The "LT or Bust in R1" fallacy

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-30-2008, 12:58 PM

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

Direckshun · 03-30-2008, 01:14 PM

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-30-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Who are these people who are "LT or bust in R1"?

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.

RustShack · 03-30-2008, 01:23 PM

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

RustShack · 03-30-2008, 01:24 PM

Must be his first time on the internet...

Hoover · 03-30-2008, 01:27 PM

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-30-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoover

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.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-30-2008, 01:38 PM

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.

Coogs · 03-30-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

First off, I am not on the Otah at #5 bandwagon. BUT... Clady is ranked 8th on almost every scouting report out there, give or take a spot. AND.. (From NFLDraftCountdown)...

Notes:
Redshirted in '04 and then started the next three seasons...Played right tackle as a redshirt frosh and then made a seamless transition to the left side when Daryn Colledge moved on to the pros...Has a rare blend of size and athleticism and was born to protect the quarterbacks blind side...Has all the physical tools you look for and he's the best pure left tackle prospect in this draft...A sure-fire Top 10-15 pick.

Just because some of you don't like him, he is viewed as the poteni=tial best LT in the draft. And Herm has said that is a priority (one I agree with FTR). Granted, it make take a year for the guy to be a great LT... but we have a year to wait. We ain't going to the SB next year anyway.

**DaKCMan AP** · 04-01-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

First off, I am not on the Otah at #5 bandwagon. BUT... Clady is ranked 8th on almost every scouting report out there, give or take a spot. AND.. (From NFLDraftCountdown)...

Notes:
Redshirted in '04 and then started the next three seasons...Played right tackle as a redshirt frosh and then made a seamless transition to the left side when Daryn Colledge moved on to the pros...Has a rare blend of size and athleticism and was born to protect the quarterbacks blind side...Has all the physical tools you look for and he's the best pure left tackle prospect in this draft...A sure-fire Top 10-15 pick.

Just because some of you don't like him, he is viewed as the poteni=tial best LT in the draft. And Herm has said that is a priority (one I agree with FTR). Granted, it make take a year for the guy to be a great LT... but we have a year to wait. We ain't going to the SB next year anyway.

You have it right there in your own post. Clady is "a sure-fire Top 10-15 pick." When you pick #5 overall you damn well better pick a guy who is "a sure-fire Top 5 pick."

eazyb81 · 03-30-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-30-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

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.

keg in kc · 03-30-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

raypec85 · 03-30-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

Chris Long & Sedrick Ellis are better. I would not want the Chiefs to draft Clady or Otah over one of those two at #5. But are Matt Ryan and Vernon Gholston better than Clady? Debatable. You also need to factor in that in a trade down scenario KC picks up another pick. Are Matt Ryan or Vernon Gholston better than Clady plus another good pick in the 3rd round? Even more debatable.

03-30-2008, 12:58 PM	Topic Starter
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $4751115	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
Posts: 60,273

03-30-2008, 01:14 PM	#2
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $4163447	+1
Posts: 59,314

03-30-2008, 01:23 PM	#5
RustShack **** That Noise Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Jack Trice Casino cash: $4586954	But but every first LT taken every year is a HOFer.. __________________
Posts: 15,049

03-30-2008, 01:24 PM	#6
RustShack **** That Noise Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Jack Trice Casino cash: $4586954	Must be his first time on the internet... __________________
Posts: 15,049

03-30-2008, 01:27 PM	#7
Hoover Rufus Dawes Jr. Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $1288179	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.
Posts: 17,391

03-30-2008, 01:38 PM	#9
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $4751115	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.
Posts: 60,273