PDA

View Full Version : Which positions should you target in Round 1?


wordofi
09-06-2010, 12:27 AM
Everybody has a different philosophy on player importance. My philosophy is that you target quarterbacks, offensive lineman, defensive lineman, and cornerbacks in Round 1.

The NFL is a quarterback-driven league. Without a star quarterback, your team isn't winning a Super Bowl.

It's hard to find quality offensive lineman in the later rounds. 2/3 of teams in the NFL have a 1st round pick at left tackle.

You're not going to find a dominant tackle like Ndamukong Suh in the later rounds. Guys like him come around once every five years.

You need a quality cornerback to stop a star quarterback from throwing to his favorite receiver. The top 3 cornerbacks in the NFL (Revis, Asomugha, and Bailey) were all 1st round picks.

What are your thoughts and opinions?

Duffman57
09-06-2010, 12:41 AM
I would say in the top ten, outside of exceptions (see Patrick Peterson, and Suh and Green) the positions that should be had are Pass Rusher, LT and QB.

In the first round though, i say go for the biggest need. Avoid RB due to the availability later in the draft unless you really need one (see Chargers). If you have a need that is a LT, NT, Pass Rusher, or CB then those should be the first pick since they are so rediculously hard to find in the later rounds.

BigBanger
09-06-2010, 02:22 AM
Everybody has a different philosophy on player importance. My philosophy is that you target quarterbacks, offensive lineman, defensive lineman, and cornerbacks in Round 1.
So if you had a hole at safety, you would have passed on Eric Berry if he was on the board at, say, 18th overall?

That is just plain stupid. Sounds like Matt Millen. "I only draft WRs in the top 10. That's it. That's how you build the greatest offense ever." His problem was drafting lazy players just as much as drafting players that play the same position.

The NFL is a quarterback-driven league. Without a star quarterback, your team isn't winning a Super Bowl.
Very true. But the biggest issue with drafting QBs is feeling forced to draft a QB because YOU NEED a QB. If there is a QB worthy of being drafted in the first round, and you need a QB that you feel will fit your system, then take him. If he's a fat, lazy piece of **** that's dumb as a box of rocks like JaMarcus Russell or is just flat out terrible like Brady Quinn, then pass on them. Drafting them because they are the top rated QB that year is a silly idea and a waste of a potentially franchise caliber player. Teams are still dazed by the star power of a player and the excitement of drafting the face of the franchise. Even if that face is David Carr or Akili Smith. That is somehow better than Dwight Freeney or Champ Bailey.

You're not going to find a dominant tackle like Ndamukong Suh in the later rounds. Guys like him come around once every five years.
Suh was simply one of the most physically developed and NFL ready players there has ever been. Regardless of position, he was one of the best pure talents there ever was. You don't pass on him because he is simply a game changing force. You are gonna pass on Haloti Ngata because you can only draft 4 positions and one of the most important positions on the DL is not one of them? Vince Wilfork? Round 1? Please. I would probably wait until round 2 myself because we know very few teams need a run stuffing force like him in the middle.

You need a quality cornerback to stop a star quarterback from throwing to his favorite receiver. The top 3 cornerbacks in the NFL (Revis, Asomugha, and Bailey) were all 1st round picks.
Charles Woodson is one of the top 3 CBs. Yes, he too was a first round pick and one of the best CB prospects of all time.


Really, only the top 10 picks are handcuffed by position of importance and that is due to the rookie contacts being retardedly absurd. Did the Steelers make a mistake by drafting one of the best Center prospects of the last 10 years? Did the Jets make a mistake by drafting one of the best Center prospects of the last 10 years? Did the Browns make that mistake with Alex Mack? If those teams drafted them in the top 10, then it might be questionable. I say might because you can probably look back at the 2006 draft and you probably wont find 10 players that have outplayed Nick Mangold that went in the first round.

Center is a position of great importance and those three guys were more than worthy of being drafted in the top 20. Granted you don't see them on a yearly basis, but when you have a shot at a Mangold, Pouncey, Kalil (I really liked him), or a Mack, then you should probably take it. I think franchise QBs like a guy that can keep pressure out of his face and help his running game.

There was a big debate early about Patrick Willis. Do you take a MLB in the top 15? Does the MLB have the value of a top 15 pick? Fack the value. If the guy is one of the best players in the draft, then you take him. I don't care if he plays MLB or OLB. Take the guy in the top 10. Top 5. If he's that good, then take him. Why pass on the guy that will be the best MLB in the NFL in 3 years just so you can draft the potential of Gaines Adams. Adams plays DE and even though he wasn't half the facking player, people thought it was solid value. How did that turn?

Really, outside of kicker and punter, every position is open to being a first round pick. The days of drafting the same three positions over and over are over. If the Oakland Raiders drafted Darrelle Revis #1 overall instead of JaMarcus Russell there would have been an up roar on draft day. Mel Kiper would have been chanting, "YOU DON'T PASS UP ON A POTENTIAL FRANCHISE QB FOR A CORNER!!" What if they did do that? Can you imagine? They would be sitting pretty with the two best CBs in the game right now and Russell would have bee someone else's mess (probably the (then) pitiful Lions). What if the Bucs drafted Revis at #4? Would they have made a colossal mistake to pass up on a pass rusher? What if the Cardinals drafted Revis at 5? You think Falcons wish they had Revis right now instead of the pass rusher they took? The Dolphins made the right choice and passed on the crappy QB, but they took a potential #2 WR (at best) and a kick return man. That's not really great drafting.

I can respect a team like the Jaguars who drafted Alualu at #10. I loved Alualu and thought he was legit first round caliber player. I didn't like him in the top 10, but the Jags did. Could they have moved down and got a couple draft picks? Maybe. But they got their guy.

Every single year people act like there only a certain few players who are options for certain picks. Or a team has to draft one of these three positions because they are picking 12th overall. To put it simply, when you draft a player in round 1, for whatever position, you should be thinking you are drafting a guy that is going to be your #1 player at THAT POSITION for the next 10 years. If that's LT, then that's LT. If that's RIGHT OFFENSIVE GUARD, then that's ROG. If that's SS, then that's a SS. If that's a WILL Backer then that's what it is.

Are you going to pass on Troy Polamalu because Johnathan Sullivan fits a better area of need and you are picking in a position where you can't draft a safety? That makes a lot of sense. You can look back at every draft. You can start from the top of round 1 and go through every player and you will go... "HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... ECT..."

A cap for rookie salaries is something the NFL needs and something the draft needs. Can you imagine the intrigue? A team capable of drafting a C in the top 10 because they don't have to dish out 20M in guaranteed money to an unproven rookie? The draft would be chaos and everyone would facking love it 100 times more than they do now. There would be no parameters. The best players would go off the board when they're supposed to. It would be like the Raiders were making every pick. The #4 overall team wouldn't feel like they have to draft a LT or a DE because those are the only positions worthy of big money. Teams would have freedom. There would be more trades. It would be so much better if every team just stuck to their board instead of saying, "Well, we need a QB. We're picking #2. We have to take him. We really love that CB, but we can't pay him a QB's salary."

AntoinCD
09-06-2010, 05:30 AM
I dont think there's a set formula for positions that have to be drafted, outside of the top 5 or so due to the money that would need to be paid(pending rookie wage scale obviously). It's more a case of positions which can be had later.

RB for example is a position that is not a high value position. Due to the short shelf life of a RB and propensity for teams to have a running back by committee approach we are seeing more teams take RBs between the 2nd and 4th round and getting great value, see Ray Rice and MJD for the best examples.

A lot of the better teams around the NFL seem to adopt a best player available approach in the first round. Unless there is a glaring need, ie QB, or an already stocked position on the roster, then the best player regardless of position is most likely the right option.

There seems to be a bit of a change at the moment as well in regards to teams' perceptions of which positions hold more value. Seldom before would a OG or C have been drafted in the first round. Now for the last few years there have been multiple players chosen in the first round. Likewise with the so-called 'one dimensional' NTs.

wordofi
09-06-2010, 08:57 AM
So if you had a hole at safety, you would have passed on Eric Berry if he was on the board at, say, 18th overall?

That is just plain stupid. Sounds like Matt Millen. "I only draft WRs in the top 10. That's it. That's how you build the greatest offense ever." His problem was drafting lazy players just as much as drafting players that play the same position.


Very true. But the biggest issue with drafting QBs is feeling forced to draft a QB because YOU NEED a QB. If there is a QB worthy of being drafted in the first round, and you need a QB that you feel will fit your system, then take him. If he's a fat, lazy piece of **** that's dumb as a box of rocks like JaMarcus Russell or is just flat out terrible like Brady Quinn, then pass on them. Drafting them because they are the top rated QB that year is a silly idea and a waste of a potentially franchise caliber player. Teams are still dazed by the star power of a player and the excitement of drafting the face of the franchise. Even if that face is David Carr or Akili Smith. That is somehow better than Dwight Freeney or Champ Bailey.


Suh was simply one of the most physically developed and NFL ready players there has ever been. Regardless of position, he was one of the best pure talents there ever was. You don't pass on him because he is simply a game changing force. You are gonna pass on Haloti Ngata because you can only draft 4 positions and one of the most important positions on the DL is not one of them? Vince Wilfork? Round 1? Please. I would probably wait until round 2 myself because we know very few teams need a run stuffing force like him in the middle.


Charles Woodson is one of the top 3 CBs. Yes, he too was a first round pick and one of the best CB prospects of all time.


Really, only the top 10 picks are handcuffed by position of importance and that is due to the rookie contacts being retardedly absurd. Did the Steelers make a mistake by drafting one of the best Center prospects of the last 10 years? Did the Jets make a mistake by drafting one of the best Center prospects of the last 10 years? Did the Browns make that mistake with Alex Mack? If those teams drafted them in the top 10, then it might be questionable. I say might because you can probably look back at the 2006 draft and you probably wont find 10 players that have outplayed Nick Mangold that went in the first round.

Center is a position of great importance and those three guys were more than worthy of being drafted in the top 20. Granted you don't see them on a yearly basis, but when you have a shot at a Mangold, Pouncey, Kalil (I really liked him), or a Mack, then you should probably take it. I think franchise QBs like a guy that can keep pressure out of his face and help his running game.

There was a big debate early about Patrick Willis. Do you take a MLB in the top 15? Does the MLB have the value of a top 15 pick? Fack the value. If the guy is one of the best players in the draft, then you take him. I don't care if he plays MLB or OLB. Take the guy in the top 10. Top 5. If he's that good, then take him. Why pass on the guy that will be the best MLB in the NFL in 3 years just so you can draft the potential of Gaines Adams. Adams plays DE and even though he wasn't half the facking player, people thought it was solid value. How did that turn?

Really, outside of kicker and punter, every position is open to being a first round pick. The days of drafting the same three positions over and over are over. If the Oakland Raiders drafted Darrelle Revis #1 overall instead of JaMarcus Russell there would have been an up roar on draft day. Mel Kiper would have been chanting, "YOU DON'T PASS UP ON A POTENTIAL FRANCHISE QB FOR A CORNER!!" What if they did do that? Can you imagine? They would be sitting pretty with the two best CBs in the game right now and Russell would have bee someone else's mess (probably the (then) pitiful Lions). What if the Bucs drafted Revis at #4? Would they have made a colossal mistake to pass up on a pass rusher? What if the Cardinals drafted Revis at 5? You think Falcons wish they had Revis right now instead of the pass rusher they took? The Dolphins made the right choice and passed on the crappy QB, but they took a potential #2 WR (at best) and a kick return man. That's not really great drafting.

I can respect a team like the Jaguars who drafted Alualu at #10. I loved Alualu and thought he was legit first round caliber player. I didn't like him in the top 10, but the Jags did. Could they have moved down and got a couple draft picks? Maybe. But they got their guy.

Every single year people act like there only a certain few players who are options for certain picks. Or a team has to draft one of these three positions because they are picking 12th overall. To put it simply, when you draft a player in round 1, for whatever position, you should be thinking you are drafting a guy that is going to be your #1 player at THAT POSITION for the next 10 years. If that's LT, then that's LT. If that's RIGHT OFFENSIVE GUARD, then that's ROG. If that's SS, then that's a SS. If that's a WILL Backer then that's what it is.

Are you going to pass on Troy Polamalu because Johnathan Sullivan fits a better area of need and you are picking in a position where you can't draft a safety? That makes a lot of sense. You can look back at every draft. You can start from the top of round 1 and go through every player and you will go... "HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... HIT... MISS... ECT..."

A cap for rookie salaries is something the NFL needs and something the draft needs. Can you imagine the intrigue? A team capable of drafting a C in the top 10 because they don't have to dish out 20M in guaranteed money to an unproven rookie? The draft would be chaos and everyone would facking love it 100 times more than they do now. There would be no parameters. The best players would go off the board when they're supposed to. It would be like the Raiders were making every pick. The #4 overall team wouldn't feel like they have to draft a LT or a DE because those are the only positions worthy of big money. Teams would have freedom. There would be more trades. It would be so much better if every team just stuck to their board instead of saying, "Well, we need a QB. We're picking #2. We have to take him. We really love that CB, but we can't pay him a QB's salary."

I'm not saying to not target guys like Eric Berry in Round 1 if they are available. What I meant was that I place emphasis on the positions that I mentioned. For example, if the choice is between Berry and Suh, I'm taking Suh. The Pro Bowl DTs in the NFL are generally 1st round picks (Kevin Williams, Albert Haynesworth, etc.). As far as safeties go, only 1 of the 6 Pro Bowl safeties last year was a 1st round pick, where 3 out of the 4 DTs were.

Sniper
09-06-2010, 08:58 AM
1. QB
2. DL
3. OT

Defense over offense whenever possible.

Sniper
09-06-2010, 09:00 AM
The top 3 cornerbacks in the NFL (Revis, Asomugha, and Bailey) were all 1st round picks.

So a guy wins NFL Defensive Player of the Year and he's not a top three corner? Mmmmmmmmkkkkkk.

Halsey
09-06-2010, 09:13 AM
A top 10 to 15 pick in the first round is a different animal than a second half of the first round pick, IMO. I generally think teams should stick to QBs, pass rushers, WRs, CBs, OTs and DTs in the top half of the first. Exceptions should be made for a truly special prospect at certain positions, such as a elite RB prospect like Adrian Peterson, Herschel Walker or Bo Jackson. After the top half of the first, teams should just be trying to find good players.

wordofi
09-06-2010, 09:32 AM
So a guy wins NFL Defensive Player of the Year and he's not a top three corner? Mmmmmmmmkkkkkk.

I forgot about Woodson. Once again though, he is a 1st round pick.

Day One Pick
09-06-2010, 10:58 AM
Good drafting teams target players, not positions.

keylime_5
09-06-2010, 11:02 AM
QBs, pass rushers, and left tackles.

wonderbredd24
09-06-2010, 11:04 AM
1st round centers are a pretty damn safe bet.

SenorGato
09-06-2010, 01:17 PM
Um...defensive line.

villagewarrior
09-06-2010, 01:51 PM
I think you have to find that perfect blend of positional need and best player available, which sounds really cliche but that's just the best way to do it. If you've got Aaron Rodgers at quarterback and the best player on the board is a quarterback it would be foolish to invest another first round pick in the QB. So perhaps you bypass what is a better player to shore up a position of need.

Of course, as far as 1st round players go, I want to see the college production, I want to see the athleticism, and I want to see the desire to play and love of football. Obviously it's difficult to quantify and evaluate all of that, but if you are making those decisions you are being paid a ton of money to make that evaluation.