Drafting OL

[NinerSickness]

That's not how it works Sick. No one is drafting using hindsight come April. Every team that makes a pick in the first round is expecting their first round pick to play like a first round pick, regardless of position.

The "hindsight" arguement doesn't work either. They're all expected to play like 1st round picks, but not all of 'em are expected to play like probowlers.

All things equal I'm looking at QB, RB, WR, LT, DE, DT, pass-rushers, CBs, and LBs, and maybe safeties before I start looking at interior OL, and I'm expecting the player that I pick at any of the above positions to play at a high level if I'm taking him in the first round. What happens in the future is irrelevant when we're talking about BVA on draft day.

That's a no brainer. But a Beast of an interior lineman like Mangold or Hutchinson is a better value than a guy who looks good but not great at those other positions.

Example: Both Mangold & Kelly Jennings were expected to be starters. Mangold was EXPECTED to be one of the best centers in the league. Jennings was expected to be a good CB. They were taken 2 picks apart. Their projected values were very close, and I would've taken Mangold in '06 if I had a choice between the two (and I would've been right).

 

[mem49er]

By the way, I would say it's an extremely rare case when I would want the Niners to pick an OG, C or RT in round 1. I would've loved it if the Niners traded down in '06 and drafted Nick Mangold (yes, even then; he was regarded as a Hutchinson - like prospect at C).

If the Niners traded down in '09 I would've loved taking Michael Oher even though he would've been a RT (Clyde & imac would've said that would've been a stupid pick). If the Niners didn't take Anthony Davis the year before I would've been fine with drafting Gabe Carimi to play RT where he was taken. We all know he's not a LT. Yes, I think he was a better value than Orlando Franklin who was taken 17 picks later.

If a C or OG who you think will be a future probowler is there in round 1 he's EASILY worth the pick. If a well above average RT prospect is there he's worth the pick too.

This is a difference in philosophy based on perceived positional value that you guys will not settle. My personal view is probably closest to Clyde, especially if we're ever good again and have that late first rounder with an elite O-line prospect there.

On a related topic, the red bolded above was the exact view on Iupati when he was drafted. Can you say that, regardless of his personal skills, has he had much of an impact on the team's performance or success?

 

[NinerSickness]

A Probowl C or G > a good CB, DT, S, WR, etc. They have to be rare prospects to get that grade, but it happens every few years or so.

As for "how they turned out" I would take Hampton in a heart beat, Clements and possibly Backus over Hutchinson.

You're right; Hampton & Clements would've been better picks. Backus? No. But you're saying he should've been a 2nd round pick! That's ridiculous! I graded Hutch' higher than everyone on that list back in 2001, and only about 2 of 'em turned out to be better (Hutch' & Clements were my favourite prospects based on where they went that year).

 

[NinerSickness]

Can you say that, regardless of his personal skills, has he had much of an impact on the team's performance or success?

Iupati? Too early to tell.

 

[imac_21]

By the way, I would say it's an extremely rare case when I would want the Niners to pick an OG, C or RT in round 1. I would've loved it if the Niners traded down in '06 and drafted Nick Mangold (yes, even then; he was regarded as a Hutchinson - like prospect at C).

If the Niners traded down in '09 I would've loved taking Michael Oher even though he would've been a RT (Clyde & imac would've said that would've been a stupid pick). If the Niners didn't take Anthony Davis the year before I would've been fine with drafting Gabe Carimi to play RT where he was taken. We all know he's not a LT. Yes, I think he was a better value than Orlando Franklin who was taken 17 picks later.

If a C or OG who you think will be a future probowler is there in round 1 he's EASILY worth the pick. If a well above average RT prospect is there he's worth the pick too.

BTW Sick, my rule for drafting OL is no RT in the first half of the first round, so Oher would have been fine. No interior OL in the first round.

 

[NinerSickness]

BTW Sick, my rule for drafting OL is no RT in the first half of the first round, so Oher would have been fine. No interior OL in the first round.

Gotchya. I think your rule is a good one about 85-90% of the time, but I'm willing to make an exception if a good enough G or C is there.

 

[imac_21]

BTW Sick, my rule for drafting OL is no RT in the first half of the first round, so Oher would have been fine. No interior OL in the first round.

Gotchya. I think your rule is a good one about 85-90% of the time, but I'm willing to make an exception if a good enough G or C is there.

I just don't believe that situation presents itself. I'd rather get a 1st round CB/WR/QB/LT/OLB/NT and a mid round C/OG than a first round C/OG (reardless of how good he is) and a mid round player at one of those other positions.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

I'll buy into Sickness' 85-90% exception with the caveat it depends a lot on the team strength as Clyde pointed out.

Case in point is a team like the Steelers having the luxury of valuing G/C higher at 18 than we should have been able to at 17.

Iupati could end up being a much better player than Pouncey, but it could end up being a worse pick. You're looking at a very good G + a backup role player type later in the draft vs. a good CB + a guard that may or may not start for you. Depends on how many holes you have.

If you're not stacked, you target QB/CB/NG/LT and fill in later because you can. The teams that are stacked have the luxury of taking these early G's and RT's if they choose.

 

[clyde_carbon]

The "hindsight" arguement doesn't work either. They're all expected to play like 1st round picks, but not all of 'em are expected to play like probowlers.

When was the last time you wanted a player in the first round and wasn't expecting him to be a pro-bowler?

That's a no brainer. But a Beast of an interior lineman like Mangold or Hutchinson is a better value than a guy who looks good but not great at those other positions.

Can you remember the last time when we were drafting in the first round that you didn't think a potentially great QB/WR/RB/LT/DT/DE/CB/LB was available?

Example: Both Mangold & Kelly Jennings were expected to be starters. Mangold was EXPECTED to be one of the best centers in the league. Jennings was expected to be a good CB. They were taken 2 picks apart. Their projected values were very close, and I would've taken Mangold in '06 if I had a choice between the two (and I would've been right).

I wouldn't call Jennings a good CB. He's been mediocre. I think a good CB would be in the Carlos Rogers or Jonathan Joseph ball park, and I'll take both of them over Mangold.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I'll buy into Sickness' 85-90% exception with the caveat it depends a lot on the team strength as Clyde pointed out.

Case in point is a team like the Steelers having the luxury of valuing G/C higher at 18 than we should have been able to at 17.

Iupati could end up being a much better player than Pouncey, but it could end up being a worse pick. You're looking at a very good G + a backup role player type later in the draft vs. a good CB + a guard that may or may not start for you. Depends on how many holes you have.

If you're not stacked, you target QB/CB/NG/LT and fill in later because you can. The teams that are stacked have the luxury of taking these early G's and RT's if they choose.

It's opportunity cost. Iupati might be an all-pro Guard, but if we passed on an all-pro WR (Bryant) or an all-pro CB (McCourty) for an all-pro Guard then it's a bad pick.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

It's typically around the 20's where you are getting a lot of boom/bust type WR, CB, etc. Guys with character concerns like Bryant. Players who fell because of injuries, etc. A lot of all-pro potential players with baggage vs. other players without the same upside. It's in this range teams can start to factor in a guard who'll likely be an all-pro without the baggage.

There's definitely an opportunity cost between upside of those positions and a more sure thing Guard.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Just throwing this out there because it wasn't mentioned but I'd take Wayne over Hutch too.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

This also doesn't take into account guys drafted even later that some of us might have rated first round picks.

 

[deep9er]

I don't see many scenarios where we should draft an interior OL or a RT in the first round. An exception would be like that Packers in the '11 draft. They just won the superbowl, they needed to revamp their OL, they have their QB, WRs, RBs, CBs, pass-rushers, and a solid OT prospect drops to them in Sherrod. That's the only type of situation where I might make an exception. Other than that - absolutely not. Our OL has proven that high draft pick does not equal success along the OL. They haven't even been average up to this point as a unit.

yes, this is the very reason i wouldn't put up a blanket statement saying no OL in round 1. what you just did above was take back your blanket statement.

its not often we'll want O-line in round 1, so agree with you for the most part. but its not 100% no linemen.