Official Senior Bowl Thread

[jppaul]

Originally Posted by papabear

Couple of things. WR is different than a defensive lineman for one main reasons. A WR will never make a bad team good. They can't do anything unless they have an offensive line that can protect the QB....and a QB to get them the ball. Same thing works on the other side of the line. We could throw out two pro bowl CB's, but if you can't get pressure on the QB or stop the run with some consistency you are still going to get picked apart at some point.

I will never have a problem picking a lineman on either side of the ball if the staff thinks they are worth it. It might not always be my favorite, and it's definitely not sexy, but the trenches are where game are won.

On the flip side does focusing your best chance to get quality players into one specific need, repeatedly, to the neglect of other positions, make any more sense?

Similarly we our focusing a large portion of our cap into one area, again to the neglect of other positions.

Certainly, everybody is correct, we are not in fact the Lions. Thank you for clearing that up. All I was saying is that other teams follies may serve as educational, in the same way history is educational. A what not to do blue print, so to speak.

What teams does this saturation drafting, to the degree in which we have done, actually payoff. Didn't payoff for the Lions, didn't payoff for us, who did it pay off for? This is not a rhetorical question.

A dlineman can make a bad team better, but so can a WR, and on that i disagree with you. If you have a good Oline and a good QB, your passing offense could still suck if your recievers can't uncover. Call it something analagous to the David Carr effect, one that is applicable to WRs.

The Vikings had arguably the best d-line the year before last but becuase they had secondary problems they still couldn't stop anybody.

Why should we continue to dedicate our resources to a position, that we have already invested the majority of our best chances to get quality players, to the neglect of other positions.

That is my question.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by jppaul

On the flip side does focusing your best chance to get quality players into one specific need, repeatedly, to the neglect of other positions, make any more sense?

Similarly we our focusing a large portion of our cap into one area, again to the neglect of other positions.

Certainly, everybody is correct, we are not in fact the Lions. Thank you for clearing that up. All I was saying is that other teams follies may serve as educational, in the same way history is educational. A what not to do blue print, so to speak.

What teams does this saturation drafting, to the degree in which we have done, actually payoff. Didn't payoff for the Lions, didn't payoff for us, who did it pay off for? This is not a rhetorical question.

A dlineman can make a bad team better, but so can a WR, and on that i disagree with you. If you have a good Oline and a good QB, your passing offense could still suck if your recievers can't uncover. Call it something analagous to the David Carr effect, one that is applicable to WRs.

The Vikings had arguably the best d-line the year before last but becuase they had secondary problems they still couldn't stop anybody.

Why should we continue to dedicate our resources to a position, that we have already invested the majority of our best chances to get quality players, to the neglect of other positions.
That is my question.

The amount of resources previously spent is not relevant to the argument. The relevant factor is do we need to improve on the DL right now. Clearly the answer is yes.

Otherwise you could say we have put fewer resources into WR than almost any position on the team the last 4 years so we should be looking to draft WRs. But this is not relevant. You draft on what you have and what you need, not on what you allocated. Your line of reasoning is the type that led Charlie Casserly to offer up Boselli as an excuse for why he never got a decent LT (We tried previously so we get to turn our attention elsewhere).

The DL is probably our worst or 2nd worst position group along with Secondary. Both have had first day draft picks and FA money thrown their way and we remain in need of upgrading in both areas far more so than at LB or anywhere on the offense. Hopefully a DT, FS, or DE is worthy of being drafted at 15 when we hit the clock.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by jppaul

On the flip side does focusing your best chance to get quality players into one specific need, repeatedly, to the neglect of other positions, make any more sense?

Similarly we our focusing a large portion of our cap into one area, again to the neglect of other positions.

I have concerns about the cap implications as well. I'm not a Best player available or a need guy. It's always a mixture of both. I'm not saying we have to draft a DT, but to just make a decision that we are not taking a D-lineman in the first round before the draft is bad planning. The Texans didn't plan on drafting Okoye, but when their spot came up he was by far the highest rated guy on their board. You may not like the way it turned out, but at that time we got a guy that most people projected to go several slots higher than us and many considered it a steal. All you can do is balance need and BPA when your spot comes up and make a pick.

A dlineman can make a bad team better, but so can a WR, and on that i disagree with you. If you have a good Oline and a good QB, your passing offense could still suck if your recievers can't uncover. Call it something analagous to the David Carr effect, one that is applicable to WRs.

Well then we can just disagree. Although in my example I meant to imply that you didn't have a good O-line or QB. If you do, then yes you need to find that playmaker on the outside. If you don't you can sign all the WR's you want and it won't change a thing. My point was everything starts in the trenches, so if your going to spend a disproportionate amount of your resources on a single area....I would rather it be one of the lines.

Why should we continue to dedicate our resources to a position, that we have already invested the majority of our best chances to get quality players, to the neglect of other positions.

That is my question.

I'm not advocating dedicating resources to the position necessarily. I'm saying you have to take the hand your dealt on draft day. Not considering a position is just as dangerous as reaching for a position based on need IMO.


On top of that, guys taken from the middle-late first round don't eat up near as much space as some people might think. TJ's cap number this year was 1.9 mill. Next year it will be 2.2. Far from a bargain, but not a cap killer by any means from a pickk that was around the same point in the draft as we will have this year. So taking the same position in the first round every year hurts a lot worse if all of the picks are top 5 than if you are a little farther back.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by papabear

I have concerns about the cap implications as well. I'm not a Best player available or a need guy. It's always a mixture of both. I'm not saying we have to draft a DT, but to just make a decision that we are not taking a D-lineman in the first round before the draft is bad planning. The Texans didn't plan on drafting Okoye, but when their spot came up he was by far the highest rated guy on their board. You may not like the way it turned out, but at that time we got a guy that most people projected to go several slots higher than us and many considered it a steal. All you can do is balance need and BPA when your spot comes up and make a pick.




Well then we can just disagree. Although in my example I meant to imply that you didn't have a good O-line or QB. If you do, then yes you need to find that playmaker on the outside. If you don't you can sign all the WR's you want and it won't change a thing. My point was everything starts in the trenches, so if your going to spend a disproportionate amount of your resources on a single area....I would rather it be one of the lines.




I'm not advocating dedicating resources to the position necessarily. I'm saying you have to take the hand your dealt on draft day. Not considering a position is just as dangerous as reaching for a position based on need IMO.


On top of that, guys taken from the middle-late first round don't eat up near as much space as some people might think. TJ's cap number this year was 1.9 mill. Next year it will be 2.2. Far from a bargain, but not a cap killer by any means from a pickk that was around the same point in the draft as we will have this year. So taking the same position in the first round every year hurts a lot worse if all of the picks are top 5 than if you are a little farther back.

I agree it is a bad idea to go into a draft either locking on or eliminating positions. QB is an exception since only 1 plays, but everywhere else it is a balancing act between need and BPA.

[sinnister]

Originally Posted by jppaul

The Vikings had arguably the best d-line the year before last but becuase they had secondary problems they still couldn't stop anybody.

That is my question.

I think the Giants had the best DL the year before the draft, and they certainly made up for a porous secondary.......and they won the Super Bowl

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

If that's a question, my reply is "yes". More & more teams are going 3-4 and these tweeners are becoming a more valuable commodity every year.
I wish we had never left the 3-4, but it's typical of Kubiak being inflexible and reluctant to confront change.

Yeah, those tweeners are so easy to come by. Most people around here long for the days of Jason Babin and Antwan Peek.

[jppaul]

Originally Posted by barrett

The amount of resources previously spent is not relevant to the argument. The relevant factor is do we need to improve on the DL right now. Clearly the answer is yes.

Otherwise you could say we have put fewer resources into WR than almost any position on the team the last 4 years so we should be looking to draft WRs. But this is not relevant. You draft on what you have and what you need, not on what you allocated. Your line of reasoning is the type that led Charlie Casserly to offer up Boselli as an excuse for why he never got a decent LT (We tried previously so we get to turn our attention elsewhere).

You are obviously a believer in the sunk cost rule. Since you took my argument out of context, lets do the same with yours:

That team has taken 15 straight first round d-linemen. DL is still the greatest need for that team. By your line of reasoning, keep taking the DL. Basically your line of reasoning is advocating for beating your head against a concrete wall.

Personally I'll pass, but maybe someone else is interested.

[jppaul]

Originally Posted by sinnister

I think the Giants had the best DL the year before the draft, and they certainly made up for a porous secondary.......and they won the Super Bowl

Different types of DL. Giants was a penetrating DL and the Vikings was a brick wall.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by Roy P

Yeah, those tweeners are so easy to come by. Most people around here long for the days of Jason Babin and Antwan Peek.

Seriously that raises an question that always puzzled me ? Why did Capers have so much trouble finding a really effective, stud pass-rush OLB for
his 3-4 ?
Watching this weeks Senior-Bowl practice, there were gobs of those prospects out there in the 235-255 lb range who had the kinda quicks off the edge to play the position. And that's not even counting all of the prospects that were absent like FSUs Brown, UTs Orakpo, and undercalssmen Maybin,
and many others. It just seems to me that the front 7 in the 3-4 is easier to populate than the 4-3, and of course that's always been an argument for the scheme.
BTW, did you see that Capers is taking his 3-4 to the NFC North ?
http://www.studyofsports.com/?p=1028
We all knew big things were in store for the Packers when Mike McCarthy summarily dismissed most of his defensive staff after a disappointing 6-10 season. What few were expecting was for McCarthy to stake his, and the team’s, future on the installation of the 3-4 scheme with the hiring of Dom Capers as Defensive Coordinator.

Most younger Packers fans, myself included, have only seen the 4-3 defense played in Green Bay. This sudden change, and McCarthy’s words on the matter, are somewhat surprising considering that McCarthy will no doubt be facing pressure to take the division back next season after the collapse of the defense and special teams this season.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by jppaul

You are obviously a believer in the sunk cost rule. Since you took my argument out of context, lets do the same with yours:

That team has taken 15 straight first round d-linemen. DL is still the greatest need for that team. By your line of reasoning, keep taking the DL. Basically your line of reasoning is advocating for beating your head against a concrete wall.

Personally I'll pass, but maybe someone else is interested.

If you take 15 straight DL and at the end of it DL is still the worst position on your team, then DL would still clearly be in play for the 16th draft. You don't play draft slots and contracts. You evaluate how your team plays on the field and look where you need to get better.

If you look at actual play on the field, DL is one of our worst 2 position groups so it should be one of our priorities to upgrade (along with secondary). This does NOT mean we should draft a DL in the first round. It DOES mean we should not rule out drafting a DL in the first round. If it comes to our pick and a DL is the best player on our board, I would expect us to take him. If not I would expect to see a DE in the 2nd or 3rd round.

You said you had a serious question asking why we would take a DL again and this is a serious answer. Why don't you tell us a few positions that are more in need of an upgrade on our team and what direction we should be going in round 1. I'll accept safety, but I don't see anywhere else where we need help more.

[TexanJedi]

According to NFLDraftCountdown, the Texans were spotted with Clay Matthews (LB USC), Mohamed Massaquoi (WR Georgia), and Coye Francies (CB/KR San Jose St.) at the Senior Bowl. Make of that what you will.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by jppaul

On the flip side does focusing your best chance to get quality players into one specific need, repeatedly, to the neglect of other positions, make any more sense?

Similarly we our focusing a large portion of our cap into one area, again to the neglect of other positions.

Certainly, everybody is correct, we are not in fact the Lions. Thank you for clearing that up. All I was saying is that other teams follies may serve as educational, in the same way history is educational. A what not to do blue print, so to speak.

What teams does this saturation drafting, to the degree in which we have done, actually payoff. Didn't payoff for the Lions, didn't payoff for us, who did it pay off for? This is not a rhetorical question.

A dlineman can make a bad team better, but so can a WR, and on that i disagree with you. If you have a good Oline and a good QB, your passing offense could still suck if your recievers can't uncover. Call it something analagous to the David Carr effect, one that is applicable to WRs.

The Vikings had arguably the best d-line the year before last but becuase they had secondary problems they still couldn't stop anybody.

Why should we continue to dedicate our resources to a position, that we have already invested the majority of our best chances to get quality players, to the neglect of other positions.

That is my question.

Another serious question you have, so here is another serious answer. We have currently spent 3 first round picks in the last 4 years. Another 1st would be 4 in 5 years. We've also spent a 5th during that time (okam).

The patriots in the building of their defense from 2001-2004 (4 years) spent three 1st, one 2nd, and two 4th round picks on DL. And take into account that they play a 3-4 and are only filing 3 spots. So 6 players picked in 4 years to fill 4 spots. And it payed off big time. Half a decade later those guys still make up the top 4 spots on one of the best 3-4 lines in football.

So the problem is not with over-investing in one position. The problem is with doing a bad job of it (like we have on some of these picks). And I think that's where your argument comes from. The frustration that comes from these guys blowing picks is doubled when they keep blowing them in the same area. Well remember this staff has only had 2 drafts and they have only taken ONE DL in those 2 drafts. You can't expect them to ignore team needs based on who Casserly drafted in 2005.

[jppaul]

Originally Posted by barrett

If you take 15 straight DL and at the end of it DL is still the worst position on your team, then DL would still clearly be in play for the 16th draft. You don't play draft slots and contracts. You evaluate how your team plays on the field and look where you need to get better.

you don't? Seriously, Barrett? Give me a break. Another Hypo you have had the first overall selection 4 times and youve drafted all DL. Can you imagine the cap ramifications?

That is a bit extreme obviously, but you are lying to yourself if you think, that cap ramifications don't factor in.

[Nconroe]

where to draft, I am also some combination of BPA tempered within the top few needs, so trade downs are often good.

our defense was overall 23rd last year, DL like 30th in least sacks and DBs like 28th in fewest turnover/interceptions. seems draft should focus on defense since offense was third ranked overall.

But these are young guys, some injuries, some player and coach turnover. And what was their ranking say last 5 games when seemed to have better defensive results.

So, maybe our DL picks are skilled guys who just need the right coaching and some maturity and health overall.

Anyways, lots of fun this time of the year speculating on how new coaches and draft will do this coming year.

I think if a Raji were there at 15 its a no brainer , draft him. if gone, not sure, see who's BPA.

So far, I don't like what I've seen of Will Moore for safety.

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Fair point.
Lot of guys went gah-gah eyed over Okoyes Senior Bowl performance a couple years ago (apparently including Smith & Kubiak),
and 2 years out in the NFL he's been a definite flop for a #10 overall.

Okoye played hurt this season, high ankle sprain, so he played on one leg. Plus he was being used to as a read react DT, he is a shot the gap and find the ball type. So IMO judging him a bust is unfair.

As for Raji suspension, my understanding is the school mismanaged his credits and he became ineligible. While he was away, he found out how much he missed the game and rededicated himself. Had he played last year, we would have know of him.

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by barrett

If you take 15 straight DL and at the end of it DL is still the worst position on your team,

Then you have a problem with scouts, GM, the draft in general.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Then you have a problem with scouts, GM, the draft in general.

agreed. That was my point. The problem is not "over-drafting" the DL. It's picking the wrong players. This has nothing to do with what position you take.

This current staff has picked one DL (okoye) and the jury is still out. This one pick does not disqualify them from attempting to fix an obvious problem area.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by TexanJedi

According to NFLDraftCountdown, the Texans were spotted with Clay Matthews (LB USC), Mohamed Massaquoi (WR Georgia), and Coye Francies (CB/KR San Jose St.) at the Senior Bowl. Make of that what you will.

Veeery interesting. And good to know. Thanks for the info TexanJedi.
Matthews is no surprise, nor is a corner but the GA WR is intriguing ? I dunno, but you gotta think that the Texans are getting a bit uneasy about
Jacobey J., so guess that could explain their interest in a WR plus another player they are talking to who has experience as a KR (Jacobeys main job up to now) ?
BTW, just how is Clay Matthews related to Oilers/Titans HOFer Bruce ? I'm thinkin Bruce had a brother named Clay who played for the Browns, and if so that would probably make the USC LB Bruces nephew ?

[sinnister]

Originally Posted by jppaul

Different types of DL. Giants was a penetrating DL and the Vikings was a brick wall.

I didn't say they weren't different, I said the Giants was better last year. Don't forget, Jared Allen was not on last years squad. Granted, they had 2 great DT's, so their inside was a brickwall, but the outside wasn't. The Giants were better across their front four with Tuck, Strahan, etc.

[sinnister]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Veeery interesting. And good to know. Thanks for the info TexanJedi.
Matthews is no surprise, nor is a corner but the GA WR is intriguing ? I dunno, but you gotta think that the Texans are getting a bit uneasy about
Jacobey J., so guess that could explain their interest in a WR plus another player they are talking to who has experience as a KR (Jacobeys main job up to now) ?
BTW, just how is Clay Matthews related to Oilers/Titans HOFer Bruce ? I'm thinkin Bruce had a brother named Clay who played for the Browns, and if so that would probably make the USC LB Bruces nephew ?

Bruce and Clay Matthews were brothers. I was wondering about the connection myself. Both played at USC if I remember correctly.