The Official 2011 NFL Draft Thread

[tomahawk18]

Where would you rank these O-Lines- Houston, KC, Atlanta, Tennessee, Jacksonville?

Almost all of them are in the upper half of the league. It's is hard to know where they rank because they were better run blocking lines than pass blocking. Lines are very hard to grade. If a team allows 0 sacks a game, but 1 yard per carry, is that a good line? What if they average 10 yards a carry, but allow 10 sacks a game?

 

[pjcedog]

Couple of things.
I would not call Marshawn "Shuffle before the line" Lynch anywhere near the level of a premiere back.

I also do not take anything away from how vital the line is, but comparing any guy to a top back is ridiculous. Some could say the exact opposite as well. Take any RB and put them behind an okay line and then take a great back and watch how good that line looks. Its about vision, its about how long someone has to hold a block for, and its about so much more.

Agree with JB completely on this. Watch Felix Jones continually running to darkness last year is a good example of this. He had no idea where the blockers were or where the few holes were that did open up when he was running, I think he was running with his eyes closed at times.

 

[CraftyLefty]

Almost all of them are in the upper half of the league. It's is hard to know where they rank because they were better run blocking lines than pass blocking. Lines are very hard to grade. If a team allows 0 sacks a game, but 1 yard per carry, is that a good line? What if they average 10 yards a carry, but allow 10 sacks a game?

Wow is David Carr back under center!

I kid, I kid.

 

[Fairway2Green]

Almost all of them are in the upper half of the league. It's is hard to know where they rank because they were better run blocking lines than pass blocking. Lines are very hard to grade. If a team allows 0 sacks a game, but 1 yard per carry, is that a good line? What if they average 10 yards a carry, but allow 10 sacks a game?

Ok, but your last post was about how no matter how good a back is he needs a good to great line, but here you seem to be saying it's hard to grade an o-line. I'm confused by that.

 

[CraftyLefty]

Ok, but your last post was about how no matter how good a back is he needs a good to great line, but here you seem to be saying it's hard to grade an o-line. I'm confused by that.

I think what he means is that you need to define if you are looking for a good run-blocking line or a good pass-blocking line. Ja?

 

[Fairway2Green]

I think what he means is that you need to define if you are looking for a good run-blocking line or a good pass-blocking line. Ja?

If that's the case wouldn't any line with a great back be considered a great run-blocking line by just about everyone except those that sit and watch line film on every game?

 

[CraftyLefty]

If that's the case wouldn't any line with a great back be considered a great run-blocking line by just about everyone except those that sit and watch line film on every game?

Yahtzee!

We had couple teams like that when I was playing/coaching. Great back + poor o-line and great o-line + poor back. Either way we produced about the same. I think it's easier to get to that next level if you have the line first... that said it's a chicken/egg thing that probably won't ever be resolved.

 

[tomahawk18]

I love watching good RB's, I just think without a good line they are screwed. And I never said Marshawn Lynch was great, I said he is solid, middle of the pack RB. Watch some tape of him last year with the Hawks. He was getting hit consistantly behind the line of scrimmage. Its hard to do anything with that. I'm sure most of you saw his run against the Saints? He got hit behind the line on that play. All I'm saying is a great back behind a below average line will result in average results. But a below average back behind a great line has a better chance to succeed. Just my opinion. Look at Denver. I believe they had 6 different 1000 yard rushers in 8 years. Most undrafted. (TD, Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Portis, Droughns, Tatum Bell) History tells us only 2 of these backs are any good...but we know they had great offensive lines based on zone blocking.

 

[JB]

Yahtzee!

We had couple teams like that when I was playing/coaching. Great back + poor o-line and great o-line + poor back. Either way we produced about the same. I think it's easier to get to that next level if you have the line first... that said it's a chicken/egg thing that probably won't ever be resolved.

I think you might be comparing lower level sports to that of the NFL and its just not the same. Sure the game in principle is the same, but at this level, everybody is elite and it takes great players to move to the next level. I wholeheartedly disagree with a lot of what was said above about RBs in general after spending some time looking at a few back in the day.

Lets use a HOF analogy. Barry Sanders was a great back with a bad Oline. Emmit Smith was a great back (arguably) with a great Oline. Who is considered the better player? Did both not perform?

 

[Fairway2Green]

I think you might be comparing lower level sports to that of the NFL and its just not the same. Sure the game in principle is the same, but at this level, everybody is elite and it takes great players to move to the next level. I wholeheartedly disagree with a lot of what was said above about RBs in general after spending some time looking at a few back in the day.

Lets use a HOF analogy. Barry Sanders was a great back with a bad Oline. Emmit Smith was a great back (arguably) with a great Oline. Who is considered the better player? Did both not perform?

Absolutely, I just don't agree with the notion that a great back is less valuable because he needs a great o-line to perform. A great back is still in the top 3 of most important positions in the NFL to me (QB, LT, RB). I was going to use Barry, but I mean that was Barry.

Edit: I also believe Barry was the better back than Emmit, but Emmit had a better career. That Dallas o-line was very very good and their passing game was much more of a threat then Barry ever had.

 

[JB]

Absolutely, I just don't agree with the notion that a great back is less valuable because he needs a great o-line to perform. A great back is still in the top 3 of most important positions in the NFL to me (QB, LT, RB). I was going to use Barry, but I mean that was Barry.

Edit: I also believe Barry was the better back than Emmit, but Emmit had a better career. That Dallas o-line was very very good and their passing game was much more of a threat then Barry ever had.

Agreed, although I would not put LT as the top 3 most important position. What if you have a LH QB? Im not sure any position is more valuable than another. Not in terms of NFL scouting at the highest level.

 

[CraftyLefty]

I think you might be comparing lower level sports to that of the NFL and its just not the same. Sure the game in principle is the same, but at this level, everybody is elite and it takes great players to move to the next level. I wholeheartedly disagree with a lot of what was said above about RBs in general after spending some time looking at a few back in the day.

Lets use a HOF analogy. Barry Sanders was a great back with a bad Oline. Emmit Smith was a great back (arguably) with a great Oline. Who is considered the better player? Did both not perform?

In that same thread you can look at the system they played in too. There's so many factors involved in making a great player that I'm done arguing. Look at Darren McFadden prior to this last year. Wrong system for the player, once they went to a one cut zone something clicked. Same with Arian Foster. One guys a first rounder, one guys and undrafted free agent. Get them in the right system and boom. Same thing with the line, some guys are zone steppers and some are lead steppers. Work the system to the players or the players to the system. If in the end the pieces of the puzzle fit then you're good right? For the investment that you make in a first rounder I'd rather have a non-skill position. Personal preference.

I respect your points on the matter and I agree that a lot of those guys have some amazing skill sets. I would be much more comfortable if Baltimore took an OT rather than a WR/RB in the first round.

 

[Fairway2Green]

Agreed, although I would not put LT as the top 3 most important position. What if you have a LH QB? Im not sure any position is more valuable than another. Not in terms of NFL scouting at the highest level.

If you have a LH QB not LT, but I disagree that some positions aren't more valuable than others. Obviously when you're talking about the NFL every player is an elite player and every position is important, but if you give a team the choice of a top tier NFL proven QB, LT (RH QB on team), or RB compared to a FB, OLB, or DT they're going to take one of the first three. Scouting wise you're right and I'm starting to think I was thinking the wrong way as I type this since this thread is about the draft and scouting. Haha

 

[JB]

If you have a LH QB not LT, but I disagree that some positions aren't more valuable than others. Obviously when you're talking about the NFL every player is an elite player and every position is important, but if you give a team the choice of a top tier NFL proven QB, LT (RH QB on team), or RB compared to a FB, OLB, or DT they're going to take one of the first three. Scouting wise you're right and I'm starting to think I was thinking the wrong way as I type this since this thread is about the draft and scouting. Haha

Yes, that may be correct, but at the same time, a QB of the defense is just as important as many others (usually a MLB, but can be others) when it comes to schemes. And like I pointed out, LT is no more important than a RT depending on QB. It all comes down to the system. What is more important to one team will be less important to another.

 

[Fairway2Green]

Yes, that may be correct, but at the same time, a QB of the defense is just as important as many others (usually a MLB, but can be others) when it comes to schemes. And like I pointed out, LT is no more important than a RT depending on QB. It all comes down to the system. What is more important to one team will be less important to another.

Patrick Willis is great example. Straight stud.

 

[JB]

In that same thread you can look at the system they played in too. There's so many factors involved in making a great player that I'm done arguing. Look at Darren McFadden prior to this last year. Wrong system for the player, once they went to a one cut zone something clicked. Same with Arian Foster. One guys a first rounder, one guys and undrafted free agent. Get them in the right system and boom. Same thing with the line, some guys are zone steppers and some are lead steppers. Work the system to the players or the players to the system. If in the end the pieces of the puzzle fit then you're good right? For the investment that you make in a first rounder I'd rather have a non-skill position. Personal preference.

I respect your points on the matter and I agree that a lot of those guys have some amazing skill sets. I would be much more comfortable if Baltimore took an OT rather than a WR/RB in the first round.

So is Tom Brady proof that you dont need to take a QB early then? Or how about Tony Romo? Matt Schaub? Matt Cassel? Kyle Orton? Garrard? I could go on. Just like every position, there will be RB that make it big going late or undrafted. Every position has that.

As you say you would rather have a non-skill player. Just as many unknowns make it big at that position as others. For every Walter Jones, there is a Tony Mandarich.

 

[c_ault]

I don't really follow the draft but was looking through the thread and looking at ESPN. The only thing I can say is that the big winner this year is the NE Patriots. 2 Picks in each of the first 3 rounds (including the 1st in the 2nd round) is frightening if the depth of the draft is really there.

Too bad I hate the Patriots (It's a WSU Alum/Bledsoe/the starting quarterback doesn't lose his job due to injury/especially when he had to bail out Brady in the playoffs that year).

 

[pjcedog]

Absolutely, I just don't agree with the notion that a great back is less valuable because he needs a great o-line to perform. A great back is still in the top 3 of most important positions in the NFL to me (QB, LT, RB). I was going to use Barry, but I mean that was Barry.

Edit: I also believe Barry was the better back than Emmit, but Emmit had a better career. That Dallas o-line was very very good and their passing game was much more of a threat then Barry ever had.

Dallas had a great line but Emmitt made an awful lot of yards after contact. One thing I noticed about him early on was how often he hit a defender or defenders and kept his balance bounced off and kept going. Barry was more dynamic and all but untouchable, a lot more flair to his running, but Emmitt was quick, never missed a hole and had that tremendous balance. I believe he would still have had HOF numbers running behind a less talented OL. Granted without that OL maybe he would not have reached the all time record but still HOF.

 

[Spank818]

I don't really follow the draft but was looking through the thread and looking at ESPN. The only thing I can say is that the big winner this year is the NE Patriots. 2 Picks in each of the first 3 rounds (including the 1st in the 2nd round) is frightening if the depth of the draft is really there.

Too bad I hate the Patriots (It's a WSU Alum/Bledsoe/the starting quarterback doesn't lose his job due to injury/especially when he had to bail out Brady in the playoffs that year).

I think they are going to be movers and shakers this year and I got a feeling that they're going to package a couple of those picks to move up and then acquire more picks when the others are up just like previous years. They definitely have a strategy and I don't seeing them draft out of a lot of their current positions.

 

[blugold]

Too bad I hate the Patriots (It's a WSU Alum/Bledsoe/the starting quarterback doesn't lose his job due to injury/especially when he had to bail out Brady in the playoffs that year).

I never understood that. That is what you tell pampered stars.

 

[JB]

I never understood that. That is what you tell pampered stars.

I never really understood it either, and it seemed to work out pretty well for them.

Ironically in all the people I have spoken with that are on the other side (players), dont really have a problem with it. I always expected that they would.

 

[Fairway2Green]

I never understood that. That is what you tell pampered stars.

Strongly disagree with that. We were taught that very early in every sport I played. You can't take a guys spot away because he gets injured. If once he's healthy and you've giving him his starting spot back and he is underperforming then you bench him, but only then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fairway2Green]

I never really understood it either, and it seemed to work out pretty well for them.

Ironically in all the people I have spoken with that are on the other side (players), dont really have a problem with it. I always expected that they would.

I literally had this conversation Saturday night with two NFL players and multiple former D1 college football players and everyone agreed you don't lose your spot do to injury. If you underperform when you get back then you lose it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JB]

I literally had this conversation Saturday night with two NFL players and multiple former D1 college football players and everyone agreed you don't lose your spot do to injury. If you underperform when you get back then you lose it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have definitely spoken to different athletes...and admittedly I have not worked for the league in a few years. However I can assure you that many people inside that we did work with feel strongly about riding the talent that is performing to a certain degree.

 

[blugold]

Strongly disagree with that. We were taught that very early in every sport I played. You can't take a guys spot away because he gets injured. If once he's healthy and you've giving him his starting spot back and he is underperforming then you bench him, but only then.

Agree to disagree. I'm of the mindset that you go with the hot hand. If the backup is winning games and playing better than the original starter, then stay with the backup.

I literally had this conversation Saturday night with two NFL players and multiple former D1 college football players and everyone agreed you don't lose your spot do to injury. If you underperform when you get back then you lose it

Of course they think that. They dpn't want to get hurt and lose their job.