PDA

View Full Version : Relative importance of each position


ChiFan24
12-21-2011, 02:29 PM
Imaginary scenario I came up with in my head: you're drafting a team from scratch. Imagine that the talent level is relatively equal at each position every time you pick. How do you order the positions?

It also probably depends on the system you'll run, so I'll assume Lovie Smith is my coach. I'd go:

QB
DE
WR
DE
DT
MLB
S
WR
LT
WLB

Or something like that. I'm more interested in what everyone else would say.

jrdrylie
12-21-2011, 02:35 PM
Mine would be:

QB
DE
LT
CB
WR
DT
RT
OG
S
OLB
MLB
RB
TE
C
K
P

AntoinCD
12-21-2011, 03:35 PM
Just to play devils advocate here on the above rankings;

Where would the Pats offense be without Gronk and Hernandez?
How bad was the Jets offense when Nick Mangold went down?
Zoltanzzzzz!!!!!!!

Sloopy
12-21-2011, 03:44 PM
I am very defensive minded so mine would probably be:

NT
SLB
CB
MLB
LT
C
MLB
CB
S
G
S
G
QB
TE
WLB
DE
DE
RT
WR
P
K
RB

SuperPacker
12-21-2011, 03:46 PM
1.QB

Nothing else matters...

fenikz
12-21-2011, 03:49 PM
Qb Lt Wr De/3-4 Olb Dt Rt Cb Mlb/ilb

Sloopy
12-21-2011, 03:49 PM
1.QB

Nothing else matters...

I wouldn't go that far but yes it's important. I still believe that a team who controls the LOS can win any game and while the QB position should not be undervalued, neither should the presence of a complete team around said QB undervalued.

I assume that if I were to draft my way; I might struggle out of the gate but I would still have a solid team and feel like being a QB away is better than having a QB with little to nothing around him.

SuperPacker
12-21-2011, 03:52 PM
I wouldn't go that far but yes it's important. I still believe that a team who controls the LOS can win any game and while the QB position should not be undervalued, neither should the presence of a complete team around said QB undervalued.

I assume that if I were to draft my way; I might struggle out of the gate but I would still have a solid team and feel like being a QB away is better than having a QB with little to nothing around him.

Well the Packers have no defense and a terrible offensive line and we're 13-1

ImBrotherCain
12-21-2011, 03:53 PM
Well the Packers have no defense and a terrible offensive line and we're 13-1

... I really think you should rethink that statement and try again

Sloopy
12-21-2011, 04:01 PM
Well the Packers have no defense and a terrible offensive line and we're 13-1

You guys definitely don't have a great defense but it's not terrible. You still have some serious key players on that side of the ball... Not sure what your saying about the OL, your two starting tackles are injured that's really all and there are some serious weapons around him

Raiderz4Life
12-21-2011, 04:06 PM
You guys aren't getting it....he's talking about Aaron Rodgerzz Qb of the GB Packerzz!!!

Sloopy
12-21-2011, 04:07 PM
You guys aren't getting it....he's talking about Aaron Rodgerzz Qb of the GB Packerzz!!!

OHHHH my bad haha, can I change my rankings?

Aaron Rodgers
LT
QB
SLB....

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
12-21-2011, 04:14 PM
QB
C
UT
LT
RDE
SLB
SS
the rest

MaxV
12-21-2011, 04:39 PM
For Cover-2 team:

QB
DE
UT
LT
NT
MLB
RT
SS
FS
WR
TE
OC
WLB
OG
CB
RB
SLB
K
P

Caulibflower
12-21-2011, 06:14 PM
Interesting thread. But I kinda think it's more a matter of which positions are harder to find acceptable talent for. And also which scheme a team is running. So I'm thinking in terms of the role a player fills. It's not that hard to find guys who can be big and mean and maul around on the interior line, for example, so a lot of top players at those positions are drafted in the middle rounds. But try to get a run game going without them - not going to happen. So it's kind of a multi-faceted thing. You've got to get good guys at certain positions, but there might be more quality players to be had at certain positions than others. If I was to make a list of which positions teams seem to be constantly craving talent upgrades at, it's probably look like...

Quarterback.

Pass Rusher - Defensive end, defensive tackle or outside linebacker - anyone who can get in a QBs face and make his job hard is highly coveted.

Coverage guys - whether a pure cover corner or a balanced, playmaking safety, teams are always looking for that guy teams are afraid to throw at. Linebackers can fit into this category, too, but it's rare.

Receivers - Guys who are receiving threats. Primarily true wideouts, but guys who are technically other positions like Jimmy Graham and Gronkowski are just as valued, if not more, to their teams than guys who are listed as wide receivers on their teams' rosters. I'm tempted to include guys like Matt Forte, MJD and Ray Rice in this bunch. It seems like teams try harder to add dynamic wideouts than running backs, but the do-it-all types are on this plane. So if I'm calling this the "fourth-tier" or something, it's wide receivers and multi-purpose, offensive-cog-type running backs. Tempted to add Darren Sproles to this group based on what he's done this year, but ultimately I don't think he's important enough to his offense. He's currently got the 5th-most receptions in the NFL, though, so... Maybe. But probably not. You get the idea, though, in that I'd consider adding him to this group but ultimately probably would not.

Offensive linemen, specifically tackles. Everyone talks about how important left tackles are, but I think teams tend to target the above positions earlier. You moan about not having a left tackle if you don't have one, but if you're picking between a top wideout and a top tackle, seems like teams go for the skill players first.

Returners and multi-purpose guys. Guys who offer a special ability. If it's just a guy who might be able to return some kicks, he doesn't go here, but guys who are drafted/signed specifically with their return ability and versatility in mind. We're talking Devin Hester, Percy Harvin-tpyes

Running backs. Like interior linemen, they can be critical to a teams' success... but there's a lot of them, and a lot of guys who will be able to get enough done that you don't have to spend a lot of time or effort worrying about the position. The highest-valued running backs are the ones who offer something special.

Run-Stoppers. D-linemen or linebackers. Safeties will get considered here, too, but the high-value guys have to be good in coverage.

Think that's about it. Everyone knows kickers and punters are the least valued players. You've gotta use them when your other units aren't performing well enough for touchdowns.

But any player who is truly an elite talent will transcend this, like an Adrian Peterson at a seemingly "low-value" position like running back.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
12-21-2011, 06:17 PM
The NFL center has become underrated.

prock
12-21-2011, 06:20 PM
1. Qb
2. Bpa

SuperPacker
12-21-2011, 06:44 PM
1. Qb
2. Bpa

I agree.. As long as you have a good QB all you have to do is ger a generally good team around him and you'll be winning!

Paul
12-21-2011, 07:06 PM
I am very defensive minded so mine would probably be:

NT
SLB
CB
MLB
LT
C
MLB
CB
S
G
S
G
QB
TE
WLB
DE
DE
RT
WR
P
K
RB

In a league where offense and QB mean everything, that team will not do well. Just being realistic.

RCAChainGang
12-21-2011, 07:39 PM
I just did a fantasy draft on Madden so I guess I'll post what I did there haha.

QB, LT, DE, CB, DT, MLB, S, OG, WR

DraftSavant
12-21-2011, 07:46 PM
It's relative for the era you play in, too.

Take LT. That's a highly valuable position historically, but right now? Meh. If we're talking about the early 2000s, that's a totally different story.

Sloopy
12-21-2011, 07:51 PM
In a league where offense and QB mean everything, that team will not do well. Just being realistic.

I tend to believe that in a pass happy league, you need to either buy in or stop what the other guys are doing. With all of the disadvantages that a D faces these days, having a stacked D would almost be necessary to compete in that manor.

This is a completely unrealistic scenario so forgive me as I take creative license in this explanation:

If everyone was busy selecting QB's WR's etc. the available D players would be unreal. You build your team by countering what the other teams are selecting and you build a team to counter what the rest of the league is doing.

I agree it would probably struggle out of the gate but I think that it would be more likely to find success over a long period of time. With a solid team, drafting even a moderately good QB game manager type in the next draft would be good enough. Just look at what the 9'ers are doing with Alex Smith right now.

All of this being purely hypothetical.

Bengalsrocket
12-21-2011, 08:05 PM
1. Guy who can pass the ball.
2. Guy(s) who can protect that guy.
3. Guy(s) who can rush the passer.

:)

Sloopy
12-21-2011, 08:09 PM
Looking at my rankings, I might move CB up to #1 and NT down to #3 I mean it probably wouldn't make a huge difference anyway with everyone taking QBs and WRs but give me Revis.

Then a top pass rushing OLB (3-4) and if by any chance Patrick Willis, Beaston or B Cush are around give me one of them with the 3rd. I'll settle for not taking a top NT and pick up a guy like Soliai or maybe Raji if they are still around in the 4th :P

DeepThreat
12-21-2011, 09:17 PM
Looking at my rankings, I might move CB up to #1 and NT down to #3 I mean it probably wouldn't make a huge difference anyway with everyone taking QBs and WRs but give me Revis.

Then a top pass rushing OLB (3-4) and if by any chance Patrick Willis, Beaston or B Cush are around give me one of them with the 3rd. I'll settle for not taking a top NT and pick up a guy like Soliai or maybe Raji if they are still around in the 4th :P

None of this makes any sense. You're saying you would rather have Revis than Rodgers. That's just stupid.

BaLLiN
12-21-2011, 09:48 PM
Giants
1. Passrushers
2. QB
3. Coverage players
4. Pass catchers
5. OL
6. Special Teams
7. RB
8. Run defenders

gpngc
12-21-2011, 10:15 PM
Qb
De
Dt
Cb
Lt
Mlb
C
Rt
Rg
Lg
Fs
Ss
Olb
Wr
Rb
K
P

Hawk
12-21-2011, 11:20 PM
1. QB - Quarterback is obviously the most important. Obviously any deficiency in one position can be made up for by proficiency at one or more positions(ex. '00 Ravens).

2. DE - Next I feel defensive end is important because it is the most impactful position on defense.

3. OT - Offensive tackle is at number three because they are the seals to good protection on offense. The majority of Super Bowl winning teams always had at least one, and sometimes two, good tackles.

4. CB - A good corner can help stop the run and shut down opposing recievers.

5. C - I'm not sure why I put center here, but I feel like the game is still won in the trenches. The center helps call the protection. I believe Jeff Saturday helped contribute to Peyton Manning and his success since they've been together for years now.

6. DT - Again, the trenches. Its amazing what a solid defensive line can do for a team.

After this, I think safety, running back, wide receiver, offensive guard, linebacker, kicker, and punter are at about the same value. In evaluating positions, I considered 3-4 OLBs that almost exclusively rush the passer as DE's. I don't know how else to rate this, but I'm really stoned, so I don't know if it will make sense.

JBCX
12-22-2011, 12:39 AM
Bill Walsh wrote an interesting article about this as part of a larger special on the draft process.

http://www.sportsxchange.com/ds97/WALSH/walsh5.htm

On that page, he lists the positions he would choose in order of importance if he had to build a team from scratch.

He prioritizes QB over everything else, which is what most people would do. He then lists "pass rusher" (whether a 4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB) as the second position he would choose. But I found it interesting that at #3, he listed safety. Walsh thought that the safety was the third most important position in the game.

His rationale is that the safety affects every play on the defense in both the running and passing game. An elite safety can come up into the box to make tackles on the RB, and can hit WRs and TEs in the passing game to dislodge the football. Additionally, good safeties can clean up messes left by the linebackers and linemen, and finish off tackles before a ball carrier breaks into the open.

Walsh also considers the OT relatively unimportant.

prock
12-22-2011, 01:47 AM
If I had Ronnie Lott, I would consider safety much more important as well. I think secondary in general is third, whether it be a good shutdown CB or a safety, but I don't know if I would put safety ahead of offensive line. I think center is just as, if not more, important than offensive tackle though.

It also depends on what you have on your team. If you have a young, inexperienced, developing quarterback, then tackle becomes more important. Like for the Vikings, I think it is more important to get Kalil than Claiborne to protect Ponder. If we had someone like Brees, Brady, or Rodgers, I would definitely say get Claiborne because they are experienced enough to slide protections, read coverages, and get the ball out quick.

If we were doing a straight up fantasy draft, I would get a top 10 quarterback if I could, otherwise I would go BPA at DE, CB, or LT. If I was picking first in a snake draft, I would go Rodgers, then BPA the rest of the way (to a reasonable extent). I would rather take the top ILB at the end of round 2 than the 10th best corner or the 10th best tackle.

descendency
12-22-2011, 04:04 AM
The difference between a #1 WR and a #2 WR is quite startling. I think when you talk about WRs other than a #1, they're just above a kicker in terms of value.

descendency
12-22-2011, 04:07 AM
Bill Walsh wrote an interesting article about this as part of a larger special on the draft process.

http://www.sportsxchange.com/ds97/WALSH/walsh5.htm

On that page, he lists the positions he would choose in order of importance if he had to build a team from scratch.

He prioritizes QB over everything else, which is what most people would do. He then lists "pass rusher" (whether a 4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB) as the second position he would choose. But I found it interesting that at #3, he listed safety. Walsh thought that the safety was the third most important position in the game.

His rationale is that the safety affects every play on the defense in both the running and passing game. An elite safety can come up into the box to make tackles on the RB, and can hit WRs and TEs in the passing game to dislodge the football. Additionally, good safeties can clean up messes left by the linebackers and linemen, and finish off tackles before a ball carrier breaks into the open.

Walsh also considers the OT relatively unimportant.

But when was it written? I'd say the change in the games rules (especially "the 5 yard no touchy... unless you are a WR, then you can tackle Rodney Harrison to stop your QB from being picked off" rule) have changed the values.

Saints-Tigers
12-22-2011, 04:31 AM
WOW, me and Bill Walsh are on an island with the safety thing I guess.

Sloopy
12-22-2011, 09:30 AM
None of this makes any sense. You're saying you would rather have Revis than Rodgers. That's just stupid.

Read my other posts. I mean not everyone can have a Rodgers or a Brees or Brady or Manning. I would rather build a team to counter what the rest of the league is doing.

Sloopy
12-22-2011, 09:31 AM
If I had Ronnie Lott, I would consider safety much more important as well. I think secondary in general is third, whether it be a good shutdown CB or a safety, but I don't know if I would put safety ahead of offensive line. I think center is just as, if not more, important than offensive tackle though.

It also depends on what you have on your team. If you have a young, inexperienced, developing quarterback, then tackle becomes more important. Like for the Vikings, I think it is more important to get Kalil than Claiborne to protect Ponder. If we had someone like Brees, Brady, or Rodgers, I would definitely say get Claiborne because they are experienced enough to slide protections, read coverages, and get the ball out quick.

If we were doing a straight up fantasy draft, I would get a top 10 quarterback if I could, otherwise I would go BPA at DE, CB, or LT. If I was picking first in a snake draft, I would go Rodgers, then BPA the rest of the way (to a reasonable extent). I would rather take the top ILB at the end of round 2 than the 10th best corner or the 10th best tackle.

This, people have gotten so caught up with the blind side but a good man in the pivot is invaluable

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
12-22-2011, 09:48 AM
WOW, me and Bill Walsh are on an island with the safety thing I guess.

I thought Bill Walsh was one of the first to stress the importance of a good blindside protector...

DeepThreat
12-22-2011, 09:59 AM
Read my other posts. I mean not everyone can have a Rodgers or a Brees or Brady or Manning. I would rather build a team to counter what the rest of the league is doing.

That's not what this is about. It's essentially saying if you can have an elite player at any position, which position do you choose. And you chose Revis over Rodgers.

nobodyinparticular
12-22-2011, 10:21 AM
1. Guy who can pass the ball.
2. Guy(s) who can protect that guy.
3. Guy(s) who can rush the passer.

:)

I would say 1,2,3 is correct then repeat 2 and 3.

Paul
12-22-2011, 10:22 AM
Read my other posts. I mean not everyone can have a Rodgers or a Brees or Brady or Manning. I would rather build a team to counter what the rest of the league is doing.

Well I believe you need at least a B+ quarterback to win anything in this league, but you have a QB in the middle of the pack between TE and OG :/

DraftSavant
12-22-2011, 10:26 AM
WOW, me and Bill Walsh are on an island with the safety thing I guess.

The rest of the NFL seems to be swinging in that direction as well. A good safety is so important now/again, especially with the (re)emergence of the tight end in the passing game.

Rosebud
12-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Qb
De
Cb
De
Dt
Cb
Wr
Oc
Ot
S
Te
Og
Lb
Rb

A Perfect Score
12-22-2011, 10:41 AM
It's relative for the era you play in, too.

Take LT. That's a highly valuable position historically, but right now? Meh. If we're talking about the early 2000s, that's a totally different story.

This man speaks the truth. It's entirely relative. With so many teams employing the 3-4 and utilizing 2 capable pass rushers, LT and RT position value is practically equal at this point. Not to mention the rise of the interior offensive line. Teams need C's to anchor against the mammoth NT's that dominate the contemporary NFL, that's why we're seeing so many C's go early compared to previous years.

I think it's hard to make an argument for legitimate position value, honestly. The modern NFL offers so many dynamic players at so many positions that it's possible to build a team in a variety of ways. Obviously looking beyond QB, as it's obviously the exception, you can build a team in a variety of ways now. Teams like the Packers and Patriots that are built around spread and option passing attacks would be incredibly out of place 10 years ago, when power running games and ball control offense dominated the NFL. It's ironic, actually, that the Patriots come up in this conversation, because they're one of the best teams in the NFL at envisioning and adapting to the strategic trends which fluctuate over time in pro football. Since the early 2000's, they've transitioned from a heavy running team with a dominant 3-4 defense to an option route/spread passing offense with a mediocre run game and an absolutely horrendous hybrid defense. I do expect the latter to get better once BB switches to a 4-3 permanently and starts stealing players in the draft again, but as of right now they're a prime example of the way a team should adjust to the changing values of the NFL.

Getting back to the original point though, premium will always be placed on impact players regardless of position. ILB is often a position that is devalued on draft day, but if a Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher rolls along teams will jump all over it. The same can be said of any position, really.

Sloopy
12-22-2011, 10:52 AM
That's not what this is about. It's essentially saying if you can have an elite player at any position, which position do you choose. And you chose Revis over Rodgers.

Yes. I am saying I would chose Revis over Rodgers in this fantasy scenario.

I would try to counter what everyone else is doing. While all the other 31 teams were taking QBs and WRs in the first few rounds I would get a head start on my defense to counter what they are doing. this would give me a few rounds to have my pick of the crop of top defensive players.

DeepThreat
12-22-2011, 10:56 AM
Yes. I am saying I would chose Revis over Rodgers in this fantasy scenario.

I would try to counter what everyone else is doing. While all the other 31 teams were taking QBs and WRs in the first few rounds I would get a head start on my defense to counter what they are doing. this would give me a few rounds to have my pick of the crop of top defensive players.

That has worked very well for the Jets. I mean, they might make the playoffs.

Paul
12-22-2011, 11:03 AM
1. QB
2. DE/OLB
3. CB
4. S
5. C

I'm fully aware of how important Center is watching Costa play for Dallas. GAH. Plus See what Pouncey and Mangold do for their respective offenses.

keylime_5
12-22-2011, 11:05 AM
regardless of scheme, i would get my QB and pass rushers first. Then I'd go for left tackle and some WR playmakers. After that would be DT and CB in some order, then C, S, MLB, RB and another CB and DT. Then I'd fill out the rest of the team starting with another OL.

Sloopy
12-22-2011, 11:05 AM
That has worked very well for the Jets. I mean, they might make the playoffs.

The Jets also spend a great deal of money on receivers and a **** QB (Before you say I would have a **** QB, I know but I wouldn't be paying him top 5 selection money and would allocate those resources elsewhere). Their pass rush is also very weak as well as there DL.

The Jets are a terrible example of what I would want to do.

I would be more inclined to believe your argument if you were to say the Eagles defense who's philosophy is to hang their hat on stopping the pass but I would again counter with the fact that I would be selecting better linebackers and wouldn't run a **** wide 9 scheme.

San Diego Chicken
12-22-2011, 11:08 AM
1. QB
2. DE/OLB
3. CB
4. S
5. C

I'm fully aware of how important Center is watching Costa play for Dallas. GAH. Plus See what Pouncey and Mangold do for their respective offenses.

Agreed. I too believe that Center has become the most important OL position. Don't forget about Chris Myers in Houston or Scott Wells in GB. Your center is the quarterback of your line.

Sloopy
12-22-2011, 11:10 AM
The Jets also spend a great deal of money on receivers and a **** QB (Before you say I would have a **** QB, I know but I wouldn't be paying him top 5 selection money and would allocate those resources elsewhere). Their pass rush is also very weak as well as there DL.

The Jets are a terrible example of what I would want to do.

I would be more inclined to believe your argument if you were to say the Eagles defense who's philosophy is to hang their hat on stopping the pass but I would again counter with the fact that I would be selecting better linebackers and wouldn't run a **** wide 9 scheme.

page trap (10 char)

DeepThreat
12-22-2011, 11:22 AM
that's pretty misleading, as that wasn't ever actually a choice they had. and they *did* try to take a guy they thought could be a top nfl qb. it's just too bad that he's actually terrible.

This is true, but right now we see the quarterback position holding them back from being a great team. It just further emphasizes the importance of the position.

Sloopy
12-22-2011, 11:48 AM
This is true, but right now we see the quarterback position holding them back from being a great team. It just further emphasizes the importance of the position.

You can also use the example of Manning as to why having a top QB and great receivers receiving TEs etc as to why a top QB doesn't guarantee **** nor does it make you better than other teams.

A Perfect Score
12-22-2011, 11:58 AM
You can also use the example of Manning as to why having a top QB and great receivers receiving TEs etc as to why a top QB doesn't guarantee **** nor does it make you better than other teams.

It kind of does though. If you think about it logically, anyways. The Colts have been perennial contenders for a decade because of Manning. Did Champ Bailey carry the Broncos to the playoffs every year? Don't get me wrong, I love Champ Bailey. I own his jersey, and I'm a Ravens fan. But how many Super Bowls has he won? How many times has he been to the playoffs in comparison to Manning? Obviously systemic factors have to be taken into account, the most obvious being the Broncos are run by morons, but at the same time you can't count on a CB, no matter how elite (And I do believe Bailey to be the best of his generation), to carry you to the playoffs. You can count on that from an elite QB. Or at least moreso then you could with a defensive player. Want another example? Ray Lewis. Yeah, we won a Superbowl in 2000 with a dominant defense and an awful QB, but that's the exception, not the rule. During his tenure in the NFL, the Ravens have had arguably the best defense of the decade, yet we have often toiled in obscurity or failed in the playoffs due to poor QB play despite stellar defense. I love the fact that you're trying to argue for defense, but it's a lost cause in the contemporary NFL.

Getting back to your example, I think something people forget about that Colts, and it's something that's just so incredibly vital to understanding the organization, is that it isn't just the offense that is built around Peyton Manning. Their defense is designed with the specific intention of holding a lead, not making a comeback. Their entire franchise is built with the idea in mind that Peyton Manning will give them the lead. When they're ahead, all of a sudden that defense goes from incredibly mediocre to an absolute pain in the ass. It's why it's failing so hard this year, they're always playing from behind and it completely neutralizes the best aspects of that defense, that being insanely good pass rushers and a system designed to prevent big plays. I love a good defense as much as the next guy (again, Ravens fan), but the QB position is just impossible to overvalue.

Sloopy
12-22-2011, 12:10 PM
I agree that a CB isn't going to bring you to the super bowl alone.

My idea is completely based off the fact that everyone else would be drafting QB's etc and I could get 2-3 of the top defensive players in the league right now and build a defense of 2nd tier players around that.

If for example I could manage Revis Ware and Reed (just a scenario, I know two of them are a bit old so if you prefer to replace Reed with say Berry? or Ware with say Clay Matthews? feel free) Do you not think that those kind of impact players gathered on one defense might be able to counter some of the better pass offense in the league?

I'm not trying to argue that the QB position isn't important. I'm saying that one could be successful in this fantasy scenario by building a counter punch to the now conventional pass heavy offense.

Based on what all of you have said would be your top picks, I imagine I could gather quite the all star team on defense.

Rosebud
12-22-2011, 04:45 PM
That has worked very well for the Jets. I mean, they might make the playoffs.

It's working great for the 49ers...

SuperPacker
12-23-2011, 04:37 AM
I agree that a CB isn't going to bring you to the super bowl alone.

My idea is completely based off the fact that everyone else would be drafting QB's etc and I could get 2-3 of the top defensive players in the league right now and build a defense of 2nd tier players around that.

If for example I could manage Revis Ware and Reed (just a scenario, I know two of them are a bit old so if you prefer to replace Reed with say Berry? or Ware with say Clay Matthews? feel free) Do you not think that those kind of impact players gathered on one defense might be able to counter some of the better pass offense in the league?

I'm not trying to argue that the QB position isn't important. I'm saying that one could be successful in this fantasy scenario by building a counter punch to the now conventional pass heavy offense.

Based on what all of you have said would be your top picks, I imagine I could gather quite the all star team on defense.

Good in theory but if you look at Green Bays defense we have Woodson and Williams (both top 10 corners), Clay Matthews (top 5 pass rusher) and Nick Collins (top 5 safety), but the defense is still pretty terrible! I know Collins hasnt played but he was there for the first two games where we let Brees and Newton throw for 900 yards collectively. I think an underrated position on a 3-4 defense is DE. Look at the 3 best 3-4 defenses in the league. Steelers, Ravens and 49ers. They have Aaron Smith, Kiesel, Ngata and Justin Smith who are all top players at 3-4 DE. Also the Packers lost Cullen Jenkins this year and went from the best defense to below average.

If i was using your theory i would take Ware first, Ngata second, Reed third then Berry fourth.

Phins827
12-23-2011, 07:08 AM
Not going by any team's system. But, if I were running a team, and using a 3-4 defense.

QB
LT
NT
Pass Rush OLB
ILB
WR
Interior OL
RB
DE
CB
TE
S

I think... I dont know. Obviously QB and LT are important, but after that I dont know if any ONE position is more important than another. I think you really need a quality player at just about every position to be considered a legit threat

Sloopy
12-23-2011, 07:51 AM
Good in theory but if you look at Green Bays defense we have Woodson and Williams (both top 10 corners), Clay Matthews (top 5 pass rusher) and Nick Collins (top 5 safety), but the defense is still pretty terrible! I know Collins hasnt played but he was there for the first two games where we let Brees and Newton throw for 900 yards collectively. I think an underrated position on a 3-4 defense is DE. Look at the 3 best 3-4 defenses in the league. Steelers, Ravens and 49ers. They have Aaron Smith, Kiesel, Ngata and Justin Smith who are all top players at 3-4 DE. Also the Packers lost Cullen Jenkins this year and went from the best defense to below average.

If i was using your theory i would take Ware first, Ngata second, Reed third then Berry fourth.

Woodson is a glorified nickel guy who hasn't been lock down in coverage for awhile now. I'll give you Collins and Clay, I'd say your next best player after that is Raji.

I also wouldn't call your D a gathering of superstars by any means

ImBrotherCain
12-23-2011, 08:22 AM
Woodson is a glorified nickel guy who hasn't been lock down in coverage for awhile now. I'll give you Collins and Clay, I'd say your next best player after that is Raji.

I also wouldn't call your D a gathering of superstars by any means

I don't want to get too far sidetracked here but Woodson may not be the cover corner he once was but he is easily one of the biggest game changers on Defense in the NFL.

The way he continues to play I would have to say he is our 2nd best defender.

SuperPacker
12-23-2011, 08:29 AM
Woodson is a glorified nickel guy who hasn't been lock down in coverage for awhile now. I'll give you Collins and Clay, I'd say your next best player after that is Raji.

I also wouldn't call your D a gathering of superstars by any means

When did i say our defense was full of superstars? In fact I said it was below average. There is no denying Woodson, Williams, Collins and Clay are some of the best at their positions but my point was that i also feel 3-4 DE are an important piece in a 3-4 defense.

Sloopy
12-23-2011, 08:37 AM
I don't want to get too far sidetracked here but Woodson may not be the cover corner he once was but he is easily one of the biggest game changers on Defense in the NFL.

The way he continues to play I would have to say he is our 2nd best defender.

Oh without a doubt he is one of the best players on that defense, I'm just saying that he isn't the same coverage type as having say Revis.

I don't buy into the whole shutdown corner thing. Anyone can get beat but end of the day it does come down to the fact that some teams will not throw to that side if simply for the fact that they have a better shot on the other side. This allows you to do a lot schematically against an offense.

Sloopy
12-23-2011, 08:40 AM
When did i say our defense was full of superstars? In fact I said it was below average. There is no denying Woodson, Williams, Collins and Clay are some of the best at their positions but my point was that i also feel 3-4 DE are an important piece in a 3-4 defense.

The front 3 in the 3-4 is extremely important as they need to occupy blockers, allowing the smaller LBs used to move around more freely and make plays. Many times effective 3-4 defenses have 1-2 guys who demand double teams on most plays so having a top 3-4 DE can certainly aid in that process.

jayceheathman
12-24-2011, 05:35 PM
FB
WLB
Long snapper
Kicker
S
DT
CB
Center
OG
WR
OT
QB