NFL offseason discussion (up to but not including draft)

The Game Room
621

The rats getting a CB isn’t too bad. It does address the biggest weakness on their defense, but for this year at least, they’d still be looking at a big sucking hole at QB.

I’m scared of the Bengals getting McFadden or Mendenhall. Their offense is potent with a workman-like back, if they landed someone with the potentially to be elite it could become ridiculous again. DT is certainly a big need and that pick makes sense. I hope they somehow screw up and draft a defensive back.

So this Brandon Albert… I saw him going to the Pats at #7 in another mock which seemed silly. He’s a guard-to-tackle prospect that’s considered a top 15 pick? That’s… unusual. What’s his story?

622

[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
I could be misremembering, but I recall Brohm as being above or close to Quinn in people’s minds, and he was certainly expected to go at the top of the 1st Round heading into '07. As for what changed, his team went from 12-1 in 2006 to 6-6 last year, and, I suspect, people are reading too much into that.

[/QUOTE]

I did some Googling and I couldn’t find any good links to Draft boards or Mock drafts that included Brohm since he pulled out early in the process, but there are a lot of articles that indicate that Brohm was in the discussion as one of the top 3 QBs. Most of those articles still had Quinn as the top guy and Brohm a close #2 since it was before Russell had his Pro Day and rocketed up draft boards.

I think it’s safe to say that Brohm would have been a certain first rounder in 2007 had he come out, and I think when it’s all said and done he will be this year. Someone will probably trade up into the late first round to leapfrog the teams at the front of the 2nd round in order to get him.

623

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
Here’s Draft Countdown’s most recent Mock Draft (as of April 11th) and I have to say I’m having a hard time arguing with any of those predictions in the top 16.

Obviously the #1 pick is still in a lot of doubt but he makes a pretty compelling argument for Jake Long. Even if the Dolphins go with the QB Ryan or the other Long I think the top 5 players will remain the same in a different order.
[/QUOTE]

When in doubt, take a tackle… probability-of-busthood substantially reduced over any other position (except possibly corner- who was the last top-5 CB bust?)

On the other hand, I think the Raiders are nuts (yes, I know, they are) if they take McFadden when they have one very good back (LaMont Jordan - for all that the writers bury him, he’s been a stud when healthy), one good one (Justin Fargas, who put up 1,000 yards in half a season), and one potentially great one (Michael Bush, who was a steal in the fourth round last year) all signed for at least two years.

Plus, of course, they’re hopelessly devoid of talent at WR, OT, TE, LB..

As far as Brohm goes, here are a few choice quotes:

[QUOTE=Peter King on 3/21/08]
7. I think I still haven’t figured out how Brian Brohm could be rated a top-10 pick in 2007 and drop to second-roundville in 2008 after having completed 65 percent of his throws as a senior, with 30 touchdowns and 12 interceptions while playing for a new coach. Explain that to me. Someone. Anyone.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=some guy named Chris Steuber of Scout.com]
Brohm gave up the opportunity to be a potential top-five selection in the 2007 draft in hopes of leading Louisville to a national championship…
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Though The Sporting News projected Brohm as high as the top pick in the 2007 NFL draft[2], and many other experts had projected him as going no later than the first round, Brohm announced on January 15, 2007, after a long period of speculation, that he would return to the University of Louisville for his senior year.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=AOL Sports]
ESPN draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr. is out with his 2008 big board of the top 25 NFL draft prospects (Insider), and Louisville quarterback Brian Brohm tops the list.
[/QUOTE]

(I don’t know when Kiper’s big board is officially released but it certainly makes you wonder when exactly Brohm fell.

[QUOTE=baltimoreravens.com]
Had Brian Brohm given up his final year of eligibility at Louisville before the 2007 NFL Draft, multiple analysts had him rated as the top quarterback in that class.

All the 6-foot-3, 230-pounder did as a senior was throw for a career-best 4,024 yards, with a whopping 30 touchdowns and 65 percent completion percentage. Brohm even totaled seven 300-yard passing games, besting 500 yards against Syracuse.

So why, then, are many of those same “draft experts” now knocking Brohm to the back of the first round, and possibly into the second?
[/QUOTE]

624

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
So this Brandon Albert.. I saw him going to the Pats at #7 in another mock which seemed silly. He’s a guard-to-tackle prospect that’s considered a top 15 pick? That’s… unusual. What’s his story?
[/QUOTE]

I think that projection to the Pats at #7 was a bit of an overreaction to the Super Bowl beating the Pats Line took. No way they go O-line in the first round.

Of the video I’ve seen for Albert the most impressive thing is his footwork and his speed. He’s a textbook run blocker, pulls very quickly and gets upfield to the second and third levels ahead of quick backs. As a guard he’d be a perennial Pro Bowler I think, he reminds me of Steve Hutchinson in the way he attacks plays and gets upfield. If I remember correctly people talked about moving him to Tackle as well until they realized that he could be even more dominant at his natural spot.

Albert has played Tackle and can be effective so having that as a somewhat proven option adds to his value, though the eventual goal ought to be to move him back inside as part of a drive blocking tandem.

A team that employs a zone-blocking scheme and asks it’s line to always play catch will not be a good fit for him. But on a team that really wants to attack the line of scrimmage he’d be a unique asset in this draft.

625

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
When in doubt, take a tackle… probability-of-busthood substantially reduced over any other position (except possibly corner- who was the last top-5 CB bust?)

[/QUOTE]

I think people take those sorts of statistics beyond their logical usefulness. What if it’s a crappy year for high-end tackles?

I’ve been hearing Long “might” be able to play the left side in the NFL. To take a guy you’re not even sure can play LT #1 overall seems insane.

626

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
I think people take those sorts of statistics beyond their logical usefulness. What if it’s a crappy year for high-end tackles?

I’ve been hearing Long “might” be able to play the left side in the NFL. To take a guy you’re not even sure can play LT #1 overall seems insane.
[/QUOTE]

There are at least five tackles who are sure to go in the first round, which would tie the NFL record, and if Albert is taken to play tackle rather than guard we’d have six.

So safe to say it’s a banner year for tackles.

Still, your point is taken, to an extent. On the other hand, I don’t think people take it far enough. If I was a GM, I’d never take a QB in the top half of the first round. Chances are good - 60% over the last ten years, at least- that a first-round QB will never make a Pro Bowl.

When you look at NFL teams and how many of them have a star QB who was a first-round pick of that team…
Bengals, Steelers, Colts, Titans (maybe), Broncos (maybe), Chargers (probably)- in the AFC. In the NFC the outlook is even bleaker: Giants, Eagles, Redskins (possibly), Cardinals (maybe).

The odds are not good that in five years your high-first-round QB will be Peyton Manning, or even your starter.

Let’s look at the teams who’ve had a first-rounder QB flop in the last few years:
Ravens (Boller, sorry Weirddave), Bengals (Akili Smith), Browns (Couch), Texans, Jaguars, Bills (probably), Jets (arguably, though Pennington’s injuries are mostly to blame), Chargers (Leaf), Bears (take your pick), Lions, Panthers, Redskins (Patrick Ramsay), 49ers.

627

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
When in doubt, take a tackle… probability-of-busthood substantially reduced over any other position (except possibly corner- who was the last top-5 CB bust?)

[/QUOTE]

I went back 15 years, and found one CB drafted in the top 5: Terrence Newman.
While he was definitely worth the pick, I don’t think your argument holds much water if he’s the only evidence there. If we want to expand our search to CBs drafted 1-6, and we find… Pacman Jones! I think it’s fair to say he’s a bust.

628

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]

Still, your point is taken, to an extent. On the other hand, I don’t think people take it far enough. If I was a GM, I’d never take a QB in the top half of the first round. Chances are good - 60% over the last ten years, at least- that a first-round QB will never make a Pro Bowl.

When you look at NFL teams and how many of them have a star QB who was a first-round pick of that team…
Bengals, Steelers, Colts, Titans (maybe), Broncos (maybe), Chargers (probably)- in the AFC. In the NFC the outlook is even bleaker: Giants, Eagles, Redskins (possibly), Cardinals (maybe).

The odds are not good that in five years your high-first-round QB will be Peyton Manning, or even your starter.

Let’s look at the teams who’ve had a first-rounder QB flop in the last few years:
Ravens (Boller, sorry Weirddave), Bengals (Akili Smith), Browns (Couch), Texans, Jaguars, Bills (probably), Jets (arguably, though Pennington’s injuries are mostly to blame), Chargers (Leaf), Bears (take your pick), Lions, Panthers, Redskins (Patrick Ramsay), 49ers.
[/QUOTE]

That’s just bad logic. What it proves is that GMs have a lot to learn about evaluating QBs and that it’s a very difficult position to master, there simply isn’t much middle ground like there is for most other positions.

If you want to argue that a smart GM should wait to get a QB value in the later rounds you have to list the franchise QBs who have been uncovered outside the first round. That list is:

Patriots, Seahawks, Cowboys and um…maybe Jags, maybe Browns, maybe Texans (I’ll even give you Brees who was taken with the 32nd pick overall) and that’s pretty much it. Not a very good success rate when you consider how many QBs have been drafted after the first round over the last 7 or 8 years (well over a hundred). Having a QB emerge to carry your team who wasn’t drafted in the first round is so rare that teams absolutely must invest a high draft pick in one at some point. Note that of these teams I listed, every single one had a high draft choice as the incumbent allowing them to develop those prospects too.

629

[QUOTE=Diomedes]
I went back 15 years, and found one CB drafted in the top 5: Terrence Newman.
While he was definitely worth the pick, I don’t think your argument holds much water if he’s the only evidence there. If we want to expand our search to CBs drafted 1-6, and we find… Pacman Jones! I think it’s fair to say he’s a bust.
[/QUOTE]

Meh?

Charles Woodson, Quentin Jammer, Shawn Springs, Terrell Buckley.

Not a ton, but some notable guys. Make it the top 10 and you start seeing a ton of Pro Bowl talent at the CB position.

630

[QUOTE=Hamlet]
The Fins had just given up a fifth (could have been a fourth) round pick (I think) for Trent Green, who was their starter and going to be their QB. They didn’t have the need they do now. And, while the other teams passed on him, I cannot see the Dolphins, Atlanta, Baltimore, and maybe the Jets or Chiefs, passing on him in if he went in this draft. It’s a horrible year if you’re looking for a potential franchise QB. There is no way the Browns would be able to get Quinn even as a backup, at 22 this year.
[/QUOTE]

Jeez, you have Miss Cleo Lemon and all…why are you complaining?
:wink:

631

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Yay.

Steeler’s schedule:

NFC East
AFC South
Balt/Cinc/Cleve x2
New England
San Diego

Of course, the whole AFC North shares everything but the NE and SD games. The Browns get Buffalo and Denver instead. But Cleveland has Pittsburgh twice on their schedule, whereas Pittsburgh “gets to play” Cleveland twice. That’ll be the common perception, anyway, making it look like the Browns may be somewhere near tied for the hardest schedule.

I think we’ll split the series, each team winning at home.

The Browns may be the better team in '08, but the fact that Pitt plays NE and SD while Cleveland plays Buf and Den gives Cleveland a substantial advantage.

The division winner of the AFC North has a serious chance of being 8-8 or 9-7 with that schedule. No wildcard coming out of this division.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know why you keep saying that. This isn’t the NFC Central…it’s the AFC North. In my mind, no division is more up for grabs than this one. For you to base a CLE winning prediction for the division based on a mild improvement over mediocrity is laughable.
As much as I hate to say it (as a fellow OH team fan that suffers more than he gets to gloat), the Steelers should be the preseason favorite.

632

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
Meh?

Charles Woodson, Quentin Jammer, Shawn Springs, Terrell Buckley.

Not a ton, but some notable guys. Make it the top 10 and you start seeing a ton of Pro Bowl talent at the CB position.
[/QUOTE]

Missed those. Also, Bryant Westbrook. Who was a total bust. Same thing with Jammer, Springs and Buckley.
Yeah, even Buckley. Who, although he developed into a great corner, really didn’t with his original team. I don’t think that guys like Shawn Springs and Quentin Jammer, guys who made the rosters, but essentially as #2 CBs who get burned a lot covering #1 guys. Which really isn’t what you want out of a top-5 pick.

Two out of six isn’t really that great of a success rate, entirely unlike tackles, who (Robert Gallery excepted) almost always turn out well for teams that draft them.

633

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
There are at least five tackles who are sure to go in the first round, which would tie the NFL record, and if Albert is taken to play tackle rather than guard we’d have six.

So safe to say it’s a banner year for tackles.

[/quote]

This may be wrong, since like I said, I haven’t studied the draft much this year, but it seems like a good year for good but not great tackles. No one close to the caliber of Joe Thomas this year, from what I gather.

Taking a pretty good tackle who might deserve to get drafted #10 overall with the #1 pick won’t suddenly make him worth the #1 pick because top 5 tackles have historically been good. Tackles are often more consistent/easier to project in the transition to the pros than other positions, but the talent still has to be there.

There are very few good NFL QBs. The position has a high bust rate. So you’d expect there to be a lot of top 15 busts… a lot of 16-30 busts, and lot of 31-45 busts, etc.

If you look at it from the other direction, a significant portion of the most successful quarterbacks in the league’s history have been drafted high.

So when you spend a top 15 pick on a QB, there’s a higher chance he’ll be a bust than a player of a different position that you draft, but since QBs are so critical, it can be worth the attempt. You can’t reliably count on finding a QB after the first round either.

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
I don’t know why you keep saying that. This isn’t the NFC Central…it’s the AFC North. In my mind, no division is more up for grabs than this one. For you to base a CLE winning prediction for the division based on a mild improvement over mediocrity is laughable.
As much as I hate to say it (as a fellow OH team fan that suffers more than he gets to gloat), the Steelers should be the preseason favorite.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve given reasons.

A “mild improvement over mediocrity” let Cleveland beat the highest percentage of other NFL teams outside the AFCN of any team in the division. The Steelers won twice against Cleveland - once against a Charlie Frye suckfest, once due to arguably horrible officiating. Which means that since they had the same 10-6 record, they did significantly worse against the rest of the NFL. Cleveland only needs to be able to split with the Steelers and keep that up to achieve a better record.

But not only that, while 14 of 16 games are the same, the last two are significantly tougher for the Steelers, a team who was clearly slipping towards the end of the year.

As for the most wide open division in the NFL - it’s probably a two dog race. Sorry.

634

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
This may be wrong, since like I said, I haven’t studied the draft much this year, but it seems like a good year for good but not great tackles. No one close to the caliber of Joe Thomas this year, from what I gather.
[/QUOTE]

Dude, the homerism is getting a little thick. I think we’ve had this converstaion earlier in this thread even. According to Scouts inc.:

Long is a little slower than Thomas but a little stronger. He’s great. This is a once-in-a-decade class for Tackles.

635

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
Dude, the homerism is getting a little thick. I think we’ve had this converstaion earlier in this thread even. According to Scouts inc.:
Long is a little slower than Thomas but a little stronger. He’s great. This is a once-in-a-decade class for Tackles.
[/QUOTE]

You may be right. I’ve read from multiple sources that a lot of scouts question Long’s ability to even play on the left side at all in the NFL, whereas (and I’m saying this as someone who thought Thomas was overrated pre-draft) Thomas was regarded as a pretty much surefire hit. I don’t doubt it’s a better class overall (Levi Brown was way overdrafted), but the top prospect favors last year. Your own cite says “in what projects to be a weaker class” although I don’t really agree with that assessment overall.

I hadn’t even heard talk of (Jake) Long going in the top 3 until discussion that Miami might be able to get him to agree to a lower contract than the other potential #1 picks.

Like QBs, people tend to draft the best of tackles very high even if the strength of the class at the top end doesn’t justify it. It sounds like this is a good class with plenty of, say, Chris Samuel level talents, but no one approaching Ogden/Jones.

As far as homerism - I think I’ve backed up what I’ve had to say in that regard with facts and realistic assessments. I’m certainly not the type of person who is blind to the faults in his team.

Do you think my assessment that Thomas has been an excellent, well above average first year starting tackle is incorrect?

636

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
Dude, the homerism is getting a little thick. I think we’ve had this converstaion earlier in this thread even.
[/QUOTE]

Now I’m almost as much of a Browns homer as Beef is, but I don’t think you can say that a tackle who’s less athletic but stronger coming out of college is as good a prospect. Offensive linemen historically build strength and bulk as time goes on, while their athleticism decreases over time.

Plus, a scouting report and your analysis of Long doesn’t rank nearly as high in my opinion as the performance Thomas showed last year. The kid would have gone to the Pro Bowl if he’d played a skill position, and has shown that he can stand up in the pros, something that is question of every prospect.

I’m not saying that Long won’t be a good pick. But to say he’s once in a decade (and thereby favorably comparing him to Thomas) before he’s played a down?

637

[QUOTE=Diomedes]

Plus, a scouting report and your analysis of Long doesn’t rank nearly as high in my opinion as the performance Thomas showed last year. The kid would have gone to the Pro Bowl if he’d played a skill position, and has shown that he can stand up in the pros, something that is question of every prospect.

[/quote]

He did go to the pro bowl, but not as a first-ballot starter or whatever the term is. You’re right in that if he were a player with fantasy stats and played equally well, there’d be more talk about him.

There’s so much momentum in voting for offensive linemen in the pro bowl - fans don’t often watch line play… they tend to know players by reputation - who John Madden drools over, who made the last pro bowl, etc. It was absolutely pathetic that Ogden made the pro bowl after playing 4 games and badly at that. As someone else on the board said “you might as well pencil in Ogden as the pro bowl starter the year after he retires”.

He meant that the tackle class is once in a decade, with a lot of first round worthy talents.

638

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Your own cite says “in what projects to be a weaker class” although I don’t really agree with that assessment overall.
[/QUOTE]

That comment in context was in regards to the entire 2008 draft class, not the Offensive Tackle class specifically. I tend to agree that last years was a better class overall, but there’s no debate that this Tackle class is light years better than last years.

639

[QUOTE=Diomedes]
Now I’m almost as much of a Browns homer as Beef is, but I don’t think you can say that a tackle who’s less athletic but stronger coming out of college is as good a prospect. Offensive linemen historically build strength and bulk as time goes on, while their athleticism decreases over time.

Plus, a scouting report and your analysis of Long doesn’t rank nearly as high in my opinion as the performance Thomas showed last year. The kid would have gone to the Pro Bowl if he’d played a skill position, and has shown that he can stand up in the pros, something that is question of every prospect.

I’m not saying that Long won’t be a good pick. But to say he’s once in a decade (and thereby favorably comparing him to Thomas) before he’s played a down?
[/QUOTE]

You are completely misunderstanding my point. Thomas was great this year, and was great heading into the draft. No argument, however you guys keep disparaging Long when I’ve seen almost nothing that rates him as anything but an elite Tackle prospect. Thats not to say he’s better or worse than Thomas, just that the consensus on Long is every bit as high as it was for Thomas heading into the draft. They were both graded at 98 and both had some questions before the draft. In retrospect everyone can say that Thomas lived up to expectations and Long is being compared to him now…not as he was in 2006.

Also, I’m not saying Long is a one-in-a-decade player. I’m saying it’s a once-in-a-decade class. Long is one of 5 very good prospects.

640

Long grades just as high as Joe Thomas, but with one difference. They say that Jake Long’s footwork isn’t quite as good. They point to the one sack he gave up with Vernon Gholston running aroud him.

That was the only sack he gave up. Michigan played against some very good teams. At the absolute WORST, I’d thin that so far, Jake Long is a right tackle that’ll be there for a while (injuries notwithstanding).

Really, we’re splitting hairs here, I think.