interesting draft pick record

[Lucky Luciano]

By Brad Biggs

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...ve-linemen.html

 

Here is a chart of offensive linemen drafted between 2003 and 2007 in the top five rounds of those drafts:

 

Tampa Bay 9

 

Carolina 7

 

Miami 6

 

Baltimore 6

 

Indianapolis 6

 

Philadelphia 6

 

New Orleans 6

 

Seattle 6

 

New England 5

 

Cincinnati 5

 

Houston 5

 

Tennessee 5

 

Dallas 5

 

Green Bay 5

 

San Francisco 5

 

Cleveland 4

 

Pittsburgh 4

 

Jacksonville 4

 

Denver 4

 

Oakland 4

 

San Diego 4

 

Arizona 4

 

St. Louis 4

 

Buffalo 3

 

N.Y. Jets 3

 

N.Y. Giants 3

 

Atlanta 3

 

Minnesota 3

 

Kansas City 2

 

Washington 2

 

Detroit 2

 

Bears 1

 

could anyone really wonder why our offensive line has had serious personnel problems over angelo's tenure? hmmmm

[madlithuanian]

indeed...

 

 

 

could anyone really wonder why our offensive line has had serious personnel problems over angelo's tenure? hmmmm

 

[jason]

could anyone really wonder why our offensive line has had serious personnel problems over angelo's tenure? hmmmm

 

Yeah, there's a reason my sig has remained what it is for the past three years.

[Mongo3451]

Yeah, there's a reason my sig has remained what it is for the past three years.

Kinda sucks we've been begging for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[balta1701-A]

Here's the problem with that logic...when I look at that list...there are good O-Lines and bad O-lines up and down it. The Giants had an excellent O-line in 2008 after not drafting O-line. Atlanta and Minnesota have put together solid line units. Tampa Bay and Seattle have had major O-line issues and have drafted guys a lot.

 

If drafting more O-linemen doesn't correlate with performance, then why should this stat interest me? It actually argues to me that there might be more to Angelo's line of thinking (that you might be better off trying to fix the O-line through FA/cuts than through the draft) than I would have thought before seeing this list.

[nfoligno]

Regarding your exceptions.

 

Minny - The list only goes through 2007. In 2009, Minny drafted their starting RT and C. Prior to that, they had Birk who was a starter at center for a long time. Their starting LT as also drafted. They paid big for Hutch, but at the same time, spent to get a still young OG, rather than signing a 35 year old. Minny did build through the draft, but due to drafting well prior to this list coming out, they needed fewer draft picks due to an already stable OL, and when players were getting near retirement, they used the draft to find new starters, ala center and RT last year.

 

Giants had a good OL, but still not a bad example, as it wasn't long term. OL was last year, and is again this year, a key concern for their offense. You may get a couple good years of OL play, but withouth drafting OL, it is usually short lived.

 

You point out a couple of the exceptions, but look at the bulk of the teams that didn't draft many OL during the period of time.

 

Bears, Det, KC and Wash are the bottom four, and in those 4 you have 4 of the worst OLs in the league. KC is only now improving, but drafted 4 OL in the last 3 years, which is after this study.

 

NYJ didn't draft many, but were a bad OL until recently. 2 of their 3 listed picks came only in 2006, and both were 1st rounders for them. They also spent a lot of money to add veterans to the mix. So they recently used both the draft and FA to improve their OL, which again, wasn't any good until the last year or two.

 

Buffalo, Stl and AZ are next on the list, and each of those have had poor OLs for some time.

 

SD has drafted very well, and has also drafted more OL in the last three years. But they are a rare team in that so many of those they drafted turned into solid starters, including players drafted in the 6th and 7th rounds, which are not on this list.

 

I could go on, but I do think that while you can point to exceptions, it doesn't change the rule. The majority of teams who failed to draft OL have bad OLs. Further, this list only goes through 2007, and some of the teams you think of as having good OLs drafted OL in the 3 years since the end of this report.

 

At the end of the day, failing to draft OL does in fact seem to point to weak OLs.

 

Here's the problem with that logic...when I look at that list...there are good O-Lines and bad O-lines up and down it. The Giants had an excellent O-line in 2008 after not drafting O-line. Atlanta and Minnesota have put together solid line units. Tampa Bay and Seattle have had major O-line issues and have drafted guys a lot.

 

If drafting more O-linemen doesn't correlate with performance, then why should this stat interest me? It actually argues to me that there might be more to Angelo's line of thinking (that you might be better off trying to fix the O-line through FA/cuts than through the draft) than I would have thought before seeing this list.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Here's the problem with that logic...when I look at that list...there are good O-Lines and bad O-lines up and down it. The Giants had an excellent O-line in 2008 after not drafting O-line. Atlanta and Minnesota have put together solid line units. Tampa Bay and Seattle have had major O-line issues and have drafted guys a lot.

 

well, here are the numbers for starting linemen:

 

falcons: 2009 3 out of 5

LT baker 1st round pick 2008 falcons

LG blalock 2nd round pick 2007 falcons

C mcclure 7th round pick 1999 falcons

RG ojinnaka 5th round 2006 falcons

RT clabo undrafted

 

falcons 2007 3 out of 5

LT gandy 1st rd pick 1994 rams

LG blalock 2nd rd pick 2007 falcons

C mcclure 7th rd pick 1999 falcons

RG forney 7th rd pick 2001 falcons

RT weiner 2nd rd pick 1998 SH

 

giants: 2008, 2009 3 out of 5

LT diehl 5th round pick 2003 giants

LG seubert undrafted

C ohara undrafted

RG snee 2nd round 2004 giants

RT mckenzie 3rd round 2001 jets

 

vikings 2009 3 out of 5

LT mckinnie 1st rd pick 2002 vikings

LG hutchinson 1st rd pick 2001 SH

C sullivan 6th rd pick 2008 vikings

RG herrera undrafted

RT loadholt 2nd rd pick 2009 vikings

 

=====

 

seattle 2009 5 out of 5.

LT locklear 3rd rd pick 2004 SH

LG sims 4th rd pick 2006 SH

C spencer 1st rd pick 2005 SH

RG unger 2nd rd pick 2009 SH

RT willis 4th rd pick 2005 SH

 

tampa bay 2009 4 out of 5

LT penn undrafted

LG zuttah 3rd rd pick 2008 TB

C faine 1st rd pick 2003 cleveland

RG joseph 1st rd pick 2006 TB

RT trueblood 2nd rd pick 2006 TB

 

i am curious as to how you are determining the quality of these offensive lines? is it from personal observation? if not what are the factors you are using to determine how the bucs and seahawks lines rated against the rest of the nfl?

 

anyway, the giants you mention have 3 out of 5 players drafted in the first 5 rounds. although i have no idea whether the falcons line is good or bad they too have 3 out of 5 drafted in the first 5 rounds.

 

 

If drafting more O-linemen doesn't correlate with performance, then why should this stat interest me? It actually argues to me that there might be more to Angelo's line of thinking (that you might be better off trying to fix the O-line through FA/cuts than through the draft) than I would have thought before seeing this list.

 

i guess what you should do is go through the nfl roster for starting offensive linemen and compare this number to the number of starters drafted/non drafted below the 5th round and compare the numbers. this would give you accurate numbers for comparison.

 

as far as angelo's MO... do you really believe what you said that there is more to angelo's line of thinking than drafting quality offensive linemen through the draft? you have no problems of never drafting linemen higher than the 6th or 7th round or with their quality? REALLY?

 

you don't see any conflicts with the salary cap by trying to bring in QUALITY free agent linemen who are young and not at the end of their careers (like tait type players)? do you believe, or not, that continuity is a factor involved as to how an offensive line performs?

 

[balta1701-A]

as far as angelo's MO... do you really believe what you said that there is more to angelo's line of thinking than drafting quality offensive linemen through the draft? you have no problems of never drafting linemen higher than the 6th or 7th round or with their quality? REALLY?

 

you don't see any conflicts with the salary cap by trying to bring in QUALITY free agent linemen who are young and not at the end of their careers (like tait type players)? do you believe, or not, that continuity is a factor involved as to how an offensive line performs?

Whether I personally think it is a mistake doesn't mean that the data here shows it. Can anyone give me a metric related to offensive line quality/performance that suggests there is a strong correlation between # of picks spent on the O-line and their performance? I went with my general impression of how those lines have performed. Tampa has been a disaster for years now, Seattle is plugging O-line holes all the time, yet they've spent a lot of picks on those positions.

[Lucky Luciano]

Whether I personally think it is a mistake doesn't mean that the data here shows it. Can anyone give me a metric related to offensive line quality/performance that suggests there is a strong correlation between # of picks spent on the O-line and their performance? I went with my general impression of how those lines have performed. Tampa has been a disaster for years now, Seattle is plugging O-line holes all the time, yet they've spent a lot of picks on those positions.

 

here is an interesting note...

 

only 3 teams in the entire nfl, colts, chargers, texans, had fewer than 3 starting offensive linemen that were drafted/non-drafted in the 5th round or higher. many had 4 starters and many had 5 starters drafted in these higher rounds.

 

i think this is a pretty good indication of what rounds the quality is located for offensive linemen. so to me that says the bears (who have drafted 2 players in the 1st rd, NONE in the 2nd rd, 1 in the 3rd rd, 1 in the 4th rd, and NONE in the 5th rd in EIGHT YEARS of jerry angelo's tenure in chicago) are having to rely on free agents who are either on their last leg of nfl play, highly overpriced, or 2nd tier or less talent whose teams have not renewed their contracts due to quality concerns.

[balta1701-A]

Am I wrong in having the impression that at least 2 of those 3 teams had very solid O-lines last year, and the 3rd wasn't bad either?

[Lucky Luciano]

Am I wrong in having the impression that at least 2 of those 3 teams had very solid O-lines last year, and the 3rd wasn't bad either?

 

could any of that have to do with the organizations abilities to judge talent and coach? anyway, if you look at it, 3 out of 32 is not a very good percentage and pretty telling as to where most of your talent is coming from.

 

does this mean it's a sure thing drafting players in these higher rounds? absolutely not. it still requires good personnel to scout and to sift through all the information and actually pick good players in the draft. but by limiting your picks the way we have and relying on FA's to fill your OL it is a recipe for disaster.

[nfoligno]

Sorry, but what two teams are you referring to?

 

Am I wrong in having the impression that at least 2 of those 3 teams had very solid O-lines last year, and the 3rd wasn't bad either?

 

[nfoligno]

For the record, Seattle had a very good OL until recently. They lost Hutchinson to Minny, and about the same time, Walter Jones started suffering injury and went downhill fast. Prior to this, Seattle had a damn good OL, which one of the best left sides in the NFL.

 

Whether I personally think it is a mistake doesn't mean that the data here shows it. Can anyone give me a metric related to offensive line quality/performance that suggests there is a strong correlation between # of picks spent on the O-line and their performance? I went with my general impression of how those lines have performed. Tampa has been a disaster for years now, Seattle is plugging O-line holes all the time, yet they've spent a lot of picks on those positions.

 

[nfoligno]

You seem to emphasize the exceptions. Maybe a couple teams who drafted a lot of OL didn't work. Maybe a couple teams that drafted few OL did work out. But these seem to be the exceptions more than the rules. The majority of teams that drafted a lot of OL did create solid OL units, while the majority of teams that drafted few had the opposite effect. Sure, there are always exceptions to the rule. There are some teams that found franchise QBs late in the draft, but does such an exception alter the rule? Is it a good plan for teams to believe a 6th round pick QB should become a franchise QB?

 

Am I wrong in having the impression that at least 2 of those 3 teams had very solid O-lines last year, and the 3rd wasn't bad either?

 

[balta1701-A]

For the record, Seattle had a very good OL until recently. They lost Hutchinson to Minny, and about the same time, Walter Jones started suffering injury and went downhill fast. Prior to this, Seattle had a damn good OL, which one of the best left sides in the NFL.

And the reason they've dumped so many picks into their O-line is that those picks keep failing.

[balta1701-A]

You seem to emphasize the exceptions. Maybe a couple teams who drafted a lot of OL didn't work. Maybe a couple teams that drafted few OL did work out. But these seem to be the exceptions more than the rules. The majority of teams that drafted a lot of OL did create solid OL units, while the majority of teams that drafted few had the opposite effect. Sure, there are always exceptions to the rule. There are some teams that found franchise QBs late in the draft, but does such an exception alter the rule? Is it a good plan for teams to believe a 6th round pick QB should become a franchise QB?

I'm not sure I'd say the majority goes either way. I look at that list and I think it basically looks like a cloud with zero correlation, and so I'm being difficult until someone can establish more firmly that I should believe there is one. I look at the bottom of the list and I don't automatically see losing teams or teams that I think give up an unusual large number of sacks with no running game, and I look at the top of that list and I don't automatically see the top lines in the league.

 

I'll agree with y'all that the Bears have overly neglected the O-line, I don't see how you can disagree with that after the performance the last few years...I'm just not convinced this stat gives me any legitimate information on that.

[nfoligno]

Okay, start with the bottom 10.

 

St. Louis 4

Buffalo 3

N.Y. Jets 3

N.Y. Giants 3

Atlanta 3

Minnesota 3

Kansas City 2

Washington 2

Detroit 2

Bears 1

 

From this group, I think 6 teams would easily be considered to have bad OLs. Of the other 4...

 

NYJ - Only in the last maybe two years has the team seen an OL turn around. They have used some expensive FAs to improve their OL, but the anchor is still their top drafted OL. Still, I would argue that the list shows years 2003 - 2007, and during that period of time, their OL was pretty bad.

 

Atlanta - Honestly, I don't know their OL as well. I know their OL has of late been pretty good, and they are a rare team that seems to find late round gems even finding productive starters out of undrafted FAs. I guess if you are good enough scouting OL and developing, you can get away with not drafting as many high.

 

Minny - One reason Minny didn't draft as many was due to having found long term stable starters. For example, we have not had to worry about center for many years because we found a franchise center in Kreutz. Minny had Birk and McKinnie, neither of which were part of this report, but are long term starters. Loadholt and Sullivan, two current starters, were drafted but after this study. That leaves Hutchinson, who they paid heavily for. So I am not sure this report reflects what Minny has done on the OL, as 4 of their 5 starters were drafted outside the window this study looked at, yet the key point is still that 4 of their 5 starters were drafted, and drafted high.

 

NYG - Actually, I think NY is a good example of the problems with not drafting. NY had a good group drafted prior to the window from the study, but they didn't continue to draft OL, and now those starters are fading and OL (last year and this year) has become a key concern for the team.

 

So 6 of the 10 teams that failed to draft OL are considered to be bad OL teams. Of the remaining 4, Atlanta is the only one I would say is a legit exception to the rule. Minny is outside the box as they have drafted more OL than the study reflects, but did so before and after the window looked at. NYG are a great example of what happens to a team that doesn't draft, as their OL has faded and is now a key problem for the team.

 

Okay, top 10 that drafted OL.

 

Tampa Bay 9

Carolina 7

Miami 6

Baltimore 6

Indianapolis 6

Philadelphia 6

New Orleans 6

Seattle 6

New England 5

Cincinnati 5

 

6 of the top 10 teams are considered to have very good OLs (Car, Bal, Indy, Phi, NO, NE). Of the remaining four,

 

Seattle actually did have a very good OL for quiet some time, but only recently has it faded. In fact, prior to last year I think their OL was considered very good. So through the period of time this study looked at, they drafted many and had very good results. They lost several of their drafted OL, and lost a couple others to injury.

 

Cincy for years was dreadful, but the years of drafting OL has seemed to payoff. Their OL came together last year, or do you think Benson is simply that good?

 

TB and Miami are proof that nothing is for sure. They drafted a lot of OL, but that didn't seem to help.

 

So yes, I would say the majority still reflects the rule. The rule is not absolute, as there are examples of teams that drafted a lot but were bad and teams that didn't draft extensively but did well regardless. But I find it hard to argue the majority in either the top 10 or bottom 10 don't reflect the general rule that is you need to draft OL in order to have sustained success.

 

I'm not sure I'd say the majority goes either way. I look at that list and I think it basically looks like a cloud with zero correlation, and so I'm being difficult until someone can establish more firmly that I should believe there is one. I look at the bottom of the list and I don't automatically see losing teams or teams that I think give up an unusual large number of sacks with no running game, and I look at the top of that list and I don't automatically see the top lines in the league.

 

I'll agree with y'all that the Bears have overly neglected the O-line, I don't see how you can disagree with that after the performance the last few years...I'm just not convinced this stat gives me any legitimate information on that.

 

[LT2_3]

Geez Nfo, how's about not cherry picking the data? If the team with most picks of the bottom 10 has 4 and the team with the least picks of the top 10 has 5, doesn't that mean that the middle 12 have either 4 or 5? Wouldn't the middle 12 then actually prove or refute you premise?

 

And how did you select StL as the representative for the bottom 10 with 4 picks and how did you select NE and Cinci as the representatives for the top 10 with 5 picks?

 

I bet you could pick another team with 4 picks that actually has a good line and 2 other teams with 5 picks that have bad Olines and your data would be completely screwed.

 

I'm with Balta. Give me something conclusive without cherry picking the data.

[madlithuanian]

Call me crazy, but I don't get the argument...

 

You have to be in it to win it.

 

If you do not address OL, your OL will suffer. Given that there are limited options for OL in FA, it would make sense, that the more often you dive into the draft to find someone, the better your odds are. And when it comes to drafting, the higher you draft, the better odds of getting a true standout.

 

We all know that the exceptions make the rule. But if everyone thought you could get starters in rounds 4 and lower, everyone would trade their 1st 3 picks or pass on the draft slot. And that is obviously not happening.

 

To me, it's a simple thing. You try to fill as many holes as possible with your drafts through a few years while nabbing a good FA here and there. And certainly, you cannot ignore glaring holes. By constantly drafting undersized linemen, short D-backs, odd projects, and the occassional find, Angelo has shown that no matter what philosophy you prefer, he has far too many failures on his resume.

 

Geez Nfo, how's about not cherry picking the data? If the team with most picks of the bottom 10 has 4 and the team with the least picks of the top 10 has 5, doesn't that mean that the middle 12 have either 4 or 5? Wouldn't the middle 12 then actually prove or refute you premise?

 

And how did you select StL as the representative for the bottom 10 with 4 picks and how did you select NE and Cinci as the representatives for the top 10 with 5 picks?

 

I bet you could pick another team with 4 picks that actually has a good line and 2 other teams with 5 picks that have bad Olines and your data would be completely screwed.

 

I'm with Balta. Give me something conclusive without cherry picking the data.

 

[bradjock]

It's a stupid argument. Lets flip it to the defense line. You could throw out that in the past 10 years we've drafted like 37 d-lineman. By this logic, we have a good defensive line because we draft so many d-lineman. When you look at our starters:

1. Peppers--drafted by Carolina and paid 90+ million to come here. We dumped a 4th round pick, Alex Brown, because we signed him.

2. Anthony Adams--drafted by San Fran and beat out all the guys we drafted to replace him. He continues to beat out the Dvoraceks, Harrisons, and whoever else.

3. Mark Anderson--5th round pick . . . questionable starter

4. Tommie Harris--#1

 

Current players: Idonije--Picked up off the scrap heap, Toneia--Scrap heap, Henry Melton--4th round, Marcus Harrison--4th round, Corey Whooton--4th round

 

Guys we've dumped: Dvoracek--3rd round, Bazuin--2nd round, Tank--2nd round, the guy we took in the 1st the year we drafted Rex who's name I forget . . .

 

After all those picks, the only guy on the roster we've drafted who's real good is Tommie. Hell, that's even questionable. Our defensive line is average at best. We draft guys, we trade and pay for guys (Wale) and we're still mediocre.

 

We've had better luck signing d-lineman then drafting them. Logic might dictate that if we had drafted a bunch of o-lineman, the line would be as bad or even worse.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lucky Luciano]

It's a stupid argument. Lets flip it to the defense line. You could throw out that in the past 10 years we've drafted like 37 d-lineman. By this logic, we have a good defensive line because we draft so many d-lineman.

 

We've had better luck signing d-lineman then drafting them. Logic might dictate that if we had drafted a bunch of o-lineman, the line would be as bad or even worse.

 

1. i'm going to go out on a limb and say without looking it up (like i did with the offensive line) that 75% + of the starting defensive linemen in the nfl were drafted in the 5th round or higher. what does that mean?

 

that statistics (IF you looked them up) should dictate that if you want to field starters on the defensive line your best chance to do so is by drafting from the 5th round higher with a few exceptions. does this mean you always get quality players if you do so? again as i stated in another post, about the O-line, the answer is no. it depends upon the quality of the personnel you have scouting and evaluating talent making the picks.

 

what you stated "By this logic, we have a good defensive line because we draft so many d-lineman." does prove one thing... that the people running this organization are bad at doing their jobs and nothing more. the model for drafting quality players is still the same.

 

2. on offense: what this "logic" of drafting 5th round or higher dictates is that the movers and shakers in this franchise have FAILED to even give us a CHANCE of finding quality players to start on our offensive line by trading down, out, or picking another type of players (see defensive draft picks above in your own post) in the quality rounds. it's nearly impossible to draft quality players if you rarely or never try to.

[jason]

This is the definitive argument. It's ignorant to argue against the premise that more picks in the first round gives a team more chance to succeed. There is a reason the draft happens the way it does, and that is because more talent is in the first round than the second, the second than the third, and so on. Finding hidden gems in the later rounds, having superior coaching, or anything else doesn't overcome an abundance of first round talent (unless the first round talent is continually drafted at the same position, like WRs and the Lions).

 

Call me crazy, but I don't get the argument...

 

You have to be in it to win it.

 

If you do not address OL, your OL will suffer. Given that there are limited options for OL in FA, it would make sense, that the more often you dive into the draft to find someone, the better your odds are. And when it comes to drafting, the higher you draft, the better odds of getting a true standout.

 

We all know that the exceptions make the rule. But if everyone thought you could get starters in rounds 4 and lower, everyone would trade their 1st 3 picks or pass on the draft slot. And that is obviously not happening.

 

To me, it's a simple thing. You try to fill as many holes as possible with your drafts through a few years while nabbing a good FA here and there. And certainly, you cannot ignore glaring holes. By constantly drafting undersized linemen, short D-backs, odd projects, and the occassional find, Angelo has shown that no matter what philosophy you prefer, he has far too many failures on his resume.

 

[madlithuanian]

Possibility #1. We suck at drafting....

 

It's a stupid argument. Lets flip it to the defense line. You could throw out that in the past 10 years we've drafted like 37 d-lineman. By this logic, we have a good defensive line because we draft so many d-lineman. When you look at our starters:

1. Peppers--drafted by Carolina and paid 90+ million to come here. We dumped a 4th round pick, Alex Brown, because we signed him.

2. Anthony Adams--drafted by San Fran and beat out all the guys we drafted to replace him. He continues to beat out the Dvoraceks, Harrisons, and whoever else.

3. Mark Anderson--5th round pick . . . questionable starter

4. Tommie Harris--#1

 

Current players: Idonije--Picked up off the scrap heap, Toneia--Scrap heap, Henry Melton--4th round, Marcus Harrison--4th round, Corey Whooton--4th round

 

Guys we've dumped: Dvoracek--3rd round, Bazuin--2nd round, Tank--2nd round, the guy we took in the 1st the year we drafted Rex who's name I forget . . .

 

After all those picks, the only guy on the roster we've drafted who's real good is Tommie. Hell, that's even questionable. Our defensive line is average at best. We draft guys, we trade and pay for guys (Wale) and we're still mediocre.

 

We've had better luck signing d-lineman then drafting them. Logic might dictate that if we had drafted a bunch of o-lineman, the line would be as bad or even worse.