The "LT or Bust in R1" fallacy
 

For MONTHS there have been guys that have advocated taking a LT in Round 1, regardless of value or talent.

WHY?

Because many feel that the only way to get a starting LT is to do so in the 1st round.

Apparently, not all NFL teams feel the same. TWENTY teams in the league have starting LT's that were drafted in the 2nd round or later.

That leaves 12 teams, or 37% of the league with a R1 LT.

And here's an interesting note regarding those 12 1st rounders:

Only TWICE in the past ELEVEN years has a draft's 1st round produced more than ONE starting LT.

1997 and 2002.

FOUR of the last EIGHT drafts produced multiple starters in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

2007 x 3
2005 x 3
2001 x 2
2000 x 3

+1

But but every first LT taken every year is a HOFer.. :)

Please tell me you're kidding.

I spent 1/2 hour researching this, I'm not spending the rest of my day digging up the hundreds of posts that advocate taking a LT with our first pick no matter who it is, all based on need.

I know you're more in tune to this place than you've lead on with that question.

Must be his first time on the internet...

I think your "LT in R1 or Bust" group is a myth. From everything I've read on this BB most people want to go Jake Long , Ellis, or Dorsey at number 5. Thats far from being LT or Bust in my opinion. Now I agree with you, and I think a lot of other do to that we don't want to see the Chiefs reach in at #5 for a LT not names Long.

I still think Long is a reach at #5... I hope hes gone.

I'm trying to figure out which one of you is voyager, or if you're all voyager on multiple accounts.

Depends on the kind of Bust we're getting instead of Long.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_BQtOW7ZUlF8/...9489__bust.jpg

Have you not seen all the people who want to trade down to take Clady or Otah, or worse yet, take them at 5?

That's LT or Bust at its finest. Passing on greater talent for lesser talent, based purely on need.

Let me clear something up.

This isn't about Jake Long. IF, and that's a BIG IF, Jake Long is there at #5, he's possibly the BPA, and I'm fine with taking him.

I think if we all take our homer glasses off, we can all agree that Long falling to the 5 slot is a longshot at best.

Based on that, there are plenty of folks who are hell bent on either trading down to grab Clady or Otah, or worse yet, taking one of them at #5.

That thought process is the epitome of LT or Bust. Passing on a greater talent for a lesser talent, based solely on need alone.

How are those people "LT or Bust"? Maybe they don't feel Clady or Otah is a massive, franchise-killing reach at 5?

Do you consider Clady or Otah to be a better prospect that Chris Long, Vernon Gholston, Glenn Dorsey, Sedrick Ellis or Matt Ryan?

Because you'd be passing on at LEAST one of them to draft Clady or Otah.

You don't think Clady or Otah is worth 5 and I don't think Clady or Otah is worth 5, but neither your opinion nor my opinion nor anything that any site run by a so-called 'draft expert' says means that somebody else isn't entitled to believe something different. Maybe they think Dorsey's an injury risk, maybe they think Ryan's not a pro prospect, maybe they think Clady or Otah are underrated and would be the best player on the board. Whatever it is, I doubt seriously it's "LT or Bust in R1, regardless of value or talent".

Hell, for all we know, the consensus among NFL teams may be that Clady or Otah is really the best tackle in the draft, and Jake Long's going to drop to 30. We have no way of knowing.

What happened to the What if guy
day after day of threads of What if