the myth of OG drafted in top 5

[Darrell Green Fan]

A house is listed at $200,000. You love it so much you purchase it for $250,000. You love the house and sell it 10 years later for $450,000. All signs point to this being a great purchase right? Hardly. A month after you bought your house for $250,000 the identical house across the street sold for $195,000

Being happy with the house doesn't change the fact that you overpaid.

 

[redskinsfan]

Far be it for me to be a dick and point out that some mocks had Martin going as high as 12th last year...


2014 NFL Mock Draft - WalterFootball.com

NFL Draft Mock 2014 | NFL Draft Mock Draft

2014 NFL Mock Draft: Khalil Mack selected No. 1 by Houston Texans | The MMQB with Peter King



So while I agree Fredricks was likely considered a reach, Martin in no way shape or form was a reach for the Cowboys. It was a SMART pick that worked out flawlessly and we would be lucky as fuck if Scot Mc made such a bold and decisive move to unfuck our o-line.

I saw Martin as a second rounder on a lot of big boards (as opposed to mock drafts). Remember how mock drafts don't necessarily reflect value (although they can at times). They instead represent guesses made by the mockers on what teams will -- as opposed to should -- take with their pick.

 

[redskinsfan]

Unfuck-- To fix, correct or otherwise rectify a situation that can only be described as fucked up.

See Drill Instructor, USMC

Correct Usage--- You had best unfuck yourself or I will unscrew your head and shit down your neck.

Wasn't that from Full Metal Jacket?

 

[Sharkinva]

I saw Martin as a second rounder on a lot of big boards (as opposed to mock drafts). Remember how mock drafts don't necessarily reflect value (although they can at times). They instead represent guesses made by the mockers on what teams will -- as opposed to should -- take with their pick.

And as I have said numerous times.. if you dont think Big Boards are comprised with team needs and likely selection spots taken into account, you are trippin. The Majority of big boards as well as MOCKs have Winston listed as the #1 player in this draft, Mariota as the #2. SO unless you really believe Winston is the best player in this draft, you have to admit that even big boards are subject to the team needs factor to a degree. Throw in the old top five WOW factor and there should be no shock that 2 QBs 4 Pass Rushers and 2 WR's generally top the big boards.

 

[redskinsfan]

And as I have said numerous times.. if you dont think Big Boards are comprised with team needs and likely selection spots taken into account, you are trippin. The Majority of big boards as well as MOCKs have Winston listed as the #1 player in this draft, Mariota as the #2. SO unless you really believe Winston is the best player in this draft, you have to admit that even big boards are subject to the team needs factor to a degree. Throw in the old top five WOW factor and there should be no shock that 2 QBs 4 Pass Rushers and 2 WR's generally top the big boards.

Depends whose big board you're talking about. But I agree that some of them are mock draft-esque and can be flawed for that reason. In order to get a better sense of big boards that count, you have to do a little digging to see what reporters have found regarding certain team's big boards. For instance, we knew that Vinny had a first round grade on Fred Davis. When he became available in the second round, Vinny couldn't believe his lucky stars and ran Davis' card up to the podium as soon as he could.

 

[Lonewate44]

And as I have said numerous times.. if you dont think Big Boards are comprised with team needs and likely selection spots taken into account, you are trippin. The Majority of big boards as well as MOCKs have Winston listed as the #1 player in this draft, Mariota as the #2. SO unless you really believe Winston is the best player in this draft, you have to admit that even big boards are subject to the team needs factor to a degree. Throw in the old top five WOW factor and there should be no shock that 2 QBs 4 Pass Rushers and 2 WR's generally top the big boards.

Agree...case in point.......Leonard Williams is considered by many to be the best player in the draft...yet some..(not many) have him falling to the Skins @5....in which case...you can forget about a trade down, and a selection of him by the Skins coming to the podium in about 20 seconds!!!!!

 

[Sharkinva]

Depends whose big board you're talking about. But I agree that some of them are mock draft-esque and can be flawed for that reason. In order to get a better sense of big boards that count, you have to do a little digging to see what reporters have found regarding certain team's big boards. For instance, we knew that Vinny had a first round grade on Fred Davis. When he became available in the second round, Vinny couldn't believe his lucky stars and ran Davis' card up to the podium as soon as he could.

But then if we are going off of team big boards, your whole point is Moot. Because Dallas for sure had both Martin and Fredericks as first rounders on Their big board. The Jags likely had Bortles as a top five guy last year and took him at #3. SO even team big boards will be subject to the needs factor. Because I would bet good money Bill Calahan has a couple of O-lineman rated as the best players in this draft.

 

[redskinsfan]

But then if we are going off of team big boards, your whole point is Moot. Because Dallas for sure had both Martin and Fredericks as first rounders on Their big board. The Jags likely had Bortles as a top five guy last year and took him at #3. SO even team big boards will be subject to the needs factor. Because I would bet good money Bill Calahan has a couple of O-lineman rated as the best players in this draft.

This gets back to the issue of those people you respect and those you don't. In the Cerrato example, you've got no respect for that board. Looking at boards created by people like Ozzie Newsome, that's a different story.

 

[Sharkinva]

This gets back to the issue of those people you respect and those you don't. In the Cerrato example, you've got no respect for that board. Looking at boards created by people like Ozzie Newsome, that's a different story.

You are NEVER going to see a big board created by Ozzie, at least not for public consumption.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Let me put this to rest, Leonard Davis was drafted to play tackle, not guard. He started out at RG during his rookie season because he was too stiff and upright for his size. Once he started to develop, he was moved to RT for his 2nd season due to an injury, then back to RG the following season, & then finally, in his fourth season, he took over as LT & played there for 3 seasons till he left as a FA.

The fact that he was a poor LT doesn't change the fact that he was drafted to play that position.

 

[skinsdad62]

LOL. If you want to play semantics yes you are right, a guard has been taken high But trotting out examples from World War II hardly means you closed the book on this discussion.

Ogden was a tackle. He played tackle for 4 years at UCLA and then his entire career at tackle in Baltimore. So you have Davis, who clearly was a mistake and shows what can happen when you over draft a guard, Fralic and Hinton who were studs, and then guys who played before the invention of the push button telephone. LOL at declaring victory with this argument.

did you read my OP completely ? i said that pre war was "ancient history " i said fralic and ogden were debatable . did you forget that shit before you wrote that or what ?

hannah , hinton huff all were drafted in my lifetime push button phone or not but it is history and it is what he said , he said it, damn it, not me

and regardless if davis was a mistake or not doesnt change the fact the he was drafted as an OG which i was told never happened

the only "victory" i can declare is he was wrong about history not about any other aspect of this debate because i can be wrong and you all can be right

i didnt bring up history . but history is history and not some selective bull shit you choose to use to back up an debating point and besmirch mine

hannah is considered the best OG of all time and a HOF 1st ballot that shows you what can happen if you draft the right guy as is hinton and huff

so i dont want to hear anymore cop out semantics arguments from you the facts are there and that is with conceding your points on prewar and whether ogden was a LT or not (he was )

if you are going to say histroy , mean history , if you are going to say everyone mean everyone and cut the BS tap dancing

 

[skinsdad62]

Let me put this to rest, Leonard Davis was drafted to play tackle, not guard. He started out at RG during his rookie season because he was too stiff and upright for his size. Once he started to develop, he was moved to RT for his 2nd season due to an injury, then back to RG the following season, & then finally, in his fourth season, he took over as LT & played there for 3 seasons till he left as a FA.

The fact that he was a poor LT doesn't change the fact that he was drafted to play that position.

the official website of the NFL listed him as a OG period . but hey you want to strike the name then fine the others were OGF's except the 2 i starred as questionable

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

did you read my OP completely ? i said that pre war was "ancient history " i said fralic and ogden were debatable . did you forget that shit before you wrote that or what ?

hannah , hinton huff all were drafted in my lifetime push button phone or not but it is history and it is what he said , he said it, damn it, not me

and regardless if davis was a mistake or not doesnt change the fact the he was drafted as an OG which i was told never happened

the only "victory" i can declare is he was wrong about history not about any other aspect of this debate because i can be wrong and you all can be right

i didnt bring up history . but history is history and not some selective bull shit you choose to use to back up an debating point and besmirch mine

hannah is considered the best OG of all time and a HOF 1st ballot that shows you what can happen if you draft the right guy as is hinton and huff

so i dont want to hear anymore cop out semantics arguments from you the facts are there and that is with conceding your points on prewar and whether ogden was a LT or not (he was )

if you are going to say histroy , mean history , if you are going to say everyone mean everyone and cut the BS tap dancing

OK so the poster was incorrect when he said never in history. Just because you consider pre-WWII "ancient history" or whatever does not change the fact that trotting out examples from the era of 2 way players and all white rosters doesn't really provide much of an argument today. Neither does bring up Ogden. How is a guy who has played nothing but tackle his entire college and pro career enter the zone of "debatable"? Sounded like you just threw up a big name in hopes of strengthening your argument. Ogden has relevance so you shouldn't be surprised when you are called on it. And Davis was most certainly drafted to play tackle.

So even counting Davis you have only a couple of guys who were drafted top 5 over decades of drafts. So yeah you won the battle, there have been a few guards taken high. But you are still losing the war because NOBODY considers Scherfff a Hannah type of prospect. So there is still no strong argument for taking him in the top 5.

 

[skinsdad62]

OK so the poster was incorrect when he said never in history. Just because you consider pre-WWII "ancient history" or whatever does not change the fact that trotting out examples from the era of 2 way players and all white rosters doesn't really provide much of an argument today. Neither does bring up Ogden. How is a guy who has played nothing but tackle his entire college and pro career enter the zone of "debatable"? Sounded like you just threw up a big name in hopes of strengthening your argument. Ogden has relevance so you shouldn't be surprised when you are called on it. And Davis was most certainly drafted to play tackle.

So even counting Davis you have only a couple of guys who were drafted top 5 over decades of drafts. So yeah you won the battle, there have been a few guards taken high. But you are still losing the war because NOBODY considers Scherfff a Hannah type of prospect. So there is still no strong argument for taking him in the top 5.

i didnt throw shit up the official NFL site did

2nd point i never claimed to win any other part of the debate . and i havent "won " any other part of the debate

now does that mean a total nobody or selective nobody because i am about to throw an expert out there who has more credibility then kiem and the others ( and that doesnt mean they are stupid ) . so before i go there do you want to make the adjustment ?

 

[redskinsfan]

Let me put this to rest, Leonard Davis was drafted to play tackle, not guard. He started out at RG during his rookie season because he was too stiff and upright for his size. Once he started to develop, he was moved to RT for his 2nd season due to an injury, then back to RG the following season, & then finally, in his fourth season, he took over as LT & played there for 3 seasons till he left as a FA.

The fact that he was a poor LT doesn't change the fact that he was drafted to play that position.

Thank you very much.

 

[redskinsfan]

OK so the poster was incorrect when he said never in history. Just because you consider pre-WWII "ancient history" or whatever does not change the fact that trotting out examples from the era of 2 way players and all white rosters doesn't really provide much of an argument today. Neither does bring up Ogden. How is a guy who has played nothing but tackle his entire college and pro career enter the zone of "debatable"? Sounded like you just threw up a big name in hopes of strengthening your argument. Ogden has relevance so you shouldn't be surprised when you are called on it. And Davis was most certainly drafted to play tackle.

So even counting Davis you have only a couple of guys who were drafted top 5 over decades of drafts. So yeah you won the battle, there have been a few guards taken high. But you are still losing the war because NOBODY considers Scherfff a Hannah type of prospect. So there is still no strong argument for taking him in the top 5.

Ahhhh, that was me. I will claim guilt in not defining my terms. Having said that, you can't start citing examples from a time which was clearly long since past. Hell, when Gibbs came back for his second coaching stint, the game had clearly passed him by, and he wasn't gone too long.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Ahhhh, that was me. I will claim guilt in not defining my terms. Having said that, you can't start citing examples from a time which was clearly long since past. Hell, when Gibbs came back for his second coaching stint, the game had clearly passed him by, and he wasn't gone too long.

Prezactly Dad I'm not sure what you are asking me to do but if it's to retract my comment that examples from the 40's are not proof of anything sorry I'm not going to do that. Again your example of John Hannah was solid but you are talking about an elite prospect who turned into a HOF. Scherff is no such animal.

 

[skinsdad62]

never said scherf was going to be that . i said that an OG had been drafted in the top 5 and you guys want to back track now because you were wrong and the debating point blew up in your faces

just admit you were wrong and cut the BS about time periods which i mentioned in my post and the ones who were questionable which you 2 seem to forget

we aint talking about who was great, who was a bust blah blah blah . did a OG get drafted in the top 5 ? yes

no more need for your tap dancing comments , next

 

[redskinsfan]

never said scherf was going to be that . i said that an OG had been drafted in the top 5 and you guys want to back track now because you were wrong and the debating point blew up in your faces

just admit you were wrong and cut the BS about time periods which i mentioned in my post and the ones who were questionable which you 2 seem to forget

we aint talking about who was great, who was a bust blah blah blah . did a OG get drafted in the top 5 ? yes

no more need for your tap dancing comments , next

Okay, let's stop the tap dancing. When was the last time a guard was drafted in the top five? And was that time period any semblance to what we've got going now?

 

[skinsdad62]

in my my lifetime yes and the last guy drafted is 2001

but you are trying to change the premise . the premise was "no OG has been drafted at 5 in history "

i gave you the list