PDA

View Full Version : Draft Position


tiptap
04-25-2006, 04:24 PM
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/print/3828/

Nice read with charts about what positions can you let slide and still get good players and what positions need dozens of choices to get just that right fellow in the draft.

Mr. Kotter
04-25-2006, 09:36 PM
Nice read, tiptap. :clap:

Based on that article, we should be looking DT and DE in rounds one and two, and CB and S in round 3. :hmmm:

cdcox
04-25-2006, 10:31 PM
My buddy and I did an analysis of franchise QBs a few weeks ago. The conclusion was that if you drafted a guy in the first round, you had about a 1/4 chance of him panning out in a major way.

tiptap
04-26-2006, 06:12 AM
My buddy and I did an analysis of franchise QBs a few weeks ago. The conclusion was that if you drafted a guy in the first round, you had about a 1/4 chance of him panning out in a major way.

And this article supports that and goes on to indicate that the chance of success goes way down with lower round picks. That if you NEED a QB though you are going to need to take about 4 picks or trades or something to get that settled.

tiptap
04-26-2006, 06:17 AM
Nice read, tiptap. :clap:

Based on that article, we should be looking DT and DE in rounds one and two, and CB and S in round 3. :hmmm:

Yeah that is my take too. We already have sign people to vie for the 2nd CB spot. We really need depth at the Dline so we can be OK if we have injuries. And better rotation at Dline and better play of passing downs (we were good against the run) from the line would see the CB problem easier to solve.

Chiefnj
04-26-2006, 09:05 AM
bump

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 09:14 AM
What say you, 1st round safety homers?

jiveturkey
04-26-2006, 09:20 AM
Very cool.

It seems like the Chiefs have followed this line of thinking to a certain degree.

ct
04-26-2006, 09:22 AM
Outstanding read!! Thanks!

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 12:10 PM
Again, 1st round advocates for a safety, chime in...

ct
04-26-2006, 12:26 PM
Again, 1st round advocates for a safety, chime in...

I'm not necessarily one of them, although I'm cool with taking Jimmy Williams @20, if Lawson and the 2 DTs Ngata and Bunkley are gone. But consider this:

“Early Round Peak” includes only safeties and centers. In both cases the number of starters is at a peak after the first round (2nd round for safeties, 3rd for centers) and then reverts to a fairly normal distribution. The most likely explanation for this is that the top athletes usually get pushed to other positions in college and high school, so there just aren’t many that are talented enough to warrant first round consideration.


Look at Jimmy Williams and Michael Huff, the 2 top rated Safeties, and quite possibly, the only "Safeties" to be selected in the 1st round. Both were converted to CB, or vice versa, in college.

Jason Allen and Donte Whitner are also getting play as 1st round prospects, but could likely slip into the 2nd, where I would prefer to grab our Safety prospect. Hali (in a trade down) or Lawson, should he slip, are my #1,2 choices in the 1st.

milkman
04-26-2006, 12:31 PM
Again, 1st round advocates for a safety, chime in...

Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, Roy Williams, Brian Dawkins (actually 2nd round, but the 31st pick overall, before the most recent expansion).

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 12:39 PM
Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, Roy Williams, Brian Dawkins (actually 2nd round, but the 31st pick overall, before the most recent expansion).I only count ONE playoff team there.

Again, safety is important, but I'm skeptical of us taking ANY safety in the 1st round if Huff and Williams are gone. The rest seem like a reach to me.

ct
04-26-2006, 12:50 PM
Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, Roy Williams, Brian Dawkins (actually 2nd round, but the 31st pick overall, before the most recent expansion).

I only count ONE playoff team there.

Again, safety is important, but I'm skeptical of us taking ANY safety in the 1st round if Huff and Williams are gone. The rest seem like a reach to me.

I don't think anybody disagrees with you there. The point is there are 1-2 stud safeties, that truly can impact your defense, but also good ones can be found in the 2nd. Beyond Huff/Williams, we're better off waiting, and I've not heard anyone advocating anything different around here.

EDIT: And by the way, sure there is only 1 playoff team amoung those player's teams mentioned...last year. Baltimore won a Super Bowl not too long ago with with a pretty nasty defense. And Phily made 3 straight conference championships in large part behind the strength of the defense. So you can't seriously just look at last year.

milkman
04-26-2006, 12:56 PM
I only count ONE playoff team there.

Again, safety is important, but I'm skeptical of us taking ANY safety in the 1st round if Huff and Williams are gone. The rest seem like a reach to me.

But how many good defenses do you count?

I don't think anybody disagrees with you there. The point is there are 1-2 stud safeties, that truly can impact your defense, but also good ones can be found in the 2nd. Beyond Huff/Williams, we're better off waiting, and I've not heard anyone advocating anything different around here.

EDIT: And by the way, sure there is only 1 playoff team amoung those player's teams mentioned...last year. Baltimore won a Super Bowl not too long ago with with a pretty nasty defense. And Phily made 3 straight conference championships in large part behind the strength of the defense. So you can't seriously just look at last year.

Coryis right, we are not pimping any other first round safeties.

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 01:06 PM
I don't think anybody disagrees with you there. The point is there are 1-2 stud safeties, that truly can impact your defense, but also good ones can be found in the 2nd. Beyond Huff/Williams, we're better off waiting, and I've not heard anyone advocating anything different around here.

EDIT: And by the way, sure there is only 1 playoff team amoung those player's teams mentioned...last year. Baltimore won a Super Bowl not too long ago with with a pretty nasty defense. And Phily made 3 straight conference championships in large part behind the strength of the defense. So you can't seriously just look at last year.
Baltimore didn't win jack shit with Ed Reed, it was Rod Woodson and let's not forget that since the two big road graders in the middle of their D-line left, they haven't been the same, even with the almighty Ray Lewis. Ray Lewis will be the first to tell you that without the massive D-tackles taking on blocks, he can't work his magic.

You've changed the discussion to be about DEFENSES and not about SAFETIES.

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 01:14 PM
But how many good defenses do you count?



Coryis right, we are not pimping any other first round safeties.

Only ONE good defense, too. I'd take the Redskins, Panthers, Bears or Buccaneers, over all of those defenses, besides the Steelers.

Without looking, who are the starting safeties for the Panthers?

I think we all agree on the top safeties and whether or not we should pull the trigger on one of them and when.

ct
04-26-2006, 01:36 PM
But how many good defenses do you count?
...

I counted 3 of the 4 the mentioned. Dallas being the exception. Personally, I don't think Roy is all that, plus the Boys changed gears and started over.

Just for the exercise...

The defenses in 2005 appearing in the top10 in both points/yards allowed categories (seems to me a top10 rank in both categories is a pretty solid defense):

1/2 Chicago - Mike Brown
3/4 Pittsburgh - Troy Polamalu
5/3 Carolina - ? Minter, Davis?
6/6 Jacksonville - Darius(IR last year), Grant
8/1 Tampa Bay - ? Allen, Phillips?
9/9 Washington - Sean Taylor
10/5 Baltimore - Ed Reed

Anyway, I didn't start this claim, just throwing this out there.

ct
04-26-2006, 01:39 PM
Baltimore didn't win jack shit with Ed Reed, it was Rod Woodson and let's not forget that since the two big road graders in the middle of their D-line left, they haven't been the same, even with the almighty Ray Lewis. Ray Lewis will be the first to tell you that without the massive D-tackles taking on blocks, he can't work his magic.

You've changed the discussion to be about DEFENSES and not about SAFETIES.

Let's be clear, I didn't start this claim that ALL great defenses have a great Safety, I don't even subscibe to it. I only hopped in this when you started baiting this 1st round safety pimps, implying that this article somehow invalidates ever taking a safety in the 1st.

My personal opinion, every great defense will have great playmakers all over the defense, not just Safety. Name me a great defense that doesn't have a great LB. duh...

And I definitely had to look up Carolina and Tampa's safeties, had no idea.

CupidStunt
04-26-2006, 01:57 PM
1/2 Chicago - Mike Brown
3/4 Pittsburgh - Troy Polamalu
5/3 Carolina - ? Minter, Davis?
6/6 Jacksonville - Darius(IR last year), Grant
8/1 Tampa Bay - ? Allen, Phillips?
9/9 Washington - Sean Taylor
10/5 Baltimore - Ed Reed

Looking at those teams, it's clear that safety is not a neccessity.

Most of those teams have/had either very good D-lines or DEs.

But what I think is most evident is that not one position stands out -- but team defensive concepts do; fundamentals, coaching and pass-rush. Not a single one of those teams fails in any of those areas.

We lacked all three last year and most years prior to that.

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 01:58 PM
Let's be clear, I didn't start this claim that ALL great defenses have a great Safety, I don't even subscibe to it. I only hopped in this when you started baiting this 1st round safety pimps, implying that this article somehow invalidates ever taking a safety in the 1st.

My personal opinion, every great defense will have great playmakers all over the defense, not just Safety. Name me a great defense that doesn't have a great LB. duh...

And I definitely had to look up Carolina and Tampa's safeties, had no idea.
I'm clear now, that you don't necessarily prescribe to all of the best defenses having a great safety theory. My theory is great defenses have GREAT PLAYERS. Some have great safeties, some have a great safety, and others are average, at the position. I believe the teams with great secondaries have a great pass-rush, which puts more pressure on the QB and eases the burden on the secondary. The front seven is what makes the difference,IMO. PRESSURE equals turnovers and mistakes. It also is what all great defenses have.
We all agree, that a head-hunting safety can make a difference, some just disagree on the priority that is being put on the position.

Dave Lane
04-26-2006, 02:15 PM
3) Immensely talented safeties are rare, but you won’t have trouble finding a quality safety in rounds two through five. A talented RB like DeAngelo Williams is probably a better use of resources than someone like Donte Whitner if you’ve got a need for both.

Parker will crap himself...

Dave

htismaqe
04-26-2006, 02:33 PM
I only count ONE playoff team there.

Again, safety is important, but I'm skeptical of us taking ANY safety in the 1st round if Huff and Williams are gone. The rest seem like a reach to me.

Funny, I don't remember advocating anyone other than Williams and Huff. :hmmm:

htismaqe
04-26-2006, 02:35 PM
3) Immensely talented safeties are rare, but you won’t have trouble finding a quality safety in rounds two through five. A talented RB like DeAngelo Williams is probably a better use of resources than someone like Donte Whitner if you’ve got a need for both.

Parker will crap himself...

Dave

Why will I crap myself?

Not only have I NOT suggested picking Donte Whitner, I've actually said he's not right for what we need.

I'm not advocating the drafting of ANY safety, I'm advocating the drafting of a bonafide STUD safety. Only Williams and Huff in this draft fit that bill. Maybe Jason Allen.

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 02:37 PM
Funny, I don't remember advocating anyone other than Williams and Huff. :hmmm:
Funny, I don't recall calling anybody out-I just stated that after those 2 I don't believe anybody else is worthy of taking in the 1st round. I do recall somebody picking Whitner in a mock draft in the 1st round, though. ROFL

htismaqe
04-26-2006, 02:53 PM
Funny, I don't recall calling anybody out-I just stated that after those 2 I don't believe anybody else is worthy of taking in the 1st round. I do recall somebody picking Whitner in a mock draft in the 1st round, though. ROFL

So you weren't the BigChiefFan that post this?

What say you, 1st round safety homers?

My apologies, I'll direct my future responses at the real BigChiefFan. While I'm at it, I'll remind him that I chose Donte Whitner for DALLAS, not Kansas City. And then I'll remind him of the definition of "context".

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 02:57 PM
So you weren't the BigChiefFan that post this?



My apologies, I'll direct my future responses at the real BigChiefFan. While I'm at it, I'll remind him that I chose Donte Whitner for DALLAS, not Kansas City. And then I'll remind him of the definition of "context".

You're picking for Dallas, is still an indication that you think Whitner is 1st round talent, otherwise why would you take him at 18 overall?

Again, I never called anybody out, but since you want to implicate yourself, then by all means... ROFL

htismaqe
04-26-2006, 03:07 PM
You're picking for Dallas, is still an indication that you think Whitner is 1st round talent, otherwise why would you take him at 18 overall?

Again, I never called anybody out, but since you want to implicate yourself, then by all means... ROFL

Actually, I said that Whitner was somewhat of a reach in the 1st round, but was rising due to workout numbers.

That context thing is a bitch, isn't it?

htismaqe
04-26-2006, 03:10 PM
As far as calling anybody out, the post you made is right there for everybody to read.

If you wanna continue to act stupid and pretend you didn't say it, that's fine by me. I'm rather enjoying having a laugh at your expense.

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 03:13 PM
You're backed into a corner, so I knew it wouldn't be long until the insults started getting flung. Too bad, I was rather enjoying the conversation.

Mr. Kotter
04-26-2006, 03:17 PM
You're picking for Dallas, is still an indication that you think Whitner is 1st round talent, otherwise why would you take him at 18 overall?

Again, I never called anybody out, but since you want to implicate yourself, then by all means... ROFLBCF....not to be picking sides, but.....I've seen several drafts with Dallas taking what many consider a second round caliber safety.....Simpson, Bing, and Whitner among them (one even had Bullocks, I think.)

htismaqe
04-26-2006, 03:19 PM
You're backed into a corner, so I knew it wouldn't be long until the insults started getting flung. Too bad, I was rather enjoying the conversation.

ROFL

Flinging insults is:

"**** you stupid mother ****er!"

I said you were acting stupid because you ARE.

The facts are all here, in print. They speak for themselves.

htismaqe
04-26-2006, 03:24 PM
BRC....not to be picking sides, but.....I've seen several drafts with Dallas taking what many consider a second round caliber safety.....Simpson, Bing, and Whitner among them (one even had Bullocks, I think.)

Now don't come bringing that in here.

BCF is a professional scout. He's already pronounced judgement. You're just making yourself look like a fool.

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 03:28 PM
ROFL

Flinging insults is:

"**** you stupid mother ****er!"

I said you were acting stupid because you ARE.

The facts are all here, in print. They speak for themselves.
I think it's because you can't comprehend the question that is stated "what say you, 1st round, safety homers"-where does that say, anything about SPECIFIC players being named? It doesn't, but you sure jumped into the conversation like you had been called out, when you had not. I just wanted to hear what those advocating a FIRST ROUND safety to elaborate on the stat that says there isn't alot of correlation between 1st round safeties and success. I believe it's a telling stat, but why waste the facts on a perfectly good pissing match, right?


And calling someone stupid is an insult, whether you realize it or not. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
04-26-2006, 03:33 PM
I think it's because you can't comprehend the question that is stated "what say you, 1st round, safety homers"-where does that say, anything about SPECIFIC players being named? It doesn't, but you sure jumped into the conversation like you had been called out, when you had not. I just wanted to hear what those advocating a FIRST ROUND safety to elaborate on the stat that says there isn't alot of correlation between 1st round safeties and success. I believe it's a telling stat, but why waste the facts on a perfectly good pissing match, right?


And calling someone stupid is an insult, whether you realize it or not. :rolleyes:

Technically, he said you were "acting stupid...."

Which FTR, many of us, PRIDE ourselves on around here. :D


Lighten up, man.

htismaqe
04-26-2006, 03:33 PM
I think it's because you can't comprehend the question that is stated "what say you, 1st round, safety homers"-where does that say, anything about SPECIFIC players being named? It doesn't, but you sure jumped into the conversation like you had been called out, when you had not. I just wanted to hear what those advocating a FIRST ROUND safety to elaborate on the stat that says there isn't alot of correlation between 1st round safeties and success. I believe it's a telling stat, but why waste the facts on a perfectly good pissing match, right?


And calling someone stupid is an insult, whether you realize it or not. :rolleyes:

Actually, several others responded prior to me responding. Not only that, but you asked twice. It's obvious to everyone what you're intention was, if you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine with me.

And I honestly don't care if you feel insulted or not. You've been a pompous ass in this forum for days, downplaying other people's opinions and acting like your opinions are gold...as if you're an NFL scout, or Mecca.

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 03:34 PM
Technically, he said you were "acting stupid...."

Which FTR, many of us, PRIDE ourselves on around here. :D


Lighten up, man.
Unfortunately, I'm not an actor.

BigChiefFan
04-26-2006, 03:37 PM
Actually, several others responded prior to me responding. Not only that, but you asked twice. It's obvious to everyone what you're intention was, if you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine with me.

And I honestly don't care if you feel insulted or not. You've been a pompous ass in this forum for days, downplaying other people's opinions and acting like your opinions are gold...as if you're an NFL scout, or Mecca.
So now you actually KNOW what's going on in people's minds and KNOW what they are thinking. Sure, that's not looking down on others and not acting superior to others-whatever you think, htis.

Glass houses.

tiptap
05-01-2006, 07:15 AM
If we look at the suggestions in this article, we will find that the Chiefs followed the suggestions.

Not a DT, but a DE for the 1st round. There was some talk that Hali could play DT but I don't see that. But he was one of the better DL and addresses the weakness at pass rush. The thinking must be with a healthy Sims, Dalton, Siavii and Browning returning and add in Dixon and Edwards to the mix and you get guys to hold the middle. Are they the most intimidating DT? No, but Sims, if healthy, a big IF, can be disrupting from DT. And last year the run game defense was so much better. That should continue with better LB play.

2nd round saw us take a safety. This was a little early. But if you are addressing the secondary, you are going to need competition at the safety position as well as the CB.


3rd pick of a developmental QB was great pick. Not too early and here is a player that has the smarts and arm strength to be a future QB. 3rd QB and learning sound right to me.

Then we go for the rest of the defensive backs, one guard and one WR. This was a sound draft. I'm hoping the number of DE, Wilkerson, Freeman, Hali, Hall, Mitchell along with Hicks and Allen gives lots of competition for that spot with potential to improve the pass rush. And with athletic CBs maybe the pass rush will let them make plays.