I am uncertain how the amount of money a player makes or where he gets drafted correlates to how important the position is on a play by play basis. It wasn't until recently LTs really started making large salaries, for years O linemen as whole were not paid fairly. You are also comparing Skills positions to technique positions it's sort of an apples to oranges argument. The league has always paid skill positions more because the are the glamour of the NFL most notably QBs and WRs. I guarantee if a center is calling out the wrong blocking schemes, or is getting blown up by DTs that QB is going to fail or at least struggle mightily. How much a player makes or where he is drafted has little to do with how well or poorly he affects the outcome of a play. Other than a QB the Center is the only other player that touches the ball on every single play, he is typically the smartest guy on the team or one of them, the Center / QB exchange is vastly more important than the handoff to RB or the pass to a WR, the ability to read blitzes, call the correct blocking schemes, keep head on a swivel to pick up missed assignments, protect the QB and provide him time is of the utmost importance. All you have really shown me is that Centers are grossly underpaid.
I don't really agree. The top centers are getting money in line with lowend WR1's and tier 1 safeties. It's moreso a middle class position. There's a massive difference from a WR1 and a WR2 or even a lowend WR1. The more you condense the positions the less favorable a C looks though, but with the hyper specialized NFL it's not really the case; not all WR's are created equal. Positions that have more flexibility, such as safety, I would anticipate have their salaries grow faster in comparison to inflation. Guys like Mathieu who have value at CB or Berry who have value at ILB do a lot more than the run of the mill safety in previous eras.
Bandwagon fallacy. I don't really care what other people have for their rankings, per se. Why would a position you can plugin at Safety, CB, or ILB be down the list? And if so, I think it's a grossly undervalued position then. I considered putting it over "OT" which is borderline blasphemous for most people.
Because it's undervalued is the obvious answer. And really you have an arbitrary endpoint. I consider any pick in the first 3 rounds really to be a significant investment, and 1st round pick to be a "high" selection. Why is your endpoint here better than mine?
I changed my position... Okie dokie.
Why use the top 10 as a cutoff?
Why the top 10 and not top 16? What is elite?
And?
They have gone just outside of the top 10 in recent years is the thing here...
