Ideally which position do you want filled in the 1st round?
Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:21 AM
Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:18 AM
Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:11 AM
Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:52 AM
These positions tranfer from College to the NFL best, WR and DT usually take a season or two to adjust to the NFL, heck DT are a coin flip from even being on the team 3 years after being drafted.
Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:03 AM
Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:12 AM
Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:32 AM
OL or playmaker in secondary, don't care which position but Captain can't be our best playmaker in the secondary.
Captain might not be here so that should really put secondary at either 1-2 most important.
Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:45 AM
P.s if patterson is gone im going with Kenny V. A potential great saftey is hard to find in free agency unless they are coming of injury.
Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:51 AM
Polls like this are stupid even for the off-season because the assumptions are unrealistic. Exactly how can we assume that a draft pick who has never played a down in the NFL will be rated as a perennial all pro.
Just a hypothetical scenario to see which position would be best filled via the draft if all players of need were rated the the same. Yes the scenario is impossible but its the only way to scientifically find out which position our fans would want addressed the most via the draft if all players were rated equal.
And exactly when do we pick players in the draft just based on talent without considering factors like differences in cost to pick up in free agency.
The point of this was to consider such factors.
For example if it comes down to WR or OT, you go with OT because cheap OTs especially left tackles are hard to find and expensive. This year by contrast there will likely be a number of WRs who will be cheaper to sign and proven. Then there is the whole issue of which positions are easiest to star right away versus those guys who need time to mature. For example, how many WRs contribute significantly in their rookie year versus those who need a year to mature like Michael Crabtree or Dez Bryant versus a Julio Jones. Then there is the whole bust rate which varies greatly by position. For example, OT busts at a lower rate than WR or DT/DE for example.
Given all these factors you would go OT and corner before you go WR.
Remember we are talking a our # 1 pick here. Premiere LT'S AND # 1 WR's are too expensive to address in free agency. I'd even argue and then go prove if you insist that top flight receivers are more expensive than top flight LT's in the open market.
There has been at lest 2-3 threads showing where rookie receiver's can make positive impacts right out the gate. Its even proven at the longest it takes them their 3rd year 99% of the time to break out.
If you draft a LT, we then are going to start them over at RT in place of Bell until Gross is no longer with us. So it would take at least as long for us to get our bang for the buck out of an offensive tackle as it would an immediate impact receiver.
Speaking of taking time to develop or "mature" as you say we have 3 CB's in James Dockery, Josh Thomas, and Norman who started for us in our win streak to close the season. All 3 of them will surely improve with experience.
Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:27 AM
mike williams, eddie royale, hakeem nicks, victor cruz, maclin, jackson, wallace, blackmon, ty hilton, marques coltson, harold hill, jimmy orr, paul warfield, bill brooks, joey galloway, earnest givens..
im tired now but yeah all those guys were rookies and had an impact. so dont say a rookie wr never had an impact.
Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:58 AM
all i want are guys that aren't liabilities. guys that don't get pushed around or get abused. guys that don't get many false starts or holding calls. guys that can just buy cam a little time and open up some holes for the run game. in other words....average. i think we can do well enough with journeymen....at least for a while. I'd rather focus my energies on getting playmakers on both sides of the ball and over time, when things drop in our lap, improve the OL. but the main thing is just being opportunistic with FAs, finding those hidden not too awful looking gems.
not conventional wisdom, i guess, but if you've got enough playmakers and enough of a D that can give you enough opportunities, then you can make do well enough without elite talent on the OL.
Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:04 AM
Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:05 AM