Short arms, this time Tyler Linderbaurm

[AU-panther]

3 hours ago, jayboogieman said:

Right. It's not like he can't get stronger or anything.

Ryan Kalil was roughly the same size and weight. He wasn't scheme dependent at all. Nobody knows if Linderbaum will be scheme dependent or not until he's drafted and actually plays. As for spending a top 10 pick on him? If I felt he was the best option available, yes, I would do so.

If you are spending the 6th overall pick you better know if he is scheme dependent or not.

I'm not saying he is going to bust, my only point is if I'm picking that high I want all of the boxes checked, great measurables, great production, great attitude.  The #6 pick is going to get a 4yr contract for almost $32m, you are tryign to reduce risk as much as possible.

Also you have to account for positional value, at almost $8m a year he better a top 10 center from the start or you just lost value.  The 11th highest paid center is at $7m a year.

Where as $8m a year gets you the 20th highest LT.

In a lot of ways drafting the center is riskier because he has to be so much better to justify the cap hit.

If you draft a LT at 6, and pay him $8m a year and he is just average it still a good pick.  If you draft the center at 6 and pay him $8m a year and he is average its a terrible pick.  There is actually less margin of error in picking the LT.  

 

[CanadianCat]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:36 AM, LinvilleGorge said:

The only argument I can make for it is if you're a team drafting in the top 10 due to a pick acquired via trade and you're a contender with IOL as one of your key needs. I'd still be trying to trade down.

But if you're a team picking on the top 10 earned by sucking ass, you can't afford to take IOL in the top 10. Positional value matters. If you put a HOF center on our roster what does it do? How many wins do we add? Any?

Right but with this logic the only position worth drafting is QB... every single year.... 

[jayboogieman]

5 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

If you are spending the 6th overall pick you better know if he is scheme dependent or not.

I'm not saying he is going to bust, my only point is if I'm picking that high I want all of the boxes checked, great measurables, great production, great attitude.  The #6 pick is going to get a 4yr contract for almost $32m, you are tryign to reduce risk as much as possible.

Also you have to account for positional value, at almost $8m a year he better a top 10 center from the start or you just lost value.  The 11th highest paid center is at $7m a year.

Where as $8m a year gets you the 20th highest LT.

In a lot of ways drafting the center is riskier because he has to be so much better to justify the cap hit.

If you draft a LT at 6, and pay him $8m a year and he is just average it still a good pick.  If you draft the center at 6 and pay him $8m a year and he is average its a terrible pick.  There is actually less margin of error in picking the LT.  

 

You're holding onto the old way of thinking. People have been complaining about the lack of quality NFL O-linemen more and more each year as the better players have opted for defense where they get better stats and pay. Teams will pay more and draft them higher for any quality O-lineman regardless of position as they have a harder time finding ones.

[AU-panther]

3 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

You're holding onto the old way of thinking. People have been complaining about the lack of quality NFL O-linemen more and more each year as the better players have opted for defense where they get better stats and pay. Teams will pay more and draft them higher for any quality O-lineman regardless of position as they have a harder time finding ones.

Its not the old way of thinking, its reflected in recent contracts.  

Positional value matters.  An average LT at $8m a year is more valuable then an average C at $8m a year. An good LT at $8m a year is more valuable then an good C at $8m a year. These moves don't happen in a vacuum, you have to understand replacement cost.

 

 

[Actionman0z]

On 3/4/2022 at 8:32 AM, AU-panther said:

 

Does it matter?  

Does he drop?

Would you be ok spending pick 6 on a guy that has to be an exception?

 

Arm length isn’t an issue inside… some say the short arms help. Want to know why, go back and watch end of year stuff. 

[RumHam]

We are taking pickett bc tepper. Add in tepper wanted fields. Burrow went to a super bowl on year two. I don't think its going to matter and they will mortgage the future to move up if needed.

[Panthercougar68]

Having great technique goes a long way in being an interior guy, this is where his wrestling background greatly helps him.

[top dawg]

23 hours ago, jayboogieman said:

You say positional value is a real thing yet also say you would take BPA. If you're going BPA, that player might play at a position that doesn't line up with your positional value. BPA might also not line up with your needs. If a team has a fairly young franchise QB, should they take another QB with their first rounder because he is BPA? I'm not saying drafting for need is the way to go either. Need as well as where you're good at must be considered when drafting.

Of course you have to factor in positional value and BPA. Linderbaum may be a helluva center, but he's a center. No way anyone is going to convince me that there isn't a better CB, DE, and WR (for example and in reality) prospect better than Linderbaum in the top 10 or 15 players in the draft. You're not going to spend a dollar on a Hershey's kiss when you can get a Hershey's chocolate bar with almonds for example. Do you believe teams would really skip out on a player that they thought was going to be really good at a position even if they really didn't "need" that player? We arguably didn't need Luke. The 49ers arguably didn't need to spend a ton off draft capital on Lance. The Cowboys surely didn't need Lamb, and neither did the Bengals need to draft Chase.

Basically, there are lots of factors to take into account, and each draft is a different animal on it's on. It's not an exact science, but certain things have held true over time (like not overspending on a center).