Can someone explain positional value?
 

Obviously, I get the basic concept. Quarterback is the most important position, fullback is the least. But what about everything in between? Why is a left tackle more important than a left guard or right tackle? Why not take an LB with a top-5 pick? What is the general heirarchy of positions?

1. QB
.
.
.
DE/DT/LT/HB?
.
.
.
22. Fullback
23. Kicker
24. Punter


Edit: I forgot my post requirements. Your and idiot, and Fire Herm!!!

Positional value is a concept where pro teams value certain positions more than others.

Just what position merits a #3 pick?
IMHO

Obvious:
QB
RB
LT

Maybe, depends on the player.
DE
DT

That's the part I understand. I was looking for a slightly more technical response.

A left tackle protects the QB's (most important position) blind side.

From a technical perpective: It's similar to the hard drive being valued more than the mouse.

RB shouldn't be in the top 3 positions, IMO.

What a floating concept.

Positional value totally depends on where the team lacks.

This is kind of what I'm getting at. I would think your RB would be more valuable than your DT.

I don't think there is a technical response. Most coaches will say that the three most important positions on a team are QB, LOT and a pass rushing DE or OLB in a 3-4.

Aside from those three positions, I think the rest is open for debate (except as to FBs, punters and kicker).

If you look at previous drafts for guidance you'll see guards and centers usually aren't taken until later in the first round. MLBs usually go earlier than outside LBs (in a 4-3).

Isn't this in reference to the pick Value? Say #1 is worth 3500 points and #2 is 3000 points and so on...it would take #32 (1000points) #17 overall(1800points) and #45 (700points) to equal #1

LT is more important than LG because LT is normally matched up to protect the blind side of the QB, and is normally blocking 1 on 1 against the opposing teams most athletic DE that can line up wide and is also responsible for forcing the DE to the inside when you want to run to the outside. A LG normally just has to man up, and may have help from the C.

I'd say look at average salary by position, and that tells you all you need to know about "positional value".

Makes sense. So the QB is most important for obvious reasons.

That makes the left side of the line more important than the right.

Where do safeties and corners come in compared to LB and DL? Or is it just enough of a tossup that you go with need or BPA?

Exactly. And LT's are 2nd behind QB's, followed by the DE's the LT's are paid so much to block.

Corners are near the top, safeties near the bottom.

See I never would have guessed that. I guess because the skill positions get all the press. I could barely name an LT not with the Chiefs.

Personally, I would break it down into 4 tiers. Tier 2 and 3 are probably closest together in terms of importance and would probably even change based on your system. Mine assumes a 4-3 defense.

Tier 1: QB, DE, DT, LT
Tier 2: RT, CB, MLB, WR
Tier 3: RB, G, C, OLB, S
Tier 4: K, P, FB

Most QB's are right handed. They protect the blind side. Keep your QB from getting hurt, causing him to fumble etc.

These are the 3 highest positional values on offense IMO
QB
LT
WR

Defense
DE
DT
MLB

And based upon this, the Chiefs decided to get rid of a proven pass rushing DE last year.

They already had one third of the puzzle, but the idea was to rebuild from scratch. Jared Allen obviously had to go.

LBs who rush the QB, and produce sacks are more valuable than ones that don't.

General Rule of thumb.

Tier 1
QB, LOT, DE/OLB rusher.

Tier 2
Corner, DT

Tier 3
HB, WR, MLB

Tier 4
OLB, S, all other OL

Tier 5
kickers, punters, FBs.

Of course a great player at any tier can jump all the way up - Calvin Johnson, Sean Taylor, etc.

Carl Peterson. Thankfully he's no longer with the club. LT is also a very valuable position. We got a good one out of the deal.

Good post. A "special player" can be picked anywhere in the draft. They are rare, and of course would never include FBs.

Positional value is the degree to which having a player who is at least good and preferably great will improve your team's chances of winning relative to having simply an average player at such position or, conversely, the degree to which a mediocre player at such position will hurt your team's chances of winning.

QB is obviously #1 because they have more impact on more things than any other position on the field.

While kicker or punter may seem destiend for #24 becuase they play the least number of snap, I'd put them ahead of a position that can effectively be eliminated. FB, for example. FB is #24 on my list because you can substitute nearly anyone into that role and do a "serviceable" job.

Blind side tackle (usually left, because most QBs are righty) is a position where if you have a mediocre player, it can destroy you because one strip sack is enough to make a difference in the closely balanced NFL.

Conversely, pass-rushing DE or OLB has the same weight on the other side of the ball.

TAckles are generally more important than guards because they operate on the offensive line's edges, and if they need help, it must come from a TE or RB, which can mess up formation/play preferences. Centers are also ahead of guards because they set the pass protection. Guards can get help on either side, and don't need to make decisions, so they're less valuable.

TEs and RBs are involved in every play, so they are important. WRs less so because they don't impact as many plays in general. On running plays they have little/no impact or significance.

Defensively, pass rushers are first. Then I'd put linebackers and interior defensive linemen into the next tier down. Then cornerbacks, then safeties.

I guess I'd group them this way, more or less:

1. QBs
2. blind-side tackle and pass rushing DE/OLB
3. DL/TEs/RB/LBs/CB
4. OT/C/WR
5. Safety/Guard
6. P/K
7. FB

Of course, this whole thing is overly simplistic. A third WR mgiht be more valuable than a starting LB, in some ways, depending on the team's offensive philosophy.

I'd pay Tom Brady money to Ed Reed to have him on my team. Safety or not...

Dammit, that sounds way better than the way I put it.

Thanks guys. Got some really great responses. I believe I've got it now.

I disagree with WRs being up there with QBs, and LTs, but that's just me.

IMO,
1-5. LT, LG, C, RG, RT
6. QB
7-10. DE, DT, DE

He is a "special talent" All bets are off when it comes to players of his caliber.

To win in the NFL, you have to be able to throw the ball effectively, and stop the other team from throwing, which means having a good QB, having a good LT, and having a good DE.

If you can't get to the QB, no lead is safe.

I did read some study that said the LT was overvalued though. QBs can take a pounding even with a good LT if the rest of the line sucks. But maybe the rest of the line sucking has a lot to do with coaching.

In retrospect, I think I'd rather have Jared Allen instead of Glenn Dorsey. We could have traded down and still got a LT.

It is too early to tell. DTs take 2-3 seasons to develop. Keep the faith! :thumb:

The best argument I've heard for that trade being good is that Allen wanted out and would've left the following season anyway.

I disagree about FB, seems like wherever an outstanding FB like T-Rich or Lorenzo Neal changes teams, the departed team loses more and the new team improves its W-L.

I know that FB is definitely no where near the top, or even 2nd tier as far as positional value, but I still don't understand why players such as L. Neal, or T Rich were so overlooked. These guys contributed as much, if not more than most Gs in the league. T Rich was invaluable on running plays. Like I said, I'm not advocating them being more important than any other position, but they are cheap, and effective, why the hell do teams let these guys walk all the time. If I were the Titans, L. Neal would have retired in TN. It's not like a team can't afford to keep these guys.

Are tackles most important for run-blocking as well? Or is everything equal there?

Tackles are mainly more valuable because of pass protection, because the other teams best pass rushers are coming off the corners, and the best of those will be coming from the Offense's left. Considering the QB is right handed.

I got that. I was just asking a side-question about the run game.

It just depends on the player, but it's really hard to determine because the value of the two positions are so far apart.

It is kinda moot question as it is concept that is not part of Scott Pioli's drafting process.

Bullshit. You guys have had all the main pieces in place so he has been tinkering the last few years but his first few drafts proved it.

This is an analysis that I did a while ago for a discussion in another thread that seems pertinent here:

An interesting question, even though I don't agree with a standard scale by position because it doesn't account for how well a player plays that position.

Nevertheless, I have calculated how the NFL values these positions based on draft order (see details below):


HB: 15.5%
FB: 0.3%
QB: 14.2%
WR: 4.8%
WR: 4.8%
TE: 5.4%
LT: 3.3%
LG: 1.1%
C: 1.7%
RG: 1.1%
RT: 3.3%
K: 0.4%
P: 0.1%
KR/PR (one guy): 0%*
FS: 6.9%
SS: 4.6%
LCB: 4.2%
RCB: 4.2%
SOLB: 3.7%
WOLB: 3.7%
MLB: 5.3%
LDE: 3.5%
RDE: 3.5%
DT: 2.2%
NT/DT: 2.2%

The first surprise is RB>QB this is a little misleading. RB burn up faster than QB so you have to draft them more often. The above numbers should be adjusted for average career length of a starter at the position.

The second surprise is Safties > CB. That just shocks me, but probably should not when you consider the number of teams using a cover 2 and how the rules have castrated CB play.

Thrid surprise is MLB/ILB > OLB. Sure the MLB is the most important spot in the 4-3, but a lot of your play makers and pass rushers come from the OLB spot.

Fourth surprise is TE > WR. I think TE are being over-valued in the NFL right now due to the TG and Gates effect.

Methology in next post.

Methodology (only for the geeks):

I compiled a list of the players drafted in the first three rounds over the last 3 years. I chose the first 3 rounds because teams are looking for eventual starters in those rounds. Latter rounds are for backups and special team players. I used the last 3 years to get enough data to even out draft-class variations, while being recent enough to capture current trends.

I then assigned a value to each player based on the NFL Draft value chart. This goes from 3000 points in the first round down to 116 points for the end of the 3rd round. I then totaled the number of draft value points for each position over the 3 year period. I then made some additional adjutments based on the fact that you field 1 QB but 2 guards, etc. I also made the following groupings:

MLB = MLB + ILB
DT = DT + NT

There was no way to separate Left/Right Tackle, Guard, DT, DE, OLB, or CB.

The numbers are a little skewed since the above positional alignments are based on standard proset offense and 4-3 defense. Many times an offense lines up with 2 RB or 2 TE or 3 WR instead of a FB. Also there are 3-4 defenses and nickle packages. These would slightly change the value assignments.

Good post. I should also add that the positions you listed can change, depending on the head coach/GM philosophies. For example, in Miami, they like to run more than pass, so the WR can be switched around with the G position, and the FB will possibly be valued a little higher, but not by much. I'm not saying that a FB should be selected over a WR by any means, but it can be applied for 2nd day draft as it's more of a crapshoot really.

I would probably tend to value O-line and D-line pretty high, as IMHO, it's the foundation for a offense/defense for it to build up, especially if you can get what, 2-3 linemen who are starters and less than 25 years old, and they do a serviceable job, then the future looks pretty bright. Like the Chiefs case, they have a LT, so that's good. LG can probably play at a high level for say, 1-2 more years, so that should be looked into. Center, and the right side of the line probably will be needing attention, as the Chiefs cannot run the ball well on the right side of the line.

Same thing applies to defense, as even though we have two young DT's in Tyler and Dorsey, the run defense is still a problem. And of course, as it is evident that the Chiefs have a major issue on DE as they set a new NFL record for least sacks in a single season. My point being is, the LB can't do his job effectively if the 4 guys up front aren't doing theirs, either that is rushing the QB or occupying blockers/stopping the run.

I'll put this out there.

I think a 3-4 NT is the most valuable player on the team (I'd put it equal to QB), because there really aren't a lot of them out there and there are even fewer who are damn good.

How many teams run a 3-4? How many of those teams have a bad nose tackle?

You're insane.

If a team doesn't have a NT, they could always go to a 4-3. Or they will give up an extra 0.5 YPC or so.

If you don't have a QB, your offense basically isn't going to function.

I think you're right, but I am one of the few who believe that a Tony G. Gates type of TE, who will haul in 90 balls at 12yrds per catch, every season, should be valued as high as WRs. Hell, I think they should be lumped in with the WRs. They are that valuable.

But there also aren't all that many teams running the 3-4 so there aren't that many NT needed in the league, but every team needs a QB.

That's all well and good except Gates has never had a single season where he has caught 90 balls. He's only had one season over 1000 yards (three others above 950). His production has not really lived up to his hype. His stats are no where near an arc needed for a HOF WR, so I don't think you can really put him in that category.

Agreed.

And also I'm saying that these special talent TEs should be lumped in with the WR general population. The special talent WRs are another story altogether.

The other aspect of positional value is its use as a defense. When someone doesn't agree with your opinion of a quarterback and wants to take any other player at any other position, the typical retort is - "You idiot, you don't know anything about positional value. We need a QB!"

Did others notice how Gates does not produce as well when he gets covered high and low by both a LB and Safety? Gonzo has lived with that type coverage since his third season.

Two points.

First, positional value is the degree to which an above average or good player improves yoru team's chances of winning, and conversely the degree to which a bad player at the position hurts your team's chances of winning.

In the 2008 NFL, FB has all but been eliminated by many teams that prefer 3 and 4 wide sets, two TEs and other approaches. The Patriots have won three Super Bowls this decade with NO FULLBACK AT ALL. Lead blockers were essentially bottom roster feeder RBs or OLs or DEs (Richard Seymour played some FB).

If you can completely ignore the position, then it's obviously not that important. Sure, a VERY good FB can help you out, but then the question is whether a run-oriented offense is even a good approach in the modern NFL. There's something of an argument that it's not.

VERY valuable, but not most valuable. Probably the most valuable player on defense, but not as valuable as QB.

What team would take Vince Wilfork (or, if you prefer, Hampton or Jamal Williams) who are the best at their position) over Manning or Brady?

Answer: None. Not a single one.

TEs are highly valauble because they're involved in EVERY Play, either blocking or catching, unlike WRs. That's why the Pats have drafted two in the first round in recent years, and another in the third.

Positional value doesn't translate much on the draft board.

If you think a guy isn't that great, but take him because you have a "need" at his position, then you probably still will have a need at that position, because the guy you took wasn't great, and meanwhile you ignored another player who may have fit your scheme/team better.

Positional value, to me, is more important in assessing salary cap and free agency decisions than draft pick considerations.

Point value for positions are as follows:

Missionary - 1 point
Cowgirl - 2 points
Reverse Cowgirl - 3 points
Doggie Style - 4 points
69 - 5 points
...
...
...
Around the world and ATM - 100 points

Fill in the ...'s

I think that is almost word for word the answer Bill Belichick gave to a question last year on draft weekend.

Some positions in this league are more important and valuable than others. Are kickers valuable? They can be. How many Super Bowls do the Patriots win without Adam Vinatieri? He was a very valuable player for the Patriots franchise, but kickers are very rarely drafted in the first three rounds.

They simply don't make enough plays or are able to make an extensive difference compared to the average kicker in the league. This is why kickers don't make as much money as left tackles, quarterbacks, or defensive linemen, and why they aren't highly sought after in the draft.

Another reason kickers aren't highly coveted in the draft is because there isn't a great demand for them. Teams aren't scrambling to draft a "franchise kicker."

Two concepts make up positional value: demand and impact. I've briefed on these a bit, but we are going to do some intense analysis.

From Dictionary.com, the definition of "demand" is "The desire to possess a commodity or make use of a service, combined with the ability to purchase it."

Some positions in the NFL are hotter commodities than others. Obviously special teams personnel (punters, long snappers, kickers, returners) aren't very high on the totem pole. No teams were really scrambling to find long snappers or kickers in free agency or the draft. I will use this phrase a lot throughout NFL Draftology 205A, but they are a "dime a dozen." No team truly has these needs, and thus it has low demand. Low demand for a position means they will be less sought after on Draft Day and will be less pricey in the free-agent market.

What other positions are in low demand? I'd say the position right now in the lowest demand in this league is running back. Nearly every team has something invested in this position, or believes they have a potential star. Look around the NFL depth charts. Sure, some teams have more question marks at the position than others, but in general, this is an overloaded position in the NFL. Reason? The great talent coming out of college at this position is NFL-caliber, and there are a lot of these players in the NFL. They aren't just really good; there are a lot of them.

For our first NFL Draft analysis here, let's take a look at the 2007 NFL Draft. Why did Adrian Peterson fall to No. 7? Many point out that he had durability issues, but I disagree. It was the lack of demand for running backs in the NFL as to why he slid to the Vikings.

Oakland? They didn't need a running back having spent a lot of money on LaMont Jordan, and they needed a franchise signal caller more (Jamarcus Russell). Pass.

Detroit? They spent a first-round pick on Kevin Jones in 2004 and also traded for Tatum Bell. Calvin Johnson was simply too good to pass up, and was playing a position of greater DEMAND. Elite receivers are rare, and Johnson was quite possibly the best receiving prospect in NFL history. Pass.

Cleveland? I will get into this later discussing positional impact, but the Browns needed a left tackle more than a running back. They brought in Jamal Lewis, but didn't have anything at left tackle. Pass.

Tampa Bay? Cadillac Williams was poised to return to rookie form, Michael Pittman was solid, and Earnest Graham had potential as a backup. Nothing for this team in terms of a pass rush, so they opted for Gaines Adams. Pass.

Arizona? Spent $30 million on Edgerrin James, and they needed to protect Matt Leinart. Getting better on the line was imperative for them, just like Cleveland. They took Levi Brown to block Matt Leinart's blind side. Pass.

Washington? Clinton Portis, so no need here. A need at free safety, they took LaRon Landry. Pass.

That's how Adrian Peterson became a Viking. It really had nothing to do with his running style or injury history. Was there some risk there with taking him with those injuries? I think a little bit, but in the end it didn't matter because teams had other needs, and didn't have them at running back.

Another position I believe that is in extremely low demand right now is inside linebacker. Look around, nearly every team has a very talented starter at this position. Only teams with question marks right now are Tennessee (Ryan Fowler), Cincinnati (Dhani Jones) and Kansas City (Napoleon Harris).

What other positions are in low demand? The more obvious positions that are in low demand are center, guard, and tight end.

I would say at this point, being that we don't know who will get injured and fail next season, there are really no positions of drastic need right now in the NFL.

Seven left tackles were taken in the first round of the 2008 NFL Draft (if you include Branden Albert). It will be interesting to see if they will all live up to their first-round billing, and it's something we will find out next season. The only teams with a need at left tackle right now are Oakland (Kwame Harris) and potentially Baltimore (Jared Gaither).

You are probably thinking about quarterback right now, but I'd say this is a wait-and-see approach. Will players like Tarvaris Jackson, Kellen Clemens, Brodie Croyle, Drew Stanton, Matt Moore, Matt Leinart and Alex Smith ever step up? Quarterback has a lot of potential to be a big need in the 2009 NFL Draft, especially with the best quarterback on the free-agent market being Luke McCown. I'd like to call this a wait-and-see because we just don't know for sure how many of these quarterbacks will falter or thrive.

We all know certain positions in the NFL are more valuable than others.

Take a look at the previous 12 No. 1 overall picks in the NFL Draft from 1997 to 2008. Eight quarterbacks were taken, two left tackles (even though I am not sold on Jake Long at all living up to the hype) and two defensive ends.

This isn't some huge coincidence. It's very rare that tight ends, cornerbacks and inside linebackers go in the top 10. You can make a case for defensive tackles, but I believe that is simply a position where not much talent comes out of college. Glenn Dorsey was the best defensive tackle prospect since Warren Sapp in 1995. That is 13 years of the draft lacking elite talent at the position.

Guards and centers are uncommon first-round picks, and only a few are taken in the second round every year.

Now, I am in no way saying that guards, centers, corners, etc. don't make a huge impact over the course of a game. I think they are very important positions, but other positions are simply worth more in this league.

Back to the 2008 NFL Draft, and let's take a look at why the Dolphins did not seriously consider Glenn Dorsey with that pick. The players being mentioned here were Jake Long, Chris Long, and Vernon Gholston.

The reason why the Dolphins were never going to select Dorsey is because run stuffers don't make enough plays to be worthy of a No. 1 pick. They don't get after the quarterback as the nose tackle in a 3-4 scheme. You can find run stuffers in this league at a relatively cheap price, or even draft a great fit at nose tackle such as Athyba Rubin out of Iowa State in the late rounds, and he can still have a very similar impact to Dorsey at that position. There is only so much a nose tackle can do.

They occupy blockers and plug the run. That's pretty much it.

So which positions do you spend high draft picks on? What positions make the most valuable impact in this league?

The three most valuable positions in this league are quarterback, left tackle and 4-3 right defensive end or 3-4 outside rush linebacker (which I classify as the same position, since it's the pass rusher coming off the edge varying to scheme). I bring up the point about the past 12 No. 1 picks. They all fall under these three positions (no 3-4 OLBs taken, but I still find it extremely valuable for those 3-4 teams).

Obviously, we see other positions go very high in the draft too, and like I said before, I'm not saying only these positions are valuable. Calvin Johnson and Braylon Edwards were taken No. 2 overall in their respected drafts, but they went that high because their value demanded it. They were better than any other player on the board at that time, or quite possibly even the best players in their draft despite being second fiddle to the No. 1 pick.

This is the same for Vernon Davis and Kellen Winslow, both of whom were taken at No. 6 overall. I don't believe tight ends should go that high, but their perceived talent commanded they go over other players that played more impactful positions (such as quarterback, tackles, or linebackers that make many more plays over the course of a football game).

Now let's take a look at analyzing some draft picks in the past, why those decisions were made, and what can we learn from them.

Exhibit A: Browns select Joe Thomas over Adrian Peterson

The Browns didn't think Adrian Peterson wasn't a phenomenal talent. Anyone with half a brain knew he was going to be very special in the NFL, but how special would Peterson have been in Cleveland if he didn't have a line to block for him and had a quarterback who wasn't protected? If Peterson was the pick, then the Browns can say bye-bye to a passing game for a very long time. Left tackles like Joe Thomas are very rare to acquire. He was an outstanding athlete and a monster in pass protection, and had defining leadership to boot. If Cleveland passed on him, then their offense is at a major risk. Their quarterback's blind side is not going to be protected. With Thomas playing left tackle, the quarterback (little did we know it was going to be Derek Anderson) can feel more comfortable in the pocket and make more plays in the passing game, which in turn opens up the running game. Now that the running game is effective, the play action becomes deadly, and this is exactly what happened for the Browns in 2007.

If Peterson is the pick, the Browns have an elite rusher. They have a player who maximizes the yardage of the play and is a huge scoring threat, but what they don't have is everything I just mentioned. Maybe their quarterback gets seriously hurt because the left tackle isn't doing his job. The quarterback would get very rattled in the pocket because he doesn't have confidence to get a play off without getting hit. Peterson wouldn't be able to reach his full potential because his line wouldn't have been up to snuff on the left side.

Browns fans know what I'm talking about; they saw it first hand with the Tim Couch era. Cleveland didn't want to re-live that, so they made what was, in my opinion, one of the best picks in the 2007 NFL Draft. It's a pick we look back now on and say "It was an easy pick because obviously Joe Thomas was a great player since he emerged as one of the top left tackles in his rookie year." Hindsight is always going to be 20/20. Thomas had issues with not having great bulk or being an elite run-blocker, and it's hard to pass up on a player like Peterson or the fan favorite in Brady Quinn. This pick did take some balls and there was much more to it than meets the eye… that's the draft in a nutshell.

Exhibit B: Texans shock the world and take Mario Williams No. 1

When Mario Williams was inked the night before the draft, 95 percent of the people and experts hated the pick. "How could they pass up on Reggie Bush AND Vince Young? They need a running back AND a quarterback!"

I loved the pick made by Charlie Casserly and defended it even going into the 2007 season. I'm sorry, but if you think Bush or Young should have gone No. 1, then you never watched Mario Williams play. How many people at Radio City Music Hall saw N.C. State games? They saw plenty of Bush and Young on SportsCenter, and decided to boo the No. 1 pick.

The biggest reason why Casserly pulled the trigger on Mario, was simply because he was the best player in the draft, and I totally agreed with that. He was a 6-7, 285-pound monstrous pass rusher and an elite athlete. He had begun to turn the corner and looked like he was going to have a bright future in the NFL, but on the other hand Vince Young did win the championship game and Reggie Bush was dubbed as the next Gale Sayers.

Not only was Mario regarded by the Texans as the No. 1 player on their big board, but he also played the position of greatest impact.

You don't draft a running back No. 1 overall, especially in a zone-blocking scheme where effective runners can be found later in the draft. Bush had issues with carrying the load at USC, and he wasn't very comfortable between the tackles. Still, even I have to admit I thought he would be a star in the league.

Why not hometown hero Vince Young? The Texans did need a quarterback; David Carr up to this point was an obvious bust. Well, you don't take a quarterback this high who doesn't have much of an offensive line or supporting cast. The only player who was talented on this offense was Andre Johnson. Young wasn't going to get much help, and he also had a lot of bust factors (mechanics, football IQ, intelligence, West Coast offensive fit, etc.).

When it comes down to it, defense does win championships, and if the Texans were ever going to win, then they needed a player who could scare a quarterback and wreak havoc. That player was Mario Williams.

Williams was taken because he would have made the most impact for the Houston Texans and helped their team in the long run more than Vince Young or Reggie Bush. So far, so good.

Most overrated: Quarterback

You can't escape it. Nearly every single football fan in the universe has an extreme bias toward offense, and an extreme intrigue with the quarterback position. That doesn't exclude general managers or coaches either.

New regimes love to draft "their guy." Take a look at 2008 where Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Chad Henne were taken by new staffs. In 2007, Lane Kiffin made his mark with JaMarcus Russell as the No. 1 pick. We all know what Cam Cameron did with John Beck in the second round passing up on Brady Quinn. Eric Mangini took Kellen Clemens in his first draft in the second round. Mike Nolan selected Alex Smith No. 1 in 2005, and Mike McCarthy grabbed Aaron Rodgers in his first-round free-fall.

Is quarterback very important? It's extremely important, but it is pretty hit-and-miss. I feel like teams panic to find a "franchise quarterback" and feel forced to draft one. Everyone thinks a "franchise quarterback" is going to take their team to the Promised Land.

Has Carson Palmer been to the Promised Land yet? He's a phenomenal talent and was absolutely the best player in the entire 2003 NFL Draft, but it doesn't guarantee anything. People associate "franchise quarterback" and winning. When you think of "franchise quarterback," that means a high pick usually has to be invested. I don't believe in this. I believe that you draft the best quarterback for your offensive system. If that means you take a second-tier quarterback in the fourth round, but he best fits your system, then you do exactly that. Who cares if he isn't viewed as a "franchise quarterback?" David Garrard wasn't drafted in the first round, and he's Jacksonville's main man. Tom Brady became a franchise quarterback pretty quickly. Matt Hasselbeck was a sixth-round pick.

Fans love to have a "franchise quarterback." Has Jay Cutler been to the playoffs yet? What about Matt Leinart? We can all name the bust quarterbacks over the years, and it's a pretty long list.

I can then look on the other side and say Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, and Ben Roethlisberger, but it took much more than quarterbacking for these three players to win a Super Bowl. They needed defense, protection and weapons.

My philosophy is you take the best player for your team, and too often I think teams get in quarterback mode. If the best player for your team is a quarterback (like Palmer to the Bengals in 2003) then you should pull the trigger. I'm just saying there is a huge bias that the best player for your team is always a franchise quarterback.

Most underrated: Three technique

Many of you are asking, "What's a three technique?" Warren Sapp is the greatest three technique to ever live. He played under tackle in the Buccaneers' Tampa 2, one-gap scheme, and this allowed him to get up the field to the quarterback.

Tommie Harris is currently the best three technique in the NFL. Kevin Williams is a close second. Amobi Okoye is destined to be a star in Houston. Now, not every team runs a one-gap scheme in a 4-3 defense, but the value of this position was ignored greatly on Draft Day.

Three technique, or under tackle, plays a huge role in a game for a defense. The position is about getting into the backfield and making plays in the trenches. It's about getting pressure on the quarterback and tackling the running back before he hits the line of scrimmage to slow him down. This cannot be understated.

There aren't many great three techs in this league. Glenn Dorsey (though he is starting out at nose tackle, but has ability to play under tackle) and Sedrick Ellis are already considered to be two of the best at this position. Why is this? Not enough of these talented players are coming out of college. It's a very rare position to find elite talent.

When the iron is hot for three techs, it should be struck, but that's not what happened in the 2008 NFL Draft. Atlanta opted for its "franchise quarterback" in Matt Ryan over Dorsey.

Atlanta could have drafted Brian Brohm in the second round. Defense wins championships. Ryan is the face of the franchise now… who was the face of the franchise for Tampa Bay? Warren Sapp. I'd say that worked out pretty well. Faces of the franchise don't win games. Glenn Dorsey was a once-in-a-decade type talent at his position. We see a great quarterback in the draft nearly every year.

You should now understand which positions I believe are the most impactful in the NFL, and how it greatly affects the draft. Remember, just because you are a left tackle, that doesn't necessarily mean you have more value than an elite wide receiver or cornerback, but you have a greater degree of impact. Now, on to my most important issue:

The 2009 Draft and beyond…


Look for running backs to fall lower in the draft than their talent level indicates, especially after possibly the deepest running back class ever in 2008. Knowshon Moreno and Chris Wells are elite talents, but I wouldn't be shocked if they fell out of the top eight or 10 picks next year.

With what looks like a really strong left tackle class (much more so than 2008), teams will not let these players fall in the 2009 NFL Draft. Don't be shocked to see three left tackles go in the top 10.

The emergence of cornerback as a position that becomes high value. Not many teams have elite corners, and they are very tough to find in the draft. Five corners were taken in the first round of 2008, and with a lot of teams loading up on left tackles, quarterbacks, linebackers, etc. I expect some position to gain more value.

Don't expect the quarterback frenzy to ever stop on Draft Day. The media and fans love quarterbacks. I truly believe the media does affect the draft to an extent. Certain players get talked down, and some get hyped up. I think it gets in the minds of scouts and coaches a bit. People are always going to be talking "franchise quarterbacks." The "franchise quarterback" will always be the perceived savior to a team not reaching its potential.

However, that is NOT the analysis that Scott uses.

His analysis is something closer to:

Who is the best kicker in the NFL? Who is the 32nd best kicker in the NFL? How much of a gap is there between the two?

Who is the best the QB in th league? Who is the 32nd best QB in the league? How much of gap is there between the two.

Now comparing the QB gap to the kicker gap which is wider? Or in other words would I rather have the #1 QB + #32 kicker or #32 QB + #1 kicker?

Lets say a punter comes a long that can punt end zone to end zone. I would predict he would be drafted in the first round possibly #1 overall. Because he would be so much better than any other punter out there.

except for the fact that carl is gone and jared Allen wouldn't necessarily want out

best argument ... fundamentally wrong ... but best argument