the myth of OG drafted in top 5

[skinsdad62]

some prominent posters say that no OG has been drafted in the top 5 in the history of the NFL i am about to debunk that falsehood passed off as fact
here is the official draft history of NFL.com the official records keeper on the NFL

the list is as follows

1941 rudy mucha 3rd overall
47 fritz barzilaukas 3rd overall
60 roger davis 3rd overall
73 john hannah 4th overall HOF OG regarded as best ever at his position OG
74 john hicks 3rd overall
75 ken huff 3rd overall
83 chris hinton 4th overall 7x pro bowler 1 time all pro
* bill fralic 2nd overall
* jonathon ogden 2nd overall
2001 leanard davis 2nd overall

* i find these 2 debatable ogden played LT most of his career however he is listed as OG as is Fralic

the 1st 3 on the list are ancient history in football terms and were before i was born however history is history the COMPLETE history

73 on are guys in my lifetime and most likely the debaters lifetimes as well and as such should hold more credence

so ;lets put the history debate myth to bed now shall we ?

 

[redskinsfan]

some prominent posters say that no OG has been drafted in the top 5 in the history of the NFL i am about to debunk that falsehood passed off as fact
here is the official draft history of NFL.com the official records keeper on the NFL

the list is as follows

1941 rudy mucha 3rd overall
47 fritz barzilaukas 3rd overall
60 roger davis 3rd overall
73 john hannah 4th overall HOF OG regarded as best ever at his position OG
74 john hicks 3rd overall
75 ken huff 3rd overall
83 chris hinton 4th overall 7x pro bowler 1 time all pro
* bill fralic 2nd overall
* jonathon ogden 2nd overall
2001 leanard davis 2nd overall

* i find these 2 debatable ogden played LT most of his career however he is listed as OG as is Fralic

the 1st 3 on the list are ancient history in football terms and were before i was born however history is history the COMPLETE history

73 on are guys in my lifetime and most likely the debaters lifetimes as well and as such should hold more credence

so ;lets put the history debate myth to bed now shall we ?

The latest guy you've got there is Leonard Davis, and he was drafted as an OT from Texas. Where Are They Now? Leonard Davis | Arizona Cardinals The dumbass Cards moved him to guard, probably because they drafted another bust of an o-lineman in LJ Shelton to play LT in 1999. Chris Hinton was also drafted as an OT. Assuming that your next latest "guards" are correct, that's Huff in '75. Gerald Ford was President then and we were getting out of Vietnam. That ought to tell you how historically significant this is, emphasis on the word "historically."

 

[skinsdad62]

The latest guy you've got there is Leonard Davis, and he was drafted as an OT from Texas. Where Are They Now? Leonard Davis | Arizona Cardinals The dumbass Cards moved him to guard, probably because they drafted another bust of an o-lineman in LJ Shelton to play LT in 1999. Chris Hinton was also drafted as an OT. Assuming that your next latest "guards" are correct, that's Huff in '75. Gerald Ford was President then and we were getting out of Vietnam. That ought to tell you how historically significant this is, emphasis on the word "historically."

according to the nfl website they were drafted as OGs that is all i can say ,however there have been OGS drafted in the top 5 in history and in my lifetime

myth debunked

 

[redskinsfan]

according to the nfl website they were drafted as OGs that is all i can say ,however there have been OGS drafted in the top 5 in history and in my lifetime

myth debunked

My point is to consider what time period they were in. Does MLB consider records set by Napoleon Lajoie in the 19th century relevant in its stat books? The point here is that things back then were far different. As a result, you can't use them as precedent now. And as old as we both are, dad, our lifetimes shouldn't count as measuring periods either.

 

[skinsdad62]

My point is to consider what time period they were in. Does MLB consider records set by Napoleon Lajoie in the 19th century relevant in its stat books? The point here is that things back then were far different. As a result, you can't use them as precedent now. And as old as we both are, dad, our lifetimes shouldn't count as measuring periods either.

again john hannah was in my life time so your point is ? even though i conceded that . and i addressed the guys before my lifetime . it doesnt matter if they are "relevant" today or not the fact is they were drafted period

you said "in history " and that is history . the information is on the official NFL website . i dont know how much purer you can get then that

and i am sorry but it happened in my freaking lifetime so it counts

just admit it you are wrong

 

[redskinsfan]

again john hannah was in my life time so your point is ? even though i conceded that . and i addressed the guys before my lifetime . it doesnt matter if they are "relevant" today or not the fact is they were drafted period

you said "in history " and that is history . the information is on the official NFL website . i dont know how much purer you can get then that

and i am sorry but it happened in my freaking lifetime so it counts

just admit it you are wrong

I said historical precedence when referring to Scherff being taken that high. That doesn't mean "ever." It's a reference that qualifies it to circumstances as they exist today. Maybe I should've clarified that, but other examples include "post-war era" and other similar phrases. It's meant to ensure we're making an apples to apples comparison. Another good example of this is trying to compare drafts of RBs in the past two or three years with those when the Hogs played.

 

[skinsdad62]

I said historical precedence when referring to Scherff being taken that high. That doesn't mean "ever." It's a reference that qualifies it to circumstances as they exist today. Maybe I should've clarified that, but other examples include "post-war era" and other similar phrases. It's meant to ensure we're making an apples to apples comparison. Another good example of this is trying to compare drafts of RBs in the past two or three years with those when the Hogs played.

gosh darnit when you say history that is what it means HISTORY you said NO OG was taken that high in HISTORY period end of story

historcal precedence is exactly what it is history , what else could it possibly be ? . no OG has ever been drafted in the top 5 . i gave you the precedence 10 freaking times

there have been OGS taken in the top 5 no matter how you want to spin it or cherry pick it

i gave you a list of ten OGS gathered together by subject matter experts at the official NFL website

now if you said there hasnt been a OG drafted in the top 5 since 2001 you would have been correct but you didnt you said in history

if you said they arent typically picked in the top 5 you would have been correct because it happened roughly 10 % of the time

1936 -2014 is history . it can be nothing else but history nothing else

and it is apples to apples in my life time . a guards job is to block same as it was in 36 to 73 as it is in 2014 . the rules are different but the job is the same

and yes you should have used different wording when you use it as a talking point to debunk mine and sharks stance

 

[redskinsfan]

gosh darnit when you say history that is what it means HISTORY you said NO OG was taken that high in HISTORY period end of story

historcal precedence is exactly what it is history , what else could it possibly be ? . no OG has ever been drafted in the top 5 . i gave you the precedence 10 freaking times

there have been OGS taken in the top 5 no matter how you want to spin it or cherry pick it

i gave you a list of ten OGS gathered together by subject matter experts at the official NFL website

now if you said there hasnt been a OG drafted in the top 5 since 2001 you would have been correct but you didnt you said in history

if you said they arent typically picked in the top 5 you would have been correct because it happened roughly 10 % of the time

1936 -2014 is history . it can be nothing else but history nothing else

and it is apples to apples in my life time . a guards job is to block same as it was in 36 to 73 as it is in 2014 . the rules are different but the job is the same

and yes you should have used different wording when you use it as a talking point to debunk mine and sharks stance

Well, I guess we use different parlance then. Irrespective of whether guards have been taken that high, most will agree that they shouldn't be taken that high now. Hence, the old history is of very little if any use here.

 

[skinsdad62]

Well, I guess we use different parlance then. Irrespective of whether guards have been taken that high, most will agree that they shouldn't be taken that high now. Hence, the old history is of very little if any use here.

well you need to be precise and not so grandiose when laying out a talking point when trying to downgrade a point of view . 2001 one is pretty much the modern era . and i agree most do not think a OG should be taken that high but that doesnt mean they are right and it doesnt make shark and i wrong

fact is OG 's have been drafted in the top 5 cant be denied and that is what i responded too

 

[HammerDown]

If my team drafted an OG in the first half of Round 1, I'd be IRATE! That's a wasted pick by any definition.

 

[skinsdad62]

If my team drafted an OG in the first half of Round 1, I'd be IRATE! That's a wasted pick by any definition.

martin was drafted at 16 exactly 1/2 of the 1st round . you think cowboy fans are ticked ? just saying

of course i believe scherf is more athletic then martin and can plat RT for us

 

[redskinsfan]

martin was drafted at 16 exactly 1/2 of the 1st round . you think cowboy fans are ticked ? just saying

of course i believe scherf is more athletic then martin and can plat RT for us

They reached for him but got away with it. More importantly, they avoided drafting Manziel with that pick. What a great thing it would've been for them to have done that.

 

[redskinsfan]

well you need to be precise and not so grandiose when laying out a talking point when trying to downgrade a point of view . 2001 one is pretty much the modern era . and i agree most do not think a OG should be taken that high but that doesnt mean they are right and it doesnt make shark and i wrong

fact is OG 's have been drafted in the top 5 cant be denied and that is what i responded too

Well, I thought we were on the same page with that phrase. And you can't just demarcate one year as being the modern era. That might be true generally speaking but when you're talking about things like the passing game being more important, that would probably apply to the period beginning about a few years ago.

 

[skinsdad62]

They reached for him but got away with it. More importantly, they avoided drafting Manziel with that pick. What a great thing it would've been for them to have done that.

well they reached twice and go away with it . perhaps they werent lucky and their scouting dept was good

as it turns out they got an all pro who could be playing for some one else

 

[skinsdad62]

Well, I thought we were on the same page with that phrase. And you can't just demarcate one year as being the modern era. That might be true generally speaking but when you're talking about things like the passing game being more important, that would probably apply to the period beginning about a few years ago.

well if you thought that then you were very wrong . and if you cant demarcate what the modern era is then you go to the entirety of the draft

 

[redskinsfan]

well they reached twice and go away with it . perhaps they werent lucky and their scouting dept was good

as it turns out they got an all pro who could be playing for some one else

They got awfully lucky twice, more on the Manziel part though. Martin was viewed as a starting OG but not nearly as good as his play last year dictated.

 

[redskinsfan]

well if you thought that then you were very wrong . and if you cant demarcate what the modern era is then you go to the entirety of the draft

No, that's not my point. You have to judge certain things on apples-to-apples basis. Sometimes that means you can go back decades, as for others the time period will be shorter, sometimes far shorter. Fashion is a good example. What's "in" often lasts for a few months sometimes. If you try and put in styles that were popular one year afterwards, you're basically way behind the curve there.

 

[skinsdad62]

They got awfully lucky twice, more on the Manziel part though. Martin was viewed as a starting OG but not nearly as good as his play last year dictated.

but the same thing could never ever happen to scherf now could it? be better then he is viewed manziel was all about jones and apparently he defered to his experts and won

and a scouting dept doing their collective home work a 2 guys in 2 drafts is hardly luck . or if you like they made their luck

 

[skinsdad62]

No, that's not my point. You have to judge certain things on apples-to-apples basis. Sometimes that means you can go back decades, as for others the time period will be shorter, sometimes far shorter. Fashion is a good example. What's "in" often lasts for a few months sometimes. If you try and put in styles that were popular one year afterwards, you're basically way behind the curve there.

well then you should have said that while you were downgrading my stance as well as sharks what i see here is a bunch of gobble de gook back tracking because you were proven wrong on your assertion that no OG in history was drafted in the top 5

my lifetime is my lifetime and history is history period

you used that phrase to dismiss my talking point . all this other garbage could never have been interpreted from what you wrote

i dont want to hear about apples to apples guards are guards period

 

[redskinsfan]

but the same thing could never ever happen to scherf now could it? be better then he is viewed manziel was all about jones and apparently he defered to his experts and won

and a scouting dept doing their collective home work a 2 guys in 2 drafts is hardly luck . or if you like they made their luck

Scherff right now is a much better prospect than Martin was. Same with Frederick. The Cowboys reached for both of those guys and turned out well. Even so, the problem with doing that is you pass up on other players that are legit first rounders when you could've gotten both in the second or third round. That's the problem with reaching.