View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 7:47 pm



Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 1:25 am
Posts: 4918
Location: Hills of Auburn
Post NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9
Just wanted to post the previous picks at 9...we've been there and we are back again:

1990 9. Miami: Richmond Webb T Texas A&M
1991 9. San Diego: Stanley Richard DB Texas
1992 9. Cleveland: Tommy Vardell FB Stanford
1993 9. Atlanta: Lincoln Kennedy T Washington
1994 9. Cleveland: Antonio Langham CB Alabama
1995 9. 9 N.Y. Jets Kyle Brady TE Penn State
1996 9. Oakland: Rickey Dudley TE Ohio State
1997 9. Arizona: Tommy Knight CB Iowa
1998 9. Jacksonville: Fred Taylor RB Florida
1999 9. Detroit Lions: Chris Claiborne ILB USC :?
2000 9. Chicago Bears: Brian Urlacher OLB New Mexico :D
2001 9. Seattle Seahawks: Koren Robinson | WR | North Carolina St. Wolfpack
2002 9. Jacksonville: DT John Henderson, Tennessee
2003 9. Minnesota (passed on 7 and 8 ): KEVIN WILLIAMS DT OKLAHOMA STATE
2004 9. Jacksonville: WR Reggie Williams
2005 9. Washington: Carlos Rogers CB AUBURN

For the most part #9 picks seem unimpressive...hopefully Millen can get Urlacher quality [-o<

_________________
Regards, Alpha|Lionbacker.com \(^o^)/
"I date this girl for two years and then the nagging starts: I wanna know your name..." - Mike Binder


Last edited by theAlphaMale on January 11th, 2006, 3:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.



January 11th, 2006, 3:15 pm
Profile WWW
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pm
Posts: 2478
Location: Michigan
Post 
Maybe A.J. Hawk will be there - and don't get the board started on DJ

_________________
[b]New York Giants 26 - San Fransisco 3 - CandleStick Park - Who's got it better than us???[/b]


January 11th, 2006, 3:23 pm
Profile WWW
Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: January 4th, 2006, 6:26 pm
Posts: 939
Location: romulus, mi
Post 
But how many 10th,, 11th, or 12th picks have been good. The pick position means nothing it is all about who is available and not to make a bad pick.


January 11th, 2006, 6:17 pm
Profile
Post 
jrlax wrote:
But how many 10th,, 11th, or 12th picks have been good. The pick position means nothing it is all about who is available and not to make a bad pick.


I don't know if I agree with that in its entirety. The problem with the 8th-13th spots are it seems that teams look to fill a position warranting the high selection. How many OG's have been taken top 10? SS, FS, K, P, 4-3 OLB, and perhaps even 4-3 MLB's though occasionally selected that high would seem to be under represented as well. Qbs, Wrs, Rbs, OTs and to a lesser degree DEs and DTs seem to be the major targets when a team is picking that high - and for good reason. Players in those positions that play at a high level seem to disproportionately effect their teams performance.

The problem with the 8th - 13th or so spots is the amount of $$$ you pay to sign them (no one wants to pay a punter/kicker, kick returner, ect. the kinda money that a top 10 pick generates), and the fact that the top rated players at each of the respective player positions have been drafted by the time the 8th-13th selections take place. It's not a guarantee that the top rated players will succeed and the 2nd rate players will bust... in fact it's not even guaranteed that the 7th rate players will bust. But it seems to a much higher degree the TOP 2nd rate players fail and the lower 2nd rate players succeed. I don't know if it is because they're forced to work for real cash while the upper players don't have the prestige of being first at their position off the board and get paid well from draft day on, or if it is something else. But if you look at players like Heinz Ward who was (I believe) a 2nd rounder or so, or players like Clayton who were passed over in favor of other WR's, they seem to play better than the 2nd or 3rd best at thier position in their respective draft year. The same seems to ring true for other positions... Cedric Benson was a high pick but far from the top back off the board... Maybe there are just a few overwhelming examples that are scewing my perception on the matter, but it seems that to a greater degree teams "reach" when picking in our draft position to fill a need rather than picking the most talented player.

That said, I am in no way shape or form an advocate of the BPA approach in its purest form. Except to take some "special talent," you have to fill a need when picking that high even if it means over-looking someone that is "the next best overall prospect." I would imagine that many had Merriman, James, or Pollack rated further down their draft board than Mike Williams, but any of them would have helped our team to a greater degree than did Mike last season (or any other WR in the draft for that matter), and IMO the same rings true for seasons to come. Certainly a need can pop up later via an injury or suspension and make the pick look better or even good. Still, picks shouldn't be made in terms of a possible future need when more pressing current needs remain unaddressed.


January 11th, 2006, 11:31 pm
#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 am
Posts: 1427
Post 
Quote:
That said, I am in no way shape or form an advocate of the BPA approach in its purest form. Except to take some "special talent," you have to fill a need when picking that high even if it means over-looking someone that is "the next best overall prospect." I would imagine that many had Merriman, James, or Pollack rated further down their draft board than Mike Williams, but any of them would have helped our team to a greater degree than did Mike last season


GREAT POST!


I think too many teams feel pressured to take a certain "impact player" when they have the chance. That was our situation last year with Mike Williams.......when a trade down would have landed us an extra pick we definitely could have used.......AND we could have drafted a player later that fit our "needs" better while still representing good value.

I've said it before, but I feel D'Brick, super "Mario", and A.J. Hawk are the only 3 players I'd want us to pick at #9 right now. Maybe Winston Justice could be included since some scouts feel he is as good of an athlete as Ferguson.........but he still has character issues that must be contemplated.


After those 3 players.........I don't see any other single player that is a far SUPERIOR talent to what we could land somewhere in the #12 to #16 range........and getting an extra 3rd rounder would be HUGE to address needs at FS, MLB, TE, OG, back-up QB, possibly back-up RB.


With only 3 picks in the first 4 rounds............we are going to have trouble adequately filling holes on the depth chart with anything other than stop-gap FAs......so it would be MUCH more valuable to trade down even IF we miss a particular player. It seems like every year that people forget there are many good players still left in the 2nd round.......let alone the mid-to-late first round.


January 12th, 2006, 2:18 pm
Profile
Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: January 4th, 2006, 6:26 pm
Posts: 939
Location: romulus, mi
Post 
wjb21ndtown wrote:
jrlax wrote:
But how many 10th,, 11th, or 12th picks have been good. The pick position means nothing it is all about who is available and not to make a bad pick.


I don't know if I agree with that in its entirety. The problem with the 8th-13th spots are it seems that teams look to fill a position warranting the high selection. How many OG's have been taken top 10? SS, FS, K, P, 4-3 OLB, and perhaps even 4-3 MLB's though occasionally selected that high would seem to be under represented as well. Qbs, Wrs, Rbs, OTs and to a lesser degree DEs and DTs seem to be the major targets when a team is picking that high - and for good reason. Players in those positions that play at a high level seem to disproportionately effect their teams performance.

The problem with the 8th - 13th or so spots is the amount of $$$ you pay to sign them (no one wants to pay a punter/kicker, kick returner, ect. the kinda money that a top 10 pick generates), and the fact that the top rated players at each of the respective player positions have been drafted by the time the 8th-13th selections take place. It's not a guarantee that the top rated players will succeed and the 2nd rate players will bust... in fact it's not even guaranteed that the 7th rate players will bust. But it seems to a much higher degree the TOP 2nd rate players fail and the lower 2nd rate players succeed. I don't know if it is because they're forced to work for real cash while the upper players don't have the prestige of being first at their position off the board and get paid well from draft day on, or if it is something else. But if you look at players like Heinz Ward who was (I believe) a 2nd rounder or so, or players like Clayton who were passed over in favor of other WR's, they seem to play better than the 2nd or 3rd best at thier position in their respective draft year. The same seems to ring true for other positions... Cedric Benson was a high pick but far from the top back off the board... Maybe there are just a few overwhelming examples that are scewing my perception on the matter, but it seems that to a greater degree teams "reach" when picking in our draft position to fill a need rather than picking the most talented player.

That said, I am in no way shape or form an advocate of the BPA approach in its purest form. Except to take some "special talent," you have to fill a need when picking that high even if it means over-looking someone that is "the next best overall prospect." I would imagine that many had Merriman, James, or Pollack rated further down their draft board than Mike Williams, but any of them would have helped our team to a greater degree than did Mike last season (or any other WR in the draft for that matter), and IMO the same rings true for seasons to come. Certainly a need can pop up later via an injury or suspension and make the pick look better or even good. Still, picks shouldn't be made in terms of a possible future need when more pressing current needs remain unaddressed.


Players taken in that range are Kevin WIlliams, Shockey, I believe Ed reed.

The number of the pick isn't nothing look at Tom Brady. It is all abouit scouting the player and seeing if they are going to be good and can improve


January 12th, 2006, 7:35 pm
Profile
Post 
jrlax wrote:
Players taken in that range are Kevin WIlliams, Shockey, I believe Ed reed.

The number of the pick isn't nothing look at Tom Brady. It is all abouit scouting the player and seeing if they are going to be good and can improve


Jrlax... Kevin Williams is a good example of a quality player at a high profile position that was taken at 9 and worked out. He also wasn't the top DT in the draft which makes him more impressive IMO.

However, your other examples seem to support rather than hurt my thoughts on the 8th-12th spot. They are all players that play positions that are typically not coveted to such high spots (S, TE).

You use Tom Brady as an example, but he was passed on too many times by too many teams to support the notion of "good scouting"... If NE had any inclination that he would be that good they would have taken him on the first day.

There are years when there are two great prospects at any given position, and both players (or in some cases even the 2nd player over the first) work out and play well (Emmit and Barry for instance). However, it just seems that teams are inclined to reach for high profile positions and 2nd tier players when they're picking in the 8th-12th spots.

Alpha's list of mostly lack-luster players taken 9th since the 1990's sheds at least some insight on the matter, but I think it would be interesting to look at picks 8th-12. It would also be interesting to look at picks that took the 2nd player (or even 2nd tier of player) at that relative position in the draft, and picks that were not of a generally coveted top 10 pick (picks that took a TE, FS, SS, ext.).


January 13th, 2006, 2:16 am
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3698
Location: WSU
Post 
wjb - i like your original post especially the first part where you talk about how teams prioritize the 1st round to certain positions. You are right, teams end up with a choice of lower rated players at impact positions like DT, DE or OT or CB vs a shot at the best prospects at other slots like S, TE, OG, MLB. Would you rather have the 4th best DE or the #1 safety. I think spots 8-13 is a little too early for your theory though, maybe 12-17 would be better approximation.

BTW Barry and Emmitt were not in the same draft.


January 13th, 2006, 11:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.