Draft position of last 10 SB winners' LT

**Coastergenius** · 04-15-2013, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

I have a tough time using All Pro as a forecast for any draft pick. How can anyone say that a guy will be one of the best 3 or 4 at his position in the entire league? If they knew that they'd be picking him in the top 10 if not the top 5. Probably 95% of the guys picked in this draft will never be All Pro. We all need to reign in our expectations for these players.

Completely agree, the draft gurus tend to oversell all across the board. They talk in terms of best case scenario usually. I guess it makes the draft more exciting to follow verses telling people that they're training camp bodies, career back-ups or at best will only play on ST

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

**Coastergenius** · 04-15-2013, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Teams draft players in the top 10 forecasting that all the time, otherwise they'd just trade back every year. Guard is position you never take in the top ten anyway, because a high % shows that late round draft picks have turned out to be all pros. Everyone is talking about how Chance Warmack is a "can't miss" prospect at guard, and I'd agree with that, but I doubt he goes in the top ten because of that position. DJ Fluker played at a high level at RT most of the time last year, he has freakishly long arms, and is probably the strongest player in this class, he literally throws 300 lbs monsters over like its nothing. I think there is a good chance he would be at least a good player at guard in the NFL, and most teams/scouts would probably agree with that.

Here is another argument towards the devaluation of certain positions, and where you pick players in the draft. Do the Cleveland Browns regret taking Trent Richardson where they did when they could have taken Ryan Tannehill, and used their other pick on Doug Martin later on in the first round, or even waited till the 3rd round to take Bernard Pierce? I sure as hell would be regretting that.

Even at the major positions like quarter back is an interesting debate. The Ravens traded back to get Joe Flacco instead of giving up a bunch just to move up a few palces to get Matt Ryan. The Ravens managed to get Ray Rice with that too. Flacco is the one who has ended up winning the SB MVP, while Ryan has one play off win to his name. I'm not saying Ryan or Richardson aren't good players, they are really good (still yet to be seen to some extent with T Rich but time will tell), but when you could have got a Ray Rice as well as a great QB like Flacco, it makes you re think your draft strategy.

At the same time do you think that the Giants regret moving up to take a multiple SB winner when the picks they gave up to move up are out of the league now?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

**Rxdoxx** · 04-15-2013, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

I have a tough time using All Pro as a forecast for any draft pick. How can anyone say that a guy will be one of the best 3 or 4 at his position in the entire league? If they knew that they'd be picking him in the top 10 if not the top 5. Probably 95% of the guys picked in this draft will never be All Pro. We all need to reign in our expectations for these players.

I'm confused, need some clarification.
To me seems like there is a distinction between All-Pro and Pro-Bowl.

All-Pro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Pro
There are a couple of All-Pro teams selected (AP, Sporting News, Writers, UPI.....)
But if we just stick with AP, then that is the top one (or two) players at a position, maybe toss in one for second team, yes?

Then we have Pro-Bowl which IMO is a diluted mess. Due to scheduling, at least 2 teams, probably 4, and maybe 8 teams players could be eliminated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Bowl

In order to be considered a Pro Bowler for a given year, a player must either have been one of the initial players selected to the team, or a player who accepts an invitation to the Pro Bowl as an alternate; invited alternates who decline to attend are not considered Pro Bowlers. Being a Pro Bowler is considered to be a mark of honor, and players who are accepted into the Pro Bowl are considered to be elite.

So it is possible to have 4 Pro-Bowlers who are not All-Pro with LTs. Add in 3 All-Pro (2 1st team, 1 second team) and we have 7
#2 teams in the league, possible to have 7 different "Pro" designations of some flavor... thats 22% of the starting LTs in the league. That is a little better odds to be right projecting someone as a Pro-Bowler.

So the confusion is when we use the term All-Pro we are strictly speaking about the All-Pro voting (which is definitely difficult to accurately project) or are we also including Pro-Bowl appearance (which gan get some "average" players to accept and fill the roster)

Maybe we are talking about both. I'm asking you directly because I want to know how you mean the term and not just assume you mean AP voting.
And want to make sure leachisabeast isn't including Pro-Bowl.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know how most people use those two terms here, just for my info TY

**bmorecareful** · 04-15-2013, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by LukeDaniel

I was thinking about the Ravens roster last night around 1:30 in the morning when I was in the shower (seems like the only time I can get uninterrupted thoughts during the day). We only really have six O-lineman on the roster now who have a chance on being on our opening day roster.

As a result, I think we actually might draft four O-linemen. Or perhaps we would draft three, and one of them would be a versatile all-over-the-place type guy like Quesenberry or Barrett Jones (3rd round). What if the other two were Faulk and Marquardt? I think we could get Faulk with a trade up in the 4th and Marquardt in the 5th. I think both guys have starting LT potential at the NFL level. Faulk was a starter at LT as a sophomore for LSU and played very well against a ton of good pass rushers in the SEC that year. Marquardt has insane physical gifts. If we draft both, the odds are that one will round into that long-term LT that we want. Perhaps both become our bookends. I'm surprised in a draft that has wayyyy too many RT types in it, that we are still seeing Faulk projected as a 4th rounder.

In my most recent mock draft I had the Ravens taking Barrett Jones in the 3rd and Faulk in the 4th, so your vision coheres with mine pretty well. I do think 3 OL is a little excessive though, and taking Marquardt in the 5th would be a reach, IMO. I think drafting 2 more OL and bringing in some UDFAs is sufficient depth.

The starting OL TODAY as I project it is is Oher-Reid-Gradkowski-Yanda-Osemele. Backups - Harewood (LT/LG) Reggie Stephens (C) Antoine McClain (RG) Jack Cornell (RG/RT). Obviously, all 5 starters make the team. I assume your sixth OL is Harewood, and I agree he's probably pretty much a lock; Stephens is a camp body who's unlikely to make the team; at most one of A. McClain and Cornell will make it. I do think one of those two guys is a decent bet to stick if they have a good camp, and it would likely be Cornell with his ability to play guard or tackle.

Add in our projected draftees Faulk and B. Jones, and the line looks like this: Oher-B. Jones-Gradkowski-Yanda-Osemele; Backups - Faulk (LT), Harewood (LG), B. Jones (kicks over to C if Gradkowski hurt), Reid (RG/RT). If they carry 9 OL (they've vacillated between 8 and 9 over the years), Cornell would probably back up RG with Reid sticking to RT.

**wickedsolo** · 04-15-2013, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

There should only be 3 Tackles taken in the 1st round. Fluker will be the 4th pick at the position and I think he is way overrated. Just because he has ape arms doesn't make him a great LT prospect. I'd be interested in the top half of the 2nd round but he has too many holes in my opinion to be taken in round 1. However I agree with you that some team will do it and it will be long before we draft.

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Id agree with Fluker. I dont see a LT.

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Fluker isn't a LT, but if you move him to guard, I think he could be an all pro there, is he worth a first round pick then? Maybe.

I agree.

By my estimation, I don't even think a team should put Fluker at RT. He just doesn't have the footwork. Hell of a run blocker though and an immovable object when someone comes right at him. I think he'd be an all-pro guard.

**leachisabeast** · 04-15-2013, 11:45 AM

On paper that Oline looks so weak, and its quite scary. I'm not sure if the Ravens will go in with Reid and Gino starting on the same line, they are both way too unproven.

**leachisabeast** · 04-15-2013, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I agree.

By my estimation, I don't even think a team should put Fluker at RT. He just doesn't have the footwork. Hell of a run blocker though and an immovable object when someone comes right at him. I think he'd be an all-pro guard.

I agree. I think he could be like an Andre Smith type player at RT, but could be as good as a Mike Iupati at guard.

**BcRaven** · 04-15-2013, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

On paper that Oline looks so weak, and its quite scary. I'm not sure if the Ravens will go in with Reid and Gino starting on the same line, they are both way too unproven.

GG (Gino) I can see starting, but Jah Reid (?) Didn't like the pick then, and don't like him now... Bc

**leachisabeast** · 04-15-2013, 11:55 AM

I think Gino should be fine, but the idea of starting a guy next to him who should be playing RT and has proven to be below average whenever he's played is not a great idea to protect your 121 million dollar QB.

**bmorecareful** · 04-15-2013, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

On paper that Oline looks so weak, and its quite scary. I'm not sure if the Ravens will go in with Reid and Gino starting on the same line, they are both way too unproven.

Gino is unproven, but I wouldn't call Reid unproven. We know what he is--a backup caliber guy overall, but particularly playing guard. He looks like a tackle playing guard at LG and I didn't really understand the fit when the Ravens announced he would play there. He's a decent enough pass blocker but he just doesn't get any push in the run game. I don't really think he's ever going to be much other than a backup swing guy.

I would feel way better with KO starting at LG next to Gino, but if KO is needed at RT--where I do think he can be very, very good--Barrett Jones is the guy I want to draft to fill LG. He was a phenomenal guard for Alabama in 09 and 10 before he was moved to LT so we know he can do it, and he's so smart and pro-ready that he should be able to step in right away and help Gino make the line calls. Obviously he can also be the backup center if Gino goes down.

**leachisabeast** · 04-15-2013, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

Gino is unproven, but I wouldn't call Reid unproven. We know what he is--a backup caliber guy overall, but particularly playing guard. He looks like a tackle playing guard at LG and I didn't really understand the fit when the Ravens announced he would play there. He's a decent enough pass blocker but he just doesn't get any push in the run game. I don't really think he's ever going to be much other than a backup swing guy.

I would feel way better with KO starting at LG next to Gino, but if KO is needed at RT--where I do think he can be very, very good--Barrett Jones is the guy I want to draft to fill LG. He was a phenomenal guard for Alabama in 09 and 10 before he was moved to LT so we know he can do it, and he's so smart and pro-ready that he should be able to step in right away and help Gino make the line calls. Obviously he can also be the backup center if Gino goes down.

Cosell see's some Marshall Yanda in Barrett Jones, he could be a similar type of pick in the 3rd round. With that said, I still wouldn't like that much, Michael Oher at LT and KO at RT just wasn't a very good combination. And again what happens if Gino isn't ready? That's yet another hole on the Oline that needs addressed, I think he'll be fine, but nothing is certain.

**LukeDaniel** · 04-15-2013, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

In my most recent mock draft I had the Ravens taking Barrett Jones in the 3rd and Faulk in the 4th, so your vision coheres with mine pretty well. I do think 3 OL is a little excessive though, and taking Marquardt in the 5th would be a reach, IMO. I think drafting 2 more OL and bringing in some UDFAs is sufficient depth.

The starting OL TODAY as I project it is is Oher-Reid-Gradkowski-Yanda-Osemele. Backups - Harewood (LT/LG) Reggie Stephens (C) Antoine McClain (RG) Jack Cornell (RG/RT). Obviously, all 5 starters make the team. I assume your sixth OL is Harewood, and I agree he's probably pretty much a lock; Stephens is a camp body who's unlikely to make the team; at most one of A. McClain and Cornell will make it. I do think one of those two guys is a decent bet to stick if they have a good camp, and it would likely be Cornell with his ability to play guard or tackle.

Add in our projected draftees Faulk and B. Jones, and the line looks like this: Oher-B. Jones-Gradkowski-Yanda-Osemele; Backups - Faulk (LT), Harewood (LG), B. Jones (kicks over to C if Gradkowski hurt), Reid (RG/RT). If they carry 9 OL (they've vacillated between 8 and 9 over the years), Cornell would probably back up RG with Reid sticking to RT.

So you think we could snag Marquardt with our natural 6th rounder or perhaps the SF first rounder?

I like the idea of Jones and Faulk. Glad we could finally agree of something. :)

I'm not totally in love with Bryant McKinnie, but it's funny how his addition totally changes the outlook on the O-line.

1) Re-signing him not only improves LT over Oher.

2) It also improves LG, by moving Osemele there over Reid.

3) It slightly improves RT. I think Osemele vs. Oher is about even, but Oher is a tad more experienced.

4) It improves our bench by letting Reid go back to swing starter status at LG/RG/RT

5) It improves C. Gradkowski flanked by a top 5 guard in Yanda and a budding top 5 guard in Osemele.

Also...if we did not re-sign McKinnie......is putting Barret Jones out there at LT really any worse than starting Oher there. I mean, if we went with the Oher/Jones/Gradkowski/Yanda/Osemele, we really only have one player who has proven to be good at their position (Yanda). The rest are unknowns (Jones, Gino), players working into the position (Osemele), or players who have proven to not be good at that position (Oher). If we went with B.Jones/osemele/gino/yanda/oher, we now have a much better situation. If B. Jones is even 80-90% as good as Oher at LT (not a high bar), wouldn't it just make more sense to go this way?