The "LT or Bust in R1" fallacy - Page 2

**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

SBK · 03-30-2008, 02:03 PM

Frankie is one LT or bust guy. Option 1 is draft Jake Long, option 2 is trade down for another LT, option 3 is take a different LT at 5 and option 50 is draft the best player available.

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.

mylittlepony · 03-30-2008, 02:06 PM

I think ESPN did a draft bust study last year and concluded that QB, RB and WR were alot higher risk of busting at around 50%. And only LB and S at like 15% were the least risk. Pretty much every other position was around 30%. I think DT and DE were higher then OL. But on the other hand I think DT produced the most Pro bowlers or something like that.

blueballs · 03-30-2008, 02:30 PM

If KC drafts Jake Long
and he gives up a couple sacks
they'll be back next year

Hoover · 03-30-2008, 03:05 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.

OK. Now if Long, Ellis and Dorsey are gone, then I think the right move is to trade down. I don't want to see us give Ryan a huge contract, or go for a CB. We should trade down then.

eazyb81 · 03-30-2008, 03:15 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.

No on Long, Dorsey, or Ryan, and an argument could be made with Gholston and Ellis.

But the bottom line is that all the players are considered top ten overall prospects, so it's not like people are talking about drafting a punter at 5. Clady and Otah are also potentially great players, and we have a definite need at the position.

melbar · 03-30-2008, 03:45 PM

I think everyone is in agreement that if Long, Long, Dorsey, or Ellis is there probably the other guys are gone and you take the guy that is left. Next question is do you think Ryan or McFadden fit the Chiefs. If not and you cant trade down, you are looking at the next 5 guys who all by strict definition will be reaches because your looking at players ranked lower than #6 overall by most rankings. If your gonna reach, do you reach OT, DE, CB or OLB? If I'm drafting on potential I go OT. That doesnt mean I am OT or bust, I in that situation where all those elite players are gone defer to the position of greatest need if the remaining players are basically graded the same. I hope we arent in that position and we get one of the great guys because someone else sees their need for RB or QB as justifying passing one of those guys. I also hope that guy is J. Long personally because paired with a strong G/C later in the draft our star running back becomes relavent again and opens up the entire Offense not to mention getting an acurate QB evaluation. But I also think Dorsey will make the job of our crappy CB's a lot easier. We also need an OT that doesnt have an enormous learning curve which to me means probably by rd 2. I'm not an "or bust" guy, I do however hope for Long or a top OT to fall to us in the 2nd for the long term good of our team. Let em learn from their mistakes while we already suck this year. JMO.

Chiefnj2 · 03-30-2008, 04:42 PM

Name one person who said take a LT regardless of talent and value.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-30-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Name one person who said take a LT regardless of talent and value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBK

Frankie is one LT or bust guy. Option 1 is draft Jake Long, option 2 is trade down for another LT, option 3 is take a different LT at 5 and option 50 is draft the best player available.

By virtue of picking 5th, at LEAST one of the following WILL be available:

C. Long, Ellis, Dorsey, Gholston, Ryan.

There's not a team in the league who has Ryan Clady or Jeff Otah rated higher than those players.

To pass on one of them for Clady or Otah is ignoring the difference in talent and value they possess.

melbar · 03-30-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

By virtue of picking 5th, at LEAST one of the following WILL be available:

C. Long, Ellis, Dorsey, Gholston, Ryan.

There's not a team in the league who has Ryan Clady or Jeff Otah rated higher than those players.

To pass on one of them for Clady or Otah is ignoring the difference in talent and value they possess.

Gholston and Clady are side by side on several drafts. Thats not a reach, thats a choice.

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.

Chiefmanwillcatch · 03-30-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueballs

If KC drafts Jake Long
and he gives up a couple sacks
they'll be back next year

What if he's ok at LT and helps us rushing for 2000 yards?

Mr. Laz · 03-30-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

regardless of value or talent.

so in your expert opinion Jake Long is a guaranteed bust?

because that's who people have been wanting us to take

a few Clady people but

kinda stretching things a bit.......

Coogs · 03-30-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

so in your expert opinion Jake Long is a guaranteed bust?

because that's who people have been wanting us to take

a few Clady people but

kinda stretching things a bit.......

3 spots! Hell, that is a made FG, a defensive stop, a won coinflip against the Jets in OT from being a steal (plus it would hav silenced all the Croyle hasn't wona game critics).

Mr. Laz · 03-30-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

3 spots! Hell, that is a made FG, a defensive stop, a won coinflip against the Jets in OT from being a steal (plus it would hav silenced all the Croyle hasn't wona game critics).

uh ............ what?!?!?

03-30-2008, 12:58 PM
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $4741115	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, 02:03 PM	#16
SBK Curry is the pick??? Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Casino cash: $10004900	Frankie is one LT or bust guy. Option 1 is draft Jake Long, option 2 is trade down for another LT, option 3 is take a different LT at 5 and option 50 is draft the best player available.
Posts: 8,153

03-30-2008, 02:06 PM	#18
mylittlepony Starter Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Casino cash: $10005855	I think ESPN did a draft bust study last year and concluded that QB, RB and WR were alot higher risk of busting at around 50%. And only LB and S at like 15% were the least risk. Pretty much every other position was around 30%. I think DT and DE were higher then OL. But on the other hand I think DT produced the most Pro bowlers or something like that.
Posts: 921

03-30-2008, 02:30 PM	#19
blueballs Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Casino cash: $10004900	If KC drafts Jake Long and he gives up a couple sacks they'll be back next year
Posts: 14,233

03-30-2008, 03:45 PM	#22
melbar Hillbilly Pharoh Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Branson MO. Casino cash: $10004900	I think everyone is in agreement that if Long, Long, Dorsey, or Ellis is there probably the other guys are gone and you take the guy that is left. Next question is do you think Ryan or McFadden fit the Chiefs. If not and you cant trade down, you are looking at the next 5 guys who all by strict definition will be reaches because your looking at players ranked lower than #6 overall by most rankings. If your gonna reach, do you reach OT, DE, CB or OLB? If I'm drafting on potential I go OT. That doesnt mean I am OT or bust, I in that situation where all those elite players are gone defer to the position of greatest need if the remaining players are basically graded the same. I hope we arent in that position and we get one of the great guys because someone else sees their need for RB or QB as justifying passing one of those guys. I also hope that guy is J. Long personally because paired with a strong G/C later in the draft our star running back becomes relavent again and opens up the entire Offense not to mention getting an acurate QB evaluation. But I also think Dorsey will make the job of our crappy CB's a lot easier. We also need an OT that doesnt have an enormous learning curve which to me means probably by rd 2. I'm not an "or bust" guy, I do however hope for Long or a top OT to fall to us in the 2nd for the long term good of our team. Let em learn from their mistakes while we already suck this year. JMO. __________________
Posts: 2,148

03-30-2008, 04:42 PM	#23
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $7813688	Name one person who said take a LT regardless of talent and value. __________________ Mismanaging the clock.
Posts: 22,396