| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ajdodge09
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 4013
Location: Jobland looking for jobbies.
|
 Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 5:40 pm Post subject: Is it easier for good teams to draft well? |
 |
|
|
This is essentially the "chicken vs. egg" debate in football form. Do you think it's easier for the "good" teams to have successful drafts, because they don't need to rely on rookies making an impact immediately like "bad" teams? They can be a lot more patient with their rookies and allow them to develop at their own pace, rather than forcing them to play if they are not ready just because they need them to. Or are the good teams good because they draft successfully? I know there are elements of both that are true, but which do you think has a bigger impact? Good teams are good because they draft well, or they draft well because they are good teams and can allow their rookies to develop?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
paul-mac
Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 6384
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yeah.
In the top 10 your job can live or die by one pick, later on you just let the board fall to you and take the BPA.
_________________
| Big Palooka wrote: | | Broncos won't make the playoffs |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31686
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yes and no. I'd say good teams are good because they have better coaching staffs and develop players more successfully. So is it easier? Not exactly but they're more likely to hit on the picks because their team is better at getting the most out of its young players.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobloblaw86
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 9970
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's definitely a factor that mitigates picking later in the draft, but overall, I still think teams that pick higher have an advantage, and should be able to turn things around.
_________________
Jamison. on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goldfishwars
Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Posts: 5350
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | Yes and no. I'd say good teams are good because they have better coaching staffs and develop players more successfully. So is it easier? Not exactly but they're more likely to hit on the picks because their team is better at getting the most out of its young players. |
Bingo - and therefore there isn't the pressure on their draft picks to succeed.
_________________
Thanks Duron Harmon! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajdodge09
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 4013
Location: Jobland looking for jobbies.
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | Yes and no. I'd say good teams are good because they have better coaching staffs and develop players more successfully. So is it easier? Not exactly but they're more likely to hit on the picks because their team is better at getting the most out of its young players. |
Good point...but then this raises a similar question. Is the player development more important or the player talent more important? Again, I realize both need to be there to be successful, but would you rather have an elite prospect with mediocre coaches, or a mediocre prospect with elite coaches?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khodder
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 48178
Location: New New York
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ajdodge09 wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | Yes and no. I'd say good teams are good because they have better coaching staffs and develop players more successfully. So is it easier? Not exactly but they're more likely to hit on the picks because their team is better at getting the most out of its young players. |
Good point...but then this raises a similar question. Is the player development more important or the player talent more important? Again, I realize both need to be there to be successful, but would you rather have an elite prospect with mediocre coaches, or a mediocre prospect with elite coaches? |
Almost no doubt in my mind I want the elite coaching staff. Prospects are so hit and miss even in the first round, and the difference between 10 and 30 is not all that big and can easily be made up with a coaching staff getting more out of that pick and picks in the middle/later rounds.
_________________
Patrick Peterson - 92 targets, 40 catches allowed, 602 yards, 6 TD's, 7 INT's
The Big Brain am winning again, I am the Greetest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrawABlank
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Posts: 1755
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ajdodge09 wrote: | | Good point...but then this raises a similar question. Is the player development more important or the player talent more important? Again, I realize both need to be there to be successful, but would you rather have an elite prospect with mediocre coaches, or a mediocre prospect with elite coaches? |
The problem is that there are VERY few elite prospects. I think there are generally 4-6 each draft
2012: Luck, Griffin, Richardson, Kuechly, DeCastro
2011: Dareus, Miller, Green, Peterson, Jones, T Smith
2010: Suh, McCoy, Berry, Okung, Pouncey
You need to be hitting on 3 selections each draft, with at least one difference maker. So unless your GM can get you 3 top 8 picks every year, you need the coaching staff to develop your players.
An excellent example is Pierre-Paul - I've seen people give him to other teams in "re-mocks" which totals ignores the fact that he probably busts on 90% of teams. But going to the perfect environment for a young pass rusher (solid vets ahead of you, great coaching staff, no pressure to perform immediately, tradition at the position) meant he was able to develop into a force. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jamison.
Joined: 08 Mar 2011
Posts: 7413
Location: no
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | Yes and no. I'd say good teams are good because they have better coaching staffs and develop players more successfully. So is it easier? Not exactly but they're more likely to hit on the picks because their team is better at getting the most out of its young players. |
Wow, don't think I could've said it any better than this. Spot on.
_________________
Jamison.'s Gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bohlmann20
Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Posts: 5138
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I'd say it's easier for better teams because their supporting casts are much stronger and that sets the rookies up for better success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DreDay80
Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 1663
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ajdodge09 wrote: |
2011: T Smith |
How in the world is T.Smith an elite prospect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PacAttack04
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 3070
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DreDay80 wrote: | | ajdodge09 wrote: |
2011: T Smith |
How in the world is T.Smith an elite prospect? |
The guy was an absolute freak at OT. Really, I saw it as the only reason he didnt go higher was because he played RT his entire career. And the fact that a career collegiate RT went #9 overall says a lot. RTs and guards fall every year, DeCastro this year is the perfect example of that, yet Smith didn't suffer from that which speaks to how much potential he really had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajdodge09
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 4013
Location: Jobland looking for jobbies.
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DreDay80 wrote: | | DrawABlank wrote: |
2011: T Smith |
How in the world is T.Smith an elite prospect? |
FIFY...I did not say this lol
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrawABlank
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Posts: 1755
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DreDay80 wrote: | | DrawABlank wrote: | | 2011: T Smith |
How in the world is T.Smith an elite prospect? |
Because he had the trifecta of elite measurables, dominant tape in a decent conference and no injury / character / work ethic / competitiveness concerns.
Anyway, the prospects I name are not really the point of the post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikingsrule
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 39549
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I think great teams have the coaching staff and personnel to put rookies in the ideal position to succeed, so i think the players they select are more likely to pan out. I also think that well run teams have the scouts and general managers at the top to generally draft well consistently. The Patriots are a confusing example. Excellent run team, who are always great but have drafted pretty poorly the past few years. i guess, a HOF QB and HOF coach is a deadly combo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
