RB is often used to support the middle and not just the OT's.


It's not, though. You can accomplish it through a myriad of ways. Let's assume that you need to help your LT.
1. You can slide protection to the left. Have your LG pass off the DT to the Center and have him take the inside against the RDE/ROLB. The LT can then over-set to take away the edge knowing that he has help if the RDE/OLB tries to use an inside move.

2. If you can't slide protection left due to where the UT lines up, you can line the TE up outside of the LT and slide protection right if you need to help out your RT. The LT can then under-set knowing that the TE will be there to help him if the RDE/OLB attacks the edge.

3. You can also use chips from the TE and HB if you don't want to keep them in while sliding protection to the right to help out the RT if needed.

This idea that you have to leave the LT on an island is exactly the type of flawed traditionalist thinking that I'm talking about.

QBs are taking shorter drops on average and getting the ball out more quickly. Teams are spreading the field horizontally instead of vertically. LTs simply don't have the same value that they did in the days of deep drops and vertical passing.

Quote:
I really appreciate it when I come across someone who does their homework and can point out my mistakes in knowledge, but it still doesn't make your theory correct, especially as long as that ugly authority, the draft, does not support it. There is a solid reason why LT's need a special skill set to handle top pass rushers and you are attempting to ignore it in your theory or at least downgrade it to the point that you claim interior Olmen are just as important as LT's.


Again, this doesn't undermine my theory. This is my theory. Teams are inefficiently using their resources. The fact that they are valuing LTs so highly and valuing interior OLs so lowly (relative to LTs) only supports a theory of teams overvaluing LTs and undervaluing interior OLs.

If teams valued them equally, there would be no inefficiency to take advantage of, so there would be no point in making this argument.

However, other factors also come into play with the draft. The #1 factor is scarcity. Additionally, the traditionalist mindset has created a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is the inefficiency in the market.

Quote:
I've watched an awful lot of pro football and been a draftnik for over 65 years and I believe my eyes which for me has shown that LT's for the most part, are left on an island in pass protection unless they totally stink at playing the position and there is no possible way that interior OLmen are equal to the LT's ability to pass block. LT's will continue to be drafted top 5 to 10 on a very consistent basis, because every team needs one to protect their QB from serious injury coming from the QB's blindside. That is never going to change unless somehow QB's are no longer the ultimate player needed for success on a football team.


That's what created this inefficiency. The idea that you need to leave your LT on an island. It leads to teams overvaluing LTs. If you dispel with that notion, you can take advantage of the inefficiencies in the market. Don't leave your LT on an island. Spend less money and less assets to get great interior OLs; then, you don't have to leave your LT on an island.

The Saints recognized this. They thrived with a guy like Jermon Bushrod at LT because they had two All Pro OGs (Carl Nicks and Jahri Evans).

Quote:
I don't believe you will see the draft philosophy of drafting LT's much higher than interior OLmen ever change as long as the NFL is a pass first league, it will only change if the NFL reverts to a run first league. And as you have clearly shown, interior OLmen are making solid money once they prove themselves, so where is the inefficiency?


This thread is a perfect example of the inefficiency. Posters argued that Forrest Lamp should stay at LT if he's an average LT rather than allowing him to become an elite OG or C. That's an inefficient use of an asset.

The inefficiency also exists because the top OGs/Cs are making significantly less per year than the top LTs. They are also getting drafted significantly later.

Forrest Lamp is EASILY the best OL in this draft. However, because he's not a LT, he's likely not going to be picked until the 15 to 35 range. Taking a lesser player over Lamp is an inefficient use of resources.

Quote:
I am sure we will no doubt have a few discussions in the future and I like to think we may occasionally agree on subjects, but any theory that suggests that LT's are overrated gets me riled up and to further say that interior OLmen are just as important as LT's definitely gets me into a debate. I'm new to this site, but not new to discussing the draft and as long as my health permits, you can expect me to offer incites into the draft . Of course I'm 73 so it may be a short run, but I am sure you will appreciate my input over time.


I look forward to future debates. I hope that it won't be a short run.

Positional value is completely dependent on scheme. My point is that if coaches are willing to throw traditionalist notions out the window, the rationale for LTs being more valuable vanishes.

As it stands now, RTs are arguably the lowest paid OLs.(it's close between them and Centers) Yet, what is the difference between RTs and LTs? You can make the blind-side distinction, but that isn't the most significant one. RTs certainly aren't facing easier pass rushers anymore (guys like Von Miller, Justin Houston, Jason Pierre-Paul, J.J. Watt [when against an OT], Michael Bennett, etc. generally battle with the RT). The truth is that RTs are less valued because they receive much more help in pass pro. That is a salient point because if LTs received the same level of help, it stands to reason the position would be significantly devalued.

That's the crux of my theory. Stop feeling that you must leave your LT on an island. Use your resources more efficiently by building an awesome interior OL and then give your LT help. That'll be a better use of your resources than overpaying for a LT because you feel you must adhere to how things have been done for the past 40 or 50 years in the NFL.


All solid points, but I disagree on 3 factors, if a team is going to depend on sliding an OG to help the LT, first, there aren't too many OG's with the foot speed to do it on any kind of consistent basis, that's why they are OG's in the first place, they might be able to help if the DE makes an inside move in rushing the QB, but if the DE stays to the outside on his pass rush, you can forget any OG getting there to help in time.

Second, if your spending high picks on drafting OG's, then more than likely, your team is going to be pretty weak at OT, after all there are limited resources available in any draft and FA might bring you, but as you pointed out, there aren't a whole lot of solid LT's in the league and getting one in FA is extremely difficult as usually only LT's with injury histories or declining ability are available.

Third, in your system, your asking the OG's and OC's to be capable of handling the bull rush 1 on 1 on a consistent basis, given that they for the most part lack foot speed to do it and many OC's lack the strength to hold a bull rush on their own. They also must be able to handle the smaller, speedier and quicker DT's 1 on 1, given that a lot of interior Olmen have been moved to OG due to having a lack of foot speed and shorter arms, there would be serious problems in handling 1 on 1 situations. There is after all a reason why OT pretty much have to have great feet and long arms in order to handle pass rushers. Come on, ask yourself if you truly believe that OG's and OC's can be expected to do what you are asking of them on any kind of consistent basis.

Lamp is a solid prospect, but he does have shorter arms and that is why he is projected to play OG. I am sure the team that drafts him will be happy, but it doesn't change the fact that with shorter arms, his ability to pass block one on one on a consistent basis is limited. The interior OLmen make up for all their weaknesses in foot speed or shorter arms through depending on blocking in a 3 vs 2 situation. Asking these guys to consistently block 1 on 1 just does not make any sense, if they had that ability, they would be playing OT in the first place. Yes, an OG or perhaps an OC can help an OT occasionally just to throw the defense off guard, but to ask them to do it on a consistent basis really isn't going to work

When you factor in limited money to be spent on limited resources, drafting OG's and OC's higher and paying them more money would entail spending less on other positions. Winning teams know how to build a winner and they know they can only pay certain positions certain dollars in order to be solid as much as possible. Drafting OG's and OC's higher in the draft and thus having to pay them more money simply will not work if you want a winning football team. Yes, Dallas pays Martin top dollar, but will Prescott (who makes peanuts currently) ever be more than another Alex Smith, I for one do not think so. His pay allows Dallas to pay Martin top dollar. Lets see what happens when they have to pay him top dollar. Look what happened to Seattle's and San Fran's OL's when they had to pay their rookie QB's top dollar.

BB has a very strict pay structure for his team as does Green Bay and Pittsburgh. They rarely vary from it and are only minimally active in FA often losing starters because hey will not pay them top dollar. What you are suggesting in drafting OG's and OC's higher would upset a whole team's pay structure and IMO, doom them to being far less successful.

Your example of the Titans using an OG to help a rookie OT, is not a solid answer. A team might try to help a rookie for a game or two, but I doubt they want to rely on that basis for a season and Mariota has not been the healthiest QB using that system?
_________________
and proud of it!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 51, 52, 53 ... 55, 56, 57  Next
Page 52 of 57

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group