What Went Right & What Went Wrong

Boston Saint · 08-18-2023, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by BakoSaint

I never said we should never draft oline in the 1st round. But since 2015 we have drafted 5 oline in the 1st round, zero in the 3rd, two in the 4th, and zero in the 5th. We are ok at drafting oline in the 1st but Ramczyk is our biggest hit. Meanwhile with midround picks on oline over the years we have hit on Armstead, Evans, Nicks, and Bushrod, like half our mid round picks on oline have been starters and like one third pro bowlers.

I feel like a very 1st round heavy and mid-round light drafting strategy for oline is bad for our team. The result is a line of players who were entitled to start from day 1 bc they are 1st round picks and then a group of backups who are mostly journeymen, udfa, or very late rounds and dont have the physical tools to push them. Guys like Peat and Ruiz can feel entitled coming out of the draft bc they dont really have to compete, and as they dont progress they can still start bc the guy pushing them is an udfa without the size or athletics to match them, so they still feel like heroes without having to work. If you get two mid-rounders and one first round pick, the mid rounders have to compete to start, the 1st rounder sees a healthy competition and feels maybe he needs to compete too. If you just take two 1st rounders they both get entitled and maybe one of them works hard anyway and the other doesnt, but it doesnt matter they both start. And then if one gets hurt the udfa backup comes in and doesnt have the tools usually so you lose and blame injury. But if you have a bunch of depth from the mid rounds, your backup will be better, and can even compete to keep his job when the starter comes back. So I just think the strategy of building an oline from 5 first rounders who are all slated to start from day 1 (even if there is sometimes a 1 year wait with some impending free agent we dont plan to resign) is a bad way to build a team. You need competition. UDFA and journeyman are often not enough to provide it. Add to that we are great at finding gems on oline in the mid rounds, half our picks there perform like 1st rounders. We just refuse to pick oline much there since after our success at it in 06-08.

Fair enough. Seems to me that over that time period that the line was stable enough and they addressed deficiencies enough with multiple 1st rounder picks and trades/signings that adding 3-4 rounders either a) would not have made a difference and b) would have neglected other positions of need. I could be wrong. Just seems a pretty specific complaint though.

BakoSaint · 08-18-2023, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Boston Saint

Fair enough. Seems to me that over that time period that the line was stable enough and they addressed deficiencies enough with multiple 1st rounder picks and trades/signings that adding 3-4 rounders either a) would not have made a difference and b) would have neglected other positions of need. I could be wrong. Just seems a pretty specific complaint though.

I agree that the line was stable ON PAPER. I feel like we built a paper oline by neglecting the mid rounds. I think where that got us was a guy like Peat never got pushed, like imagine if we had taken a mid-round guard and they turned into what our mid-round guard picks in the past had turned into about half the time, like a Nicks or Evans. Then Peat loses his spot, has to work harder to get back in the mix, and we have depth and flexibility. Or Ruiz. I am glad he came around now. But maybe if he has competition he comes around better and faster. But ultimately its all about depth. It seems like our formula on oline is to stack up 5 starters, maybe one depth guy maybe, and the rest is udfa and journeymen nobodies. So whenever we have one injury on oline half the oline shifts positions because we 'value versatility' as an alternative to actual depth, and then some nobody comes in for an injury, and we blame the season on it.

With all the oline injuries we had over the years, I can't imagine it wouldn't have made a difference to have 4th rounders subbing in versus UDFA. And if one of those 4th rounders becomes a Nicks or Evans, that definitely makes a difference.

As far as neglecting other positions, a big thing would be trading up less, because we flush so many round 3-5 picks trading up. We could draft the same positions 12 picks later and have way better oline depth and maybe the same player we would have picked falls to us, maybe not. There is no guarantee Davenport would not have fallen to us if we waited, though he was a bust anyway. We also drafted Garrett Grayson when we were many years from moving on from Brees, and now we drafted Jake Haener where if he was great, the cap pain of moving on from Derek Carr and Jameis Winston and Taysom Hill would mean he would have to be the greatest QB of all time and be able to succeed even if we let the entire offense walk and surrounded him with 2022 Houston Texans caliber weapons, which is what we would need to do to afford moving on from Carr and company. I guess the timing was better for the Ian Cook experiment but the result was poor and again, if we have a long history of hitting shots on mid rounds guards and a long history missing shots on mid round QBs, why not take the shot you have shown you can hit?

08-18-2023, 10:17 AM	#1
Boston Saint 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Nov 2020 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 5,137	Re: What Went Right & What Went Wrong Originally Posted by BakoSaint I never said we should never draft oline in the 1st round. But since 2015 we have drafted 5 oline in the 1st round, zero in the 3rd, two in the 4th, and zero in the 5th. We are ok at drafting oline in the 1st but Ramczyk is our biggest hit. Meanwhile with midround picks on oline over the years we have hit on Armstead, Evans, Nicks, and Bushrod, like half our mid round picks on oline have been starters and like one third pro bowlers. I feel like a very 1st round heavy and mid-round light drafting strategy for oline is bad for our team. The result is a line of players who were entitled to start from day 1 bc they are 1st round picks and then a group of backups who are mostly journeymen, udfa, or very late rounds and dont have the physical tools to push them. Guys like Peat and Ruiz can feel entitled coming out of the draft bc they dont really have to compete, and as they dont progress they can still start bc the guy pushing them is an udfa without the size or athletics to match them, so they still feel like heroes without having to work. If you get two mid-rounders and one first round pick, the mid rounders have to compete to start, the 1st rounder sees a healthy competition and feels maybe he needs to compete too. If you just take two 1st rounders they both get entitled and maybe one of them works hard anyway and the other doesnt, but it doesnt matter they both start. And then if one gets hurt the udfa backup comes in and doesnt have the tools usually so you lose and blame injury. But if you have a bunch of depth from the mid rounds, your backup will be better, and can even compete to keep his job when the starter comes back. So I just think the strategy of building an oline from 5 first rounders who are all slated to start from day 1 (even if there is sometimes a 1 year wait with some impending free agent we dont plan to resign) is a bad way to build a team. You need competition. UDFA and journeyman are often not enough to provide it. Add to that we are great at finding gems on oline in the mid rounds, half our picks there perform like 1st rounders. We just refuse to pick oline much there since after our success at it in 06-08. Fair enough. Seems to me that over that time period that the line was stable enough and they addressed deficiencies enough with multiple 1st rounder picks and trades/signings that adding 3-4 rounders either a) would not have made a difference and b) would have neglected other positions of need. I could be wrong. Just seems a pretty specific complaint though.

08-18-2023, 01:50 PM	#2
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,425	Re: What Went Right & What Went Wrong Originally Posted by Boston Saint Fair enough. Seems to me that over that time period that the line was stable enough and they addressed deficiencies enough with multiple 1st rounder picks and trades/signings that adding 3-4 rounders either a) would not have made a difference and b) would have neglected other positions of need. I could be wrong. Just seems a pretty specific complaint though. I agree that the line was stable ON PAPER. I feel like we built a paper oline by neglecting the mid rounds. I think where that got us was a guy like Peat never got pushed, like imagine if we had taken a mid-round guard and they turned into what our mid-round guard picks in the past had turned into about half the time, like a Nicks or Evans. Then Peat loses his spot, has to work harder to get back in the mix, and we have depth and flexibility. Or Ruiz. I am glad he came around now. But maybe if he has competition he comes around better and faster. But ultimately its all about depth. It seems like our formula on oline is to stack up 5 starters, maybe one depth guy maybe, and the rest is udfa and journeymen nobodies. So whenever we have one injury on oline half the oline shifts positions because we 'value versatility' as an alternative to actual depth, and then some nobody comes in for an injury, and we blame the season on it. With all the oline injuries we had over the years, I can't imagine it wouldn't have made a difference to have 4th rounders subbing in versus UDFA. And if one of those 4th rounders becomes a Nicks or Evans, that definitely makes a difference. As far as neglecting other positions, a big thing would be trading up less, because we flush so many round 3-5 picks trading up. We could draft the same positions 12 picks later and have way better oline depth and maybe the same player we would have picked falls to us, maybe not. There is no guarantee Davenport would not have fallen to us if we waited, though he was a bust anyway. We also drafted Garrett Grayson when we were many years from moving on from Brees, and now we drafted Jake Haener where if he was great, the cap pain of moving on from Derek Carr and Jameis Winston and Taysom Hill would mean he would have to be the greatest QB of all time and be able to succeed even if we let the entire offense walk and surrounded him with 2022 Houston Texans caliber weapons, which is what we would need to do to afford moving on from Carr and company. I guess the timing was better for the Ian Cook experiment but the result was poor and again, if we have a long history of hitting shots on mid rounds guards and a long history missing shots on mid round QBs, why not take the shot you have shown you can hit?
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,425