What Would You Choose (Pick, Salary, Upgrade)

[Clayton]

#1 pick.

Allure of grooming a QB replacement is waaaaay higher than anything else on the list except being able to use the #1 to trade down.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

I am assuming when you upgrade an ability like speed or strength it is still within human norms. Not like a WR that can get from 0-60 in 4 seconds. Tempting but I am not sure 1 trait improvement can make the difference I would be looking for.

The 3 years of 10 mil cap is interesting but as someone pointed out you only get three years of the extra space.

To be different I would go with the #1 overall in addition to my other first rounder. There is no guarantee in talent but that is nothing new for teams. And each draft there is a top 5 pick that does very well. I would be hoping to recreate a Von Miller scenario (different position) and I could afford to reach a little since it is an extra pick. The downside would be possible bust and cap issues down the road.

It's Madden stats. 99 speed in Madden is pretty hacks... or like I said someone who has the frame and athletic ability but lacks all the technique (Germain Ifedi OT/G for Seattle) awareness is huge. Maybe you have a complete athletic freak at WR and want to give him 99 catch... or like a Panther posted giving Benjamin 99 speed could be pretty ridiculous. What if you gave Alshon Jeffrey 99 speed. Holy crap!!!

Could also give some interior D-Lineman 99 strength and watch them rip through O-Lines.

OR, give the Broncos' new OT Okung 99 injury and profit since when he's 100% healthy he's a pro bowl OT and one of the tops in the game. Problem is he's either injured or playing sub 100% in most games lol.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Definitely number one pick. That's not even close. Yes I will take the best player entering the league next year over adding 10 million so I can overpay for someone another team didn't want and over making one of my players better in one way.

The attributes things could have been it's own thread though. I'd give Ryan Mathews 99 health. Maybe Jordan Matthews 99 catching. Not clear if it would be for just this year or the guy's whole career, obviously physical attributes deteriorate after peaking.

Yes... it could've. But as you see if you look through other postings, some people are opting for the stat boost... and we always have "If you could make one player max rating in one category..." threads. This offers that but also gives some other things to think about.

Already you're caught in a dilemma of sorts. Do I get the #1 overall (which you seem to prefer) but you're already thinking about what you'd get to do with the 99 stat boost. 99 injury on Ryan Mathews is certainly not a bad choice I think he'd be a top 5 back given a little time of consistent starting, which unfortunately he can't really get an opportunity to do given injuries.

$10M extra for 3 seasons should not be scoffed at. It allows good teams who don't have a TON of cap room to retain players on their team or offer extensions. For someone like Michael Bennett... extending him for another 2 years and boosting his salary next year could be big while not having to worry about letting go of other key players (Chancellor perhaps, Baldwin, Graham, etc.). By the time 2019 rolls around Bennett will be 34 and likely released or re-signed at a significantly lower salary.

Also you guys gotta realize for the $10M option.. probably going to apply to teams who are a bit tighter on cap. The point of $10M for an extra 3 years is likely to retain a player already on your roster while not having to make a tough decision to let someone go. If you think about MOST players... when they enter their second contract extension by the 4th year the dead cap is exhausted and you can release for free, not to mention that's usually 6-7 years in for a lot of players. Assuming no injuries they are in the prime but the window is nearing.

Seattle for example (assuming this $10M boost counted for 2016) could've retained Bruce Irvin had they chosen to do so.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I guess to me I view it as you can get a 1st overall pick who could really be a superstar on a very cheap contract compared to a probably more complimentary player. I guess some of that does depend on position because the top safeties in the league are getting around $10 million though but still I guess I would rather take the risk that the 1st overall pick could turn into somebody special for you team and then you have not only a short term cap protected player but possibly a long-term superstar to build around instead of 3-years of some extra cap space which disappears after 3-years.

Who is the best safety taken in FA the past few years? Maybe Malcolm Jenkins? McCourty, Kam, Earl Thomas, Berry, not likely in that group to hit FA.

I am going that 1st overall too. Easy choice for me. It isn't upgrading a player who already does a lot for you (the 99 upgrade to one area for a player). It's adding a completely new starter to that mix.


While the 10 mil is nice, what is that for a FA? Non-top 10 good position guy (corner/WR/O-tackle/pass rusher) who is most likely heading out of his prime years. Or a top 10 down position (C/G/non pass rushing front 7)... Either the guy who did well on a great team but wasn't elite or a key guy (think Bruce Irvin/Trevathan), the guy coming off a bad year heading out of his prime (think Mario Williams), the guy coming off a better than expected year (think Pacman Jones). But you aren't getting anything close to Oliver Vernon or Josh Norman with that. And while you may want to add that together with existing cap room for your elite guy, guess where those ones are? Franchised or re-signed more often than not.

I Might go the FA route depending on the roster if it was "option to get the free agent of your choice".

To me you take that top pick. If you need a QB that's your best chance to find one to put on your team and in hey if he works out, 4-5 years of paying 15 mil under market value for him... If you don't need that QB... well I don't think the Titans are too upset that there were QB's teams wanted at the top (2 firsts, 2 2nds, 3 thirds).

And if there isn't the QB, oh no... 50/50 you get a top position guy who will be really good. I'd say that's about the same shot as your FA, except here you get him in his prime, and once year 3 of your FA deal is up you still have him for 2 more years for less money.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Definitely number one pick. That's not even close. Yes I will take the best player entering the league next year over adding 10 million so I can overpay for someone another team didn't want and over making one of my players better in one way.

The attributes things could have been it's own thread though. I'd give Ryan Mathews 99 health. Maybe Jordan Matthews 99 catching. Not clear if it would be for just this year or the guy's whole career, obviously physical attributes deteriorate after peaking.

You'd want a healthy Ryan Matthews for 2 more years over Ezekiel Elliott to pair with Wentz?




Or the one who wanted a healthy Okung? Really at that cost beyond 2016 with those disappearing pass protection skills? If you didn't want the pick, wouldn't you want 99 pass protection on a rookie you could have for the next 10-15 years with the first 5 being a HUGE bargain?

Connor McGovern, Denver's 5th round pick is my call there EASY.. Guy is arguably the strongest player heading into the NFL (690 lb squat, benches over 500 lbs). And you are putting him out there on the edge at left tackle where he can now block Khalil Mack or Justin Houston in the pass game, and just obliterate them and anyone else over there in the run game. Damn, that one really is tempting for me to go with the attribute now.

And some of the strength ones don't make any sense. Picking pretty big/strong interior guys already. For Philly, if I did go with that skill, it's Connor Barwin all the way. 250 lb speed end who can slip over the center at the goal line and play Vince Wilfork too lol. Von Miller could be insane if he was the strongest guy on the field.

Same with 99 speed. A receiver? where they are already all in the 90's? No thanks. I want that in a guy who's a big physical tight end. Mismatch from hell.. Or a big thumper LB. Now he's a 3 down guy who when you go nickel, you still have the beast against the run, but he's step for step with Mike Wallace on the 9 route if you need him there.

 

[Broncosr0k]

Or the one who wanted a healthy Okung? Really at that cost beyond 2016 with those disappearing pass protection skills? If you didn't want the pick, wouldn't you want 99 pass protection on a rookie you could have for the next 10-15 years with the first 5 being a HUGE bargain?

Well, his pick was to have that #1 overall. The health was just an added 2 cent

Same with 99 speed. A receiver? where they are already all in the 90's? No thanks. I want that in a guy who's a big physical tight end. Mismatch from hell.. Or a big thumper LB. Now he's a 3 down guy who when you go nickel, you still have the beast against the run, but he's step for step with Mike Wallace on the 9 route if you need him there

This was my thoughts with the stat boost. Unless 99 actually meant inhumanly fast/strong/whatever it is not going to matter unless you pair it in unusual ways. Like you said most WRs are already in the 90s.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Well, his pick was to have that #1 overall. The health was just an added 2 cent



This was my thoughts with the stat boost. Unless 99 actually meant inhumanly fast/strong/whatever it is not going to matter unless you pair it in unusual ways. Like you said most WRs are already in the 90s.

Sounds good.

Yup, I like the Heuerman if he was healthy. But you are right, have to go with the inherent "weakness" of the position. Sure Jeffrey with 99 speed is a Terrell Owens type player... Could be one of the greatest...

But I keep thinking if it was Witten in his prime, that would be such a mismatch. What do you do when it's a guy with routes/blocking/play off the tackle like Witten, but like adding a prime Randy Moss over the top with it? 4-3 defense? That's getting killed by Moss in a 3 WR set which that is now if he flexes out. You have to go nickel/dime every play, but you are stuck getting killed against the run and still at a big disadvantage when they throw.

I kind of think that might end up hopping up there for my favorite.... The young RG that can block as good as Joe Thomas is scary though.

Or what if you had Odell Beckham JR... with 99 coverage. Odell Revis. Granted he'd be the most tired and worn down player ever but 1 guy, 1 salary you get two studs out of. lol

That's a fun one that I am opening up more to. It would definitely have to go to a younger player. Gurley with 99 health for example. A RB there for a decade plus might be tempting on it knowing wear and tear was no issue. 500 carries a year and still as fresh as week 1 of camp... every single year.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Seattle for example (assuming this $10M boost counted for 2016) could've retained Bruce Irvin had they chosen to do so.

They still could have though it would have been a bit tougher. He's on a 9 mil a year deal, they have a bit more than that in cap space. Shuffle some salary it could have happened, but the 10 mil does clear it much easier and makes that a no brainer to keep him instead of thinking he isn't worth it in their cap position.

But put it this way. Do you think if Seattle signed him to his deal he got in Oakland, that Tennessee even thinks of taking him straight up for their #1 overall pick this year instead of the deal the Rams gave them?

 

[darken65]

#1 pick for me. The 9ers have a huge need for a leader to be groomed to be the next QB to lead the team.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

They still could have though it would have been a bit tougher. He's on a 9 mil a year deal, they have a bit more than that in cap space. Shuffle some salary it could have happened, but the 10 mil does clear it much easier and makes that a no brainer to keep him instead of thinking he isn't worth it in their cap position.

But put it this way. Do you think if Seattle signed him to his deal he got in Oakland, that Tennessee even thinks of taking him straight up for their #1 overall pick this year instead of the deal the Rams gave them?

They couldn't re-sign Irvin because it would've eaten into contracts for Baldwin, possible extensions for Bennett/Chancellor, and future free agency/depth.

I doubt Seattle would've overpaid for Irvin considering how they used him (not as a pass rusher, which I believe Oakland will do more of) but perhaps they would've re-signed Okung...

Again I threw out one example. Lastly, #1 overall pick brings about a $6M cap hit to the current year and some hefty amounts in the following... all of it being guaranteed.

Tennessee is a crappy team and has way more money to blow on things like that than a routine playoff contender... and if you've followed, routine GOOD teams rarely if ever need #1 overall picks to build a Super Bowl caliber team.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

They couldn't re-sign Irvin because it would've eaten into contracts for Baldwin, possible extensions for Bennett/Chancellor, and future free agency/depth.

I doubt Seattle would've overpaid for Irvin considering how they used him (not as a pass rusher, which I believe Oakland will do more of) but perhaps they would've re-signed Okung...

Again I threw out one example. Lastly, #1 overall pick brings about a $6M cap hit to the current year and some hefty amounts in the following... all of it being guaranteed.

Tennessee is a crappy team and has way more money to blow on things like that than a routine playoff contender... and if you've followed, routine GOOD teams rarely if ever need #1 overall picks to build a Super Bowl caliber team.

I just can't see a guy out there anywhere that can be signed for 10 mil a year for 3 years that I would take over a #1 overall pick. I can't find any examples... Like you say, 6 mil cap hit for the #1 overall, who on the open market would have probably cost a team 15 mil a year plus. I really think that rookie salary capping made those picks so much more valuable.

Even Okung (who if they had the same deal offered that Denver got basically 1 year 5 mil commitment, could have taken easily).. Would you rather have him and keep him with his injury history and decline in play, or the #1 overall pick. Even if you reached the top tackle prospect there.

Or if you trade that pick, lets see what you can get on the line based on what the Rams gave up for it. Could argue in 2013 that draft haul would have been less with no real elite QB (EJ Manuel), but could also argue Winston, Luck, Newton, Bradford, Stafford, Russell would all have drawn more in compensation for that pick as higher graded prospects than Goff if the teams had put that pick on the market.

Just picking a random draft, going back 10 years where we know who they are. Using the picks they used to see what you might be able to expect if you used them all on offensive line or all on LB. Going mid round or the closest players to that (where those picks were or are expected to be).




So Okung vs. the picks:
2007 draft would have gotten you. Joe Staley, Ben Grubbs, Ryan Kalil, Tony Ugoh, Marshall Yanda, and Ryan Harris. For about a 33 mil cap hit over 4 years . Wow, 4 elite players on a line you are paying 8 mil a year... combined.
Or Okung where based on 30 mil savings over his first 4 years, he costs about half as much as that group for 4 years (about 15.3 mil).

Do the same with Irvin vs. the picks.
Lawrence Timmons and either Jon Beason or Patrick Willis (both about equal from mid round). David Harris, Justin Durant, Stewart Bradley and Buster Davis... at just over 8 mil a season for 4 years... Again, you just found an elite LB corps there.
Or Irvin at about a 12 mil cap hit over 4 years (using the same bonus)


You just can't come close to that type of haul there. It's why we see great players not even get traded for a 2nd round pick even while so many teams have piles of cap room.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

I just can't see a guy out there anywhere that can be signed for 10 mil a year for 3 years that I would take over a #1 overall pick. I can't find any examples... Like you say, 6 mil cap hit for the #1 overall, who on the open market would have probably cost a team 15 mil a year plus. I really think that rookie salary capping made those picks so much more valuable.

Even Okung (who if they had the same deal offered that Denver got basically 1 year 5 mil commitment, could have taken easily).. Would you rather have him and keep him with his injury history and decline in play, or get Ronnie Stanley?

Or if you trade that pick, lets see what you can get on the line based on what the Rams gave up for it. Could argue in 2013 that draft haul would have been less with no real elite QB (EJ Manuel), but could also argue Winston, Luck, Newton, Bradford, Stafford, Russell would all have drawn more in compensation for that pick as higher graded prospects than Goff if the teams had put that pick on the market.

Just picking a random draft, going back 10 years where we know who they are. Using the picks they used to see what you might be able to expect if you used them all on offensive line or all on LB. Going mid round or the closest players to that (where those picks were or are expected to be).




So Okung vs. the picks:
2007 draft would have gotten you. Joe Staley, Ben Grubbs, Ryan Kalil, Tony Ugoh, Marshall Yanda, and Ryan Harris. For about a 33 mil cap hit over 4 years . Wow, 4 elite players on a line you are paying 8 mil a year... combined.
Or Okung where based on 30 mil savings over his first 4 years, he costs about half as much as that group for 4 years (about 15.3 mil).

Do the same with Irvin vs. the picks.
Lawrence Timmons and either Jon Beason or Patrick Willis (both about equal from mid round). David Harris, Justin Durant, Stewart Bradley and Buster Davis... at just over 8 mil a season for 4 years... Again, you just found an elite LB corps there.
Or Irvin at about a 12 mil cap hit over 4 years (using the same bonus)


You just can't come close to that type of haul there. It's why we see great players not even get traded for a 2nd round pick even while so many teams have piles of cap room.

Or you get Robert Gallery or Luke Joeckel... or Matt Kalil ever since his rookie season.

You're just cherry picking amazing players and assuming the #1 overall is going to be better than a proven above average player.

In case you didn't notice, I said 2017 FIRST overall. Not something back in '14 etc. where we already know the player is great now. And the OT class in 2017 is fairly weak...

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Or you get Robert Gallery or Luke Joeckel... or Matt Kalil ever since his rookie season.

You're just cherry picking amazing players and assuming the #1 overall is going to be better than a proven above average player.

Nope, I picked an average year and took the players closest to the middle of the rounds, which this years picks LA gave up were and next year is most likely expected to be (or worse, but I went towards the more cautious approach). Which is why busts like the "amazing" Ugoh and Buster Davis also show up too.

Yeah if you throw all your eggs in on that #1, sure you are running a risk. A bigger one than Okung actually staying healthy and remembering how to be an above average pass blocker?

Sure you might end up with Joeckel or Gallery and be worse off. Remember though the only tackles to go #1 overall. Orlando Pace, Jake Long, Eric Fisher. Tell me this... Denver would LOVE to have Goff or Wentz. What do you think the chance is that Philly or LA would trade those guys for Okung? What kind of pick do you think they could get for him? Maybe a 5th rounder? 6th?

 

[tducey]

The cap space for me as well.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Nope, I picked an average year and took the players closest to the middle of the rounds, which this years picks LA gave up were and next year is most likely expected to be (or worse, but I went towards the more cautious approach). Which is why busts like the "amazing" Ugoh and Buster Davis also show up too.

Yeah if you throw all your eggs in on that #1, sure you are running a risk. A bigger one than Okung actually staying healthy and remembering how to be an above average pass blocker?

Sure you might end up with Joeckel or Gallery and be worse off. Remember though the only tackles to go #1 overall. Orlando Pace, Jake Long, Eric Fisher. Tell me this... Denver would LOVE to have Goff or Wentz. What do you think the chance is that Philly or LA would trade those guys for Okung? What kind of pick do you think they could get for him? Maybe a 5th rounder? 6th?

K great. So some teams would like the #1 overall... some teams could probably better use it otherwise. Extra salary is also about retaining existing players that already work in your system and have a history with everyone else, which could be argued as a far better value than new players, etc.

All matter of opinion. Maybe Denver wouldn't love to have Goff/Wentz... maybe they'd rather keep an elite defense together, help their cap situation (which isn't exactly rosy). A Denver fan already chose the stat boost

As to your trade comment. The pick can't be traded so that diminishes value significantly. That said, for teams in win now mode or those without QB needs, it may not really matter.

My point is, you're picking VERY isolated and conditional arguments, that suit exactly what you're arguing. Not disagreeing with it, but think you should expand your thinking a little.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Here instead of Irvin vs. the 2007 expected draft picks, lets go 2008:

Keith Rivers, Jerod Mayo, Jordan Dizon, Curtis Lofton, Bruce Davis and Bryan Smith. Half busts. But still easily that crew.

Same on the O-line. Sure you get busts like Rachal and Pollak and Rinehart. But Zuttah, Brandon Albert and Gosder Cherilus give you so much more.

Or a year before...

Davin Joseph (either Nick Mangold or D'Brickshaw Ferguson), Marcus McNeill, Ryan Cook, Rashad Butler, Jason Spitz...

LB is Chad Greenway, Bobby Carpenter, Thomas howard, Rocky McIntosh, Clint Ingram and James Anderson. Still getting the best LB and a few starting quality guys.



or go 2 years before... Thomas Davis, Derrick Johnson, Odell Thurman, Matt McCoy, Alfred Fincher and Jordan Beck. most of them bust. Still by FAR better.

Go O-line. Alex Barron, Jamaal brown, Khalif Barnes, Marcus Johnson, Evan Mathis, Richie Incognito. WOW.


That's 4 years.. and every one EASILY favors getting that pick and trading it if you already have the QB. I am sure if I broke down 20 years of drafts that we saw their entire careers I could find one where Irvin or Okung come out on top and cherry pick that draft if I wanted. Just went random, now added 3 more random years to that.

Go back another year. Shawn Andrews, Vernon Carey, Justin Smiley, Jake Grove, Stephen Peterman, Sean Locklear. This might be the closest to not getting a huge talent (Shawn was for a season or two), but looking at getting 6 starting caliber guys.

LB gets you DJ Williams, Vilma, Daryl Smith, Dontarrious Thomas, Caleb Miller And Marquis Cooper.

5 years, easily favors the picks.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

K great. So some teams would like the #1 overall... some teams could probably better use it otherwise. Extra salary is also about retaining existing players that already work in your system and have a history with everyone else, which could be argued as a far better value than new players, etc.

All matter of opinion. Maybe Denver wouldn't love to have Goff/Wentz... maybe they'd rather keep an elite defense together, help their cap situation (which isn't exactly rosy). A Denver fan already chose the stat boost

As to your trade comment. The pick can't be traded so that diminishes value significantly. That said, for teams in win now mode or those without QB needs, it may not really matter.

My point is, you're picking VERY isolated and conditional arguments, that suit exactly what you're arguing. Not disagreeing with it, but think you should expand your thinking a little.

Missed the can't be traded part. My bad. Is there a rule you can't trade the player after drafting him like Eli for example? lol..


I agree on expanding it, lets use real life, not what we think may be the case. We can play "what if" but there's 32 teams out there with the ability to trade for or give up a top half of the first round pick in the draft every single year, and we see every single year the reality of 32 GM's value and opinions on those picks.

Jason Peters in his prime went for a 28th and 121st pick. Nowhere near the top of the daft. Basically 1/4 the value of the #1 overall (based on the old draft trade chart) for a guy miles better than Okung heading into this off-season. 27 year old back to back all pro left tackle. Nobody offered more. Jared Allen couldn't crack a pick in the top half of the first round either. Coming off a year he was 1st team all pro and led the NFL in sacks. The two top positions outside of QB (based on average pay, and average draft position). Easily better than the 10 mil examples I am seeing, and coming nowhere close in real life to the value given by actual NFL GM's to that pick.

That's why I don't see it as even close. We can't even use a real situation to compare the two values there because they are so far apart nobody has ever done something like that.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Missed the can't be traded part. My bad. Is there a rule you can't trade the player after drafting him like Eli for example? lol..


I agree on expanding it, lets use real life, not what we think may be the case. We can play "what if" but there's 32 teams out there with the ability to trade for or give up a top half of the first round pick in the draft every single year, and we see every single year the reality of 32 GM's value and opinions on those picks.

Jason Peters in his prime went for a 28th and 121st pick. Nowhere near the top of the daft. Basically 1/4 the value of the #1 overall (based on the old draft trade chart) for a guy miles better than Okung heading into this off-season. 27 year old back to back all pro left tackle. Nobody offered more. Jared Allen couldn't crack a pick in the top half of the first round either. Coming off a year he was 1st team all pro and led the NFL in sacks. The two top positions outside of QB (based on average pay, and average draft position). Easily better than the 10 mil examples I am seeing, and coming nowhere close in real life to the value given by actual NFL GM's to that pick.

That's why I don't see it as even close. We can't even use a real situation to compare the two values there because they are so far apart nobody has ever done something like that.

And then there's RG3 who went second overall and the Skins gave up a boat load of picks and is nowhere in the same galaxy as Russell Wilson or Tom Brady.

Again all conditional. So while you say, "That's why I don't see it as even close." I think it's a little off base. Sure you could get a steal in the NFL 2017 draft at #1 overall... not sure I'd say it's a steal at that point... but SURE you could get an all pro tackle that would be better than Okung or other tackles in the league.

OR... you could get a very talented tackle who would likely be a routine pro bowl (Okung could never stay healthy and played MANY games < 100%... as someone who watched and followed Seattle very closely in those years) tackle if he had 99 injury....

Considering it'd only cost the Broncos $10M/year for the next 5 years... with a rookie QB already on the roster, I personally as a Broncos fan may take that. Of course, there are top QBs available in next years draft. Since this is a question before the season, you can't say, "Well I'd start Lynch and see how he does, then if he busts take the #1 overall and get a QB."

 

[Clayton]

And then there's RG3 who went second overall and the Skins gave up a boat load of picks and is nowhere in the same galaxy as Russell Wilson or Tom Brady.

You have to admit that Russell Wilson and Tom Brady are exceptions to the rule. Ever since they changed the way salaries work, QBs have been going really high. I'm not suggesting anyone should ever draft a Ponder, Locker or Gabbert in rd1. That year was an overreaction but the trend is very real.

#1 overall Cam Newton 2011
#1 overall Andrew Luck 2012
#2 overall RG3 2012
No top QBs in 2013 and it was pretty obvious
#3 overall Blake Bortles in 2013. QB would probably go #1 and #2 in a redraft
#1 overall 2015 Jameis Winston in 2014
#2 overall 2015 Marcus Mariotta in 2015
#1 overall 2016 Jared Goff in 2016
#2 overall 2016 Carson Wentz in 2016

2017 will probably have Deshaun Watson go #1. Maybe a different QB will join him at the top.

Wilson dropped because he was short and people overlooked things like hand size, arm strength, etc. Brady dropped because he completely lacked athleticism. Aaron Rodgers dropped because everyone thought he was a system QB but he was thought to be in the running for #1 overall. 98% of late round QBs are backups, busts or game managers.

Great teams do win without investing top picks at oline, though. Seattle is a great example. Okung was a top pick but one of the least reliable players in the NFL. Dallas and Tennessee probably invested in the oline the most and both were picking top 3. Rams have spent 2 #2 overall picks at LT and come away with nothing.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Again all conditional. So while you say, "That's why I don't see it as even close."

Not really, it's that you have to go hypothetical because reality of every team in the NFL says it isn't even remotely close in value. It isn't me saying the value isn't remotely close, it's the entire league. Yes you can find an exception where bad QB play wins a SB, but that doesn't do anything to devalue the importance of QB play and make QB's not worth anything more than a 5th round pick. You can find an undrafted WR who outplayed a top 5 one, but that doesn't make the value of a top draft pick less than that of an undrafted player.

There are ALWAYS exceptions. Just because the Seahawks signed Shaun Alexander to be the highest paid RB ever and got 3.5 a carry from them and horrible production for 2 years doesn't mean cap space to re-sign your own guys is a horrible move does it? Of course not, that's the hypothetical hindsight game.



I am saying all I can find is 1/4 of the value for players at much more important positions which are much better prospects going forward is the best offer. I can't find a real life situation where that value has ever been remotely close. Sure it isn't working out 100% of the time. You can play the hindsight hypothetical game. But you can't find a time where the values were close. I've tried to, from all sorts of angles.


Here's another route to try and determine value.


Look at the non-exclusive franchise tag. Every year there are teams in the league can afford to sign that player with no negative cap impact. Two firsts to give up, which routinely isn't even near the going rate for a 1st overall pick.

And how many times has a team given up those two firsts to sign one of those guys? Orakpo, Graham, Demaryius Thomas, Dez, Pierre-Paul, Muhammad Wilkerson, Cousins, Brandon Albert, Clady (had yet to miss a game, coming off his best year), prime Ngata, David Harris Hali Vincent Jackson and Mankins and Asanti with NE. Prime Peppers. Haynesworth when he was arguably the best defensive player in the league. Elite guys at elite positions even there.

Not once has a team moved for that. Not once. Hundreds of chances in the past 10 years where a team without cap constraints could give up less value than a #1 overall for a much better player and not once do they. And you can find perfect fits. I can't say the value is close when reality just keeps saying not close every single time.

And teams can give those guys the exclusive mark to protect keeping them. Talking less than a million bucks outside QB to give them that exclusive tender and make sure no team can grab them. Brees. Peyton. Von. Only 3 of the past 50 or so to get that. All the rest, they know that million dollars isn't worth it because of the value the other 31 GM's have on those draft picks.



I'd just like on example of where the situation you are talking about... A #1 overall being anywhere near the same level as a Irvin/Okung type player coming true. Because while you can play the hindsight game (getting Jared Allen instead of drafting Lawrence Jackson and Aaron Curry) I can't find any time where an NFL team has thought anything close to that.