You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 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 ... , 55, 56, 57  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mse326


Moderator
Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 18142
Location: mike23md on the sig
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
Quite frankly, I don't care who you would have taken or about your pre-draft rankings. They're irrelevant. Nobody laments picking a great player. Nobody goes into the off-season, sees all the holes on their roster, and says, "You know what, we shouldn't have taken (insert great starter here)." If you get a great starter, you are thankful you weren't one of the 10 to 18 teams that ended up with an average starter or worse.

Scherff is a quality starter who's trending upwards. The Redskins have nothing to regret.


I mean, what exactly are we basing the pick on? Original evaluations? Current production? I mean, I guess if you're looking at it strictly in a vacuum, sure it was a good pick. They got a good (potentially great) starting RG, but at the end of the day positional value and who else was drafted after him has to factor into your evaluation. I mean, if you're drafting top 5 and you're content with drafting "average" starters at position that don't carry a ton of value so be it.


I think you are underrating the value of guard play. Every QB that has ever played will tell you they'd rather have a guy come off the edge than up the middle. And I don't care how great a running game is if you can't convert on goal line and short yardage carries and that starts in the middle. Particularly with the change in the DT position to be more about penetration than holding the line good to great guards are extremely valuable.
_________________

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mse326 wrote:
CWood21 wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
Quite frankly, I don't care who you would have taken or about your pre-draft rankings. They're irrelevant. Nobody laments picking a great player. Nobody goes into the off-season, sees all the holes on their roster, and says, "You know what, we shouldn't have taken (insert great starter here)." If you get a great starter, you are thankful you weren't one of the 10 to 18 teams that ended up with an average starter or worse.

Scherff is a quality starter who's trending upwards. The Redskins have nothing to regret.


I mean, what exactly are we basing the pick on? Original evaluations? Current production? I mean, I guess if you're looking at it strictly in a vacuum, sure it was a good pick. They got a good (potentially great) starting RG, but at the end of the day positional value and who else was drafted after him has to factor into your evaluation. I mean, if you're drafting top 5 and you're content with drafting "average" starters at position that don't carry a ton of value so be it.


I think you are underrating the value of guard play. Every QB that has ever played will tell you they'd rather have a guy come off the edge than up the middle. And I don't care how great a running game is if you can't convert on goal line and short yardage carries and that starts in the middle. Particularly with the change in the DT position to be more about penetration than holding the line good to great guards are extremely valuable.


I don't think he is. OG is not paid very well in the NFL for a reason. A speed rusher coming off the blind side is much more likely to cause an injury and/or turnover than a DT/NT from the inside. On top of that, a lot of guys can play OG. It's not an athletically-demanding position for the most part. Few guys can play LT.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reamer


Joined: 15 Feb 2010
Posts: 488
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Anyone seen Brad Seaton? There's not much out there on him. With what little I could find, he seemed like a toolsy guy, but I wish I saw more of a mean streak.


Hmm. Maybe I need to watch more, but in the games I saw, the one thing that stood out to me: how much he likes to try to bury people. Granted, this is a highlight reel, but the first six snaps end with him putting someone on the ground:

https://youtu.be/Iu6FDBZKXNU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BroncosFan2010


Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 3900
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Taylor Moton has the tools to be a plug-and-play RT in a power scheme. Pretty polished technique. Decent footwork. Great push in the run game. Just enough agility to make level 2 blocks. Hardworking, 4 years starter. IMO he isn't a elite guy, but a guy that you don't look to replace more-or-less. And his polish to allow immediate snaps at RT gives him additional value to OT starved teams like my Broncos.

And Dion Dawkins isn't an OT at the next level IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iamcanadian


Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Wallaceburg, Ontario, Canada
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:
I think you need to look again, because you only have 1 example that comes close to your theory and that was in a pitiful draft year for OT's, while I have 7 LT's going top 10 during that span. You are whistling in the dark, but again, if you are right the draft will eventually reflect it and we will see over the next 2 or 3 season if there is any real trend favouring what you are claiming. Right this moment, I am not seeing it.


I think you need to try and understand my point better. My point isn't that LTs and interior OLs will be drafted at the same spot if the market is working at peak efficiency. Scarcity will always push LTs to the top. My point is that interior OLs are undervalued by many franchises. That is creating an inefficiency in the market. Savvy franchises will recognize and exploit that inefficiency until the rest of the league catches on to it.

I'm not whistling in the dark. I've corrected you a number of times when you made inaccurate statements. I've given you examples of teams doing exactly what you claim they don't. I've gone into detail on the rationale behind my theory. Meanwhile, you've repeated the same arguments again and again without truly engaging.

I'm done wasting my time on this conversation. You can restate the same point 100 times. It's not getting anywhere with me.

In fact, you can already see the changes happening. From 2000 to 2006, there were only 9 interior OLs drafted in the first round (counting Leonard Davis as an OG because he started his career there). From 2010 to 2016, there have been 18 or 19 interior OLs drafted in the first round (depending on how we classify Germain Ifedi).

The mindset is changing, but the inefficiency still exists. It's just not as great as it was a decade ago. In fact, the 2001 NFL Draft provides the perfect example of what I'm talking about here. The Cardinals drafted Leonard Davis in 2001 at #2 overall. Early in his career, they played him at OG. However, Dennis Green came in and decided to move Davis to LT before his fourth year in the NFL. Davis wasn't a good LT. He was mediocre at it. Yet, the Cardinals insisted on playing him there. After his rookie contract ended, the Cardinals didn't want to shell out big money for a mediocre LT. They let him walk to Dallas. Dallas signed him to a massive contract to play OG (got criticized heavily for it). Davis became one of the best OGs in football for Dallas.

That's a perfect example of a team wasting talent. That's exactly the type of thinking that has caused the market inefficiency.


I guess this is just another draft where OT's got picked ahead of OG's even with Lamp still on the board. Just another theory that has almost no evidence to back it up, considering all 32 teams passed on Lamp.. Maybe next year will be better for you.
_________________
and proud of it!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3609
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iamcanadian wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
Iamcanadian wrote:
I think you need to look again, because you only have 1 example that comes close to your theory and that was in a pitiful draft year for OT's, while I have 7 LT's going top 10 during that span. You are whistling in the dark, but again, if you are right the draft will eventually reflect it and we will see over the next 2 or 3 season if there is any real trend favouring what you are claiming. Right this moment, I am not seeing it.


I think you need to try and understand my point better. My point isn't that LTs and interior OLs will be drafted at the same spot if the market is working at peak efficiency. Scarcity will always push LTs to the top. My point is that interior OLs are undervalued by many franchises. That is creating an inefficiency in the market. Savvy franchises will recognize and exploit that inefficiency until the rest of the league catches on to it.

I'm not whistling in the dark. I've corrected you a number of times when you made inaccurate statements. I've given you examples of teams doing exactly what you claim they don't. I've gone into detail on the rationale behind my theory. Meanwhile, you've repeated the same arguments again and again without truly engaging.

I'm done wasting my time on this conversation. You can restate the same point 100 times. It's not getting anywhere with me.

In fact, you can already see the changes happening. From 2000 to 2006, there were only 9 interior OLs drafted in the first round (counting Leonard Davis as an OG because he started his career there). From 2010 to 2016, there have been 18 or 19 interior OLs drafted in the first round (depending on how we classify Germain Ifedi).

The mindset is changing, but the inefficiency still exists. It's just not as great as it was a decade ago. In fact, the 2001 NFL Draft provides the perfect example of what I'm talking about here. The Cardinals drafted Leonard Davis in 2001 at #2 overall. Early in his career, they played him at OG. However, Dennis Green came in and decided to move Davis to LT before his fourth year in the NFL. Davis wasn't a good LT. He was mediocre at it. Yet, the Cardinals insisted on playing him there. After his rookie contract ended, the Cardinals didn't want to shell out big money for a mediocre LT. They let him walk to Dallas. Dallas signed him to a massive contract to play OG (got criticized heavily for it). Davis became one of the best OGs in football for Dallas.

That's a perfect example of a team wasting talent. That's exactly the type of thinking that has caused the market inefficiency.


I guess this is just another draft where OT's got picked ahead of OG's even with Lamp still on the board. Just another theory that has almost no evidence to back it up, considering all 32 teams passed on Lamp.. Maybe next year will be better for you.


His point on market inefficiency is that GM's are making a mistake by going this way. The proof is if Lamp ends up being the best OL of this class, better than the others, not if GM's are taking G's just as early as T's. If that's happening, it means some GM's are catching up to the inefficiency.

I think you're missing his point. I know you 2 disagree on whether G are just as important as T, 1on1 vs. 3on2, but on this, you 2 are literally arguing the same side of this argument.
_________________
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: 69131
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iamcanadian wrote:
I guess this is just another draft where OT's got picked ahead of OG's even with Lamp still on the board. Just another theory that has almost no evidence to back it up, considering all 32 teams passed on Lamp.. Maybe next year will be better for you.


Sigh.

You still don't get it after all this time. In two to three years, when people are wondering why Forrest Lamp fell as far as he did, you'll understand what I'm getting at now.

No reason to waste more time explaining something you will just ignore.

Watch the movie Moneyball. Then, ask yourself how a team might get better by taking advantage of players that other teams are not accurately valuing.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
His point on market inefficiency is that GM's are making a mistake by going this way. The proof is if Lamp ends up being the best OL of this class, better than the others, not if GM's are taking G's just as early as T's. If that's happening, it means some GM's are catching up to the inefficiency.

I think you're missing his point. I know you 2 disagree on whether G are just as important as T, 1on1 vs. 3on2, but on this, you 2 are literally arguing the same side of this argument.


Don't bother. I'm just moving on. I've tried explaining this to him many times in this thread. He doesn't get that he's arguing for the exact outcome that is the basis of my theory.("Teams don't draft OGs highly; thus, your theory is wrong." "No, my theory is that teams not drafting OGs relatively highly is a mistake. It's a market inefficiency to be exploited." "You're wrong. Teams don't draft OGs highly, so clearly there is no inefficiency.")

I'm just not sure how to get through to him. You've tried. I've tried. The guy just doesn't seem to care what we tell him. He's dug himself in.

Anyways, I appreciate your help in trying to convey the point.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CalhounLambeau


Joined: 05 May 2011
Posts: 11639
Location: WI
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forrest Lamp has some long-term problems with both his wrists that haven't been reported. Might be the reason for his dip and going lower than the draftniks think.
_________________
Follow me on Twitter @CalhounLambeau
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CalhounLambeau wrote:
Forrest Lamp has some long-term problems with both his wrists that haven't been reported. Might be the reason for his dip and going lower than the draftniks think.


Interesting. How serious?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 14349
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dorian Johnson is gonna fall btw. Real sad story.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
Dorian Johnson is gonna fall btw. Real sad story.


I guess you can't reveal? Has to be some major medical defect.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 14349
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
justo wrote:
Dorian Johnson is gonna fall btw. Real sad story.


I guess you can't reveal? Has to be some major medical defect.
Didn't learn until this morning. I guess Dane just wrote about it: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2017-nfl-draft-cal-receiver-chad-hansen-highlights-best-available-on-day-3/ Kind of down played it.

Was asking someone about a potential trade for Green Bay from #33 and how he expected the first half of the first round to shake up with OL and his team needed a guard and mentioned something. Said he would have taken him in the third based on talent
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Iamcanadian


Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Wallaceburg, Ontario, Canada
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Broncofan wrote:
His point on market inefficiency is that GM's are making a mistake by going this way. The proof is if Lamp ends up being the best OL of this class, better than the others, not if GM's are taking G's just as early as T's. If that's happening, it means some GM's are catching up to the inefficiency.

I think you're missing his point. I know you 2 disagree on whether G are just as important as T, 1on1 vs. 3on2, but on this, you 2 are literally arguing the same side of this argument.


Don't bother. I'm just moving on. I've tried explaining this to him many times in this thread. He doesn't get that he's arguing for the exact outcome that is the basis of my theory.("Teams don't draft OGs highly; thus, your theory is wrong." "No, my theory is that teams not drafting OGs relatively highly is a mistake. It's a market inefficiency to be exploited." "You're wrong. Teams don't draft OGs highly, so clearly there is no inefficiency.")

I'm just not sure how to get through to him. You've tried. I've tried. The guy just doesn't seem to care what we tell him. He's dug himself in.

Anyways, I appreciate your help in trying to convey the point.


You cannot get through to me, because clearly the draft does not support your theory. The draft always corrects eventually for inefficiencies. Safeties, WR's and TE's used to be afterthoughts on draft days, now they have become priorities because the NFL became a pass first league. RB's lost their glamour over this trend as did LB's who can only defend the run..

You just don't want to look at the facts and stubbornly stick to a theory that that has no basis. LT's are and will continue to be, the highest priority on the OL, that is never going to change as long as the NFL is a pass first league. Protecting the QB's blindside remains the top priority for the OL. That is where the most serious injuries to QB's come from. GM's know this fact and that is why they place so much emphasis on getting a top LT in the draft.

Sorry, but on this point, in my opinion, you are dead wrong.
_________________
and proud of it!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iamcanadian wrote:
You cannot get through to me, because clearly the draft does not support your theory. The draft always corrects eventually for inefficiencies.


Sabermetrics exposed inefficiencies in the way baseball teams scouted. Did those inefficiencies not exist before the majority of the teams recognized them?

It's like you're claiming that a tree can't fall in the woods if nobody is around to hear it. Laughing

You're right. I can't get through to you because you aren't willing to consider any opinion other than your own.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 55, 56, 57  Next
Page 56 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