If you had the top overall pick, would you take....?

[Abe Sargent]

I had an idea just now. Suppose you were the GM of a team that had a need at every position, but not significant super heavy need, if that makes sense. Suppose you have the top overall pick. You cannot trade down. You have to pick at #1

Now, suppose you knew of a player in the draft ahead of time. Someone whom you know the career for that person. That player is good, but not great. What I am going to do is give you that player's name, and you have two choices. Draft them or draft any other random player at #1.

In other words this is basically, choose the good, not not spectacular known quantity rookie or just go top overall unknown rookie quantity.

This is round one. Enjoy this, and I'll post another later.

Would you draft Dorsey Levens as a rookie in the top spot, knowing how his career would turn out, or would you take a random top rated rookie?


-Abe

[finketr]

isn't dorsey levens retired from the packers?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

No question at all to me. I'd rather risk Barry Sanders being Blair Thomas or Dan Marino being Scott Mitchell than take a sure thing that is average. Sometimes you got to gamble.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by finketr

isn't dorsey levens retired from the packers?

Yes, but the question is would you take Dorsey as a rookie, knowing what he'd dom over the random top rated rookie?

[Anthony]

the goal of any draft isn't to find players that won't bust, but to find spectacular players who'll help you win a championship. average players or players that are just "good" aren't enough. you gotta swing for the fences and try to get those Tom Brady's and Jerry Rice's, cuz those are the difference makers and the guys that will put your team over the top. Levens is what i call a neutral player - he won't win a game for you but he won't be the reason you lose either. RB is too important of a position to just take a safe player. maybe RT or a DT.

[rkmsuf]

I thought Dorsey Levens was retired???

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

RB is too important of a position to just take a safe player.

Seriously? Running back is probably the least important position in the NFL at this point. Totally fungible. Notice how all the "stud RBs" seem to have "stud backups?" Its because the line is what makes the running game, not the runner. Some are great, and some are not great, but its not important enought that you spend 1.1 on it (in the real NFL). When's the last time a year with a top 10 draft pick running back won a superbowl? 99?

Theres only 3 positions possibly worth spending 1.1 on: LT, QB, DE


And yes, I cheered the texans when they made the right move and DIDNT draft reggie bush.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

the goal of any draft isn't to find players that won't bust, but to find spectacular players who'll help you win a championship.

Agree completely. Levens was a decent back for a number of years, but especially at RB, you can get by with lower round draft picks or undrafted free agents much more easily than you can at other harder-to-find positions. With all needs being neutral on the team, I would probably take the top-rated QB or possibly Left Tackle, but I would definitely select a top-rated rookie over Levens.

[MIJB#19]

Looking at Dorsey Levens' career stats, I'd prefer the gamble.

				Rushing					Receiving
Year	Team	G	GS	Att	Yds	Avg	Lg	TD	Rec	Yds	Avg	Lg	TD
1994	Green Bay Packers (NFL)	14	0	5	15	3.0	5	0	1	9	9.0	9	0
1995	Green Bay Packers (NFL)	15	12	36	120	3.3	22	3	48	434	9.0	27	4
1996	Green Bay Packers (NFL)	16	1	121	566	4.7	24	5	31	226	7.3	49	5
1997	Green Bay Packers (NFL)	16	16	329	1435	4.4	52t	7	53	370	7.0	56	5
1998	Green Bay Packers (NFL)	7	4	115	378	3.3	50	1	27	162	6.0	17	0
1999	Green Bay Packers (NFL)	14	14	279	1034	3.7	36	9	71	573	8.1	53	1
2000	Green Bay Packers (NFL)	5	5	77	224	2.9	17	3	16	146	9.1	37	0
2001	Green Bay Packers (NFL)	15	1	44	165	3.8	40	0	24	159	6.6	19	1
2002	Philadelphia Eagles (NFL)	16	0	75	411	5.5	47t	1	19	124	6.5	24	1
2003	New York Giants (NFL)	11	0	68	197	2.9	17	3	5	39	7.8	11	0
2004	Philadelphia Eagles (NFL)	15	5	94	410	4.4	45	4	9	92	10.2	23	0
NFL Totals		144	58	1243	4955	4.0	52t	36	304	2334	7.7	56	17

Stats source: FootballDB.com

[rkmsuf]

'fungible' sighting

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

the goal of any draft isn't to find players that won't bust, but to find spectacular players who'll help you win a championship. average players or players that are just "good" aren't enough. you gotta swing for the fences and try to get those Tom Brady's and Jerry Rice's, cuz those are the difference makers and the guys that will put your team over the top. Levens is what i call a neutral player - he won't win a game for you but he won't be the reason you lose either. RB is too important of a position to just take a safe player. maybe RT or a DT.

No, with the salary cap, the goal is to maximize value. A sucky player you're paying a lot hurts much more than not getting a star player.

With the amount of $$$ paid out to top picks, teams need to be MUCH more risk averse here. You gamble on the later rounds where it doesn't cost you as much if you fail.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Seriously? Running back is probably the least important position in the NFL at this point. Totally fungible. Notice how all the "stud RBs" seem to have "stud backups?" Its because the line is what makes the running game, not the runner. Some are great, and some are not great, but its not important enought that you spend 1.1 on it (in the real NFL). When's the last time a year with a top 10 draft pick running back won a superbowl? 99?

Theres only 3 positions possibly worth spending 1.1 on: LT, QB, DE


And yes, I cheered the texans when they made the right move and DIDNT draft reggie bush.

+1

although I might include MLB too
--thinking Ray Lewis, Urlacher

[bhlloy]

Looking at the stats, I had no idea Levens was so freaking average. I wouldn't take him in the first round, let alone consider him at #1.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Looking at the stats, I had no idea Levens was so freaking average. I wouldn't take him in the first round, let alone consider him at #1.

LOL. tru nuff

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Seriously? Running back is probably the least important position in the NFL at this point.

tell that to John Elway, who didn't win a championship until Terrell Davis.

tell that to Dan Marino, who was never paired with a Pro Bowl calibre RB.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Looking at the stats, I had no idea Levens was so freaking average. I wouldn't take him in the first round, let alone consider him at #1.

Seriously. I remembered him being quite a bit better than he apparently actually was.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Theres only 3 positions possibly worth spending 1.1 on: LT, QB, DE

Why DE and not DT? Doesn't make sense to me. Good DT's are a lot harder to find than good rush ends.

[MalcPow]

I can see where you're going, but Dorsey Levens isn't going to tease things out all that well. Considering what people are saying about runningbacks being so interchangeable, what if it was Curtis Martin instead of Levens?

With Martin you're getting 10 straight 1000 yard seasons, but probably a guy that no one would ever have called dominant or elite. Probably not even a guy you can build an offense around really either, just a good, reliable, and (until the end) durable and productive back for a long time. Do you take a guy like that, or do you hope your 1.1 QB is Carson Palmer and not Tim Couch, David Carr, Alex Smith, etc?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

tell that to John Elway, who didn't win a championship until Terrell Davis.

tell that to Dan Marino, who was never paired with a Pro Bowl calibre RB.

And tell me how much of their success was due to O-Lines capable (or not) of quality run blocking versus the skill of the running back.

Skill position players without an offensive line are useless.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

And tell me how much of their success was due to O-Lines capable (or not) of quality run blocking versus the skill of the running back.

Skill position players without an offensive line are useless.

Isn't the smart way to build a team from the inside out? Start with both lines and then up the middle..qb, lb, rb and then outside to wr/cb. Seems like the formula.

Especially for a bad team that is picking number one. Normally a good running back is virtually useless on those teams big picture wise.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

+1

although I might include MLB too
--thinking Ray Lewis, Urlacher

I wouldn't.

Lewis and Urlacher both become totally inneffective when the guys in front of them decline. Neither one of them is big/strong enough to consistently get off blocks (even by TEs). They both rely on bigger guys in front of them to give them a clear route to the ball. The studs on those two defenses are Tommy Harris and Kelly Gregg/Haoli Ngata, not Urlacher and Lewis.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Why DE and not DT? Doesn't make sense to me. Good DT's are a lot harder to find than good rush ends.

I'd include 3-4 DTs actually, but not 4-3s. Good rush ends aren't tough to find. Ends that are dominant against both the pass and run are extremely rare (Seymour, Peppers, Taylor are the few that come to mind)


Basically, really big bodies that can move. Theres not a whole lot of them on earth. Theres a lot of 6-0 220lb guys who can move.

[stevew]

You'd be fired before Levens even hits that 1400 yard season in yr 4. A better choice for the poll would be someone like Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin or Fred Taylor....always very good players, but typically not considered top 5 at their position at any point in time.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Do you take a guy like that, or do you hope your 1.1 QB is Carson Palmer and not Tim Couch, David Carr, Alex Smith, etc?

This is the key question. Levens turned out to be a surprisingly bad subject (seems like everyone remembers him being good)

At the end of the day, it all comes down to need. Blanket statements like "you must take LT, DE, QB" are all well and good, but quite conceivably the Patriots could have ended up with the #1 pick this year if the Niners had been a bit worse. I don't think they need any of those positions and sometimes trading out isn't an option. As a Chargers fan, I would take LT in a heartbeat at #1. I would do a Ditka and trade an entire draft for him. This team would be still going 2-14 without him.

[SteveMax58]

I agree with Synovia & Fighter of Foo's points.

To me, RB isnt worth the top spot...let alone guaranteed mediocrity in Levens. Plus, as stated, there are multiple needs on this team picking #1 overall(as is typical of a team with that pick).

I'd even rather get the best Guard available...at least there is a better possibility of paying for a player who will start & contribute on every snap for the next 10 years. I say that though, without knowing the remaining players available.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

tell that to John Elway, who didn't win a championship until Terrell Davis.

tell that to Dan Marino, who was never paired with a Pro Bowl calibre RB.

Seems to be working well with Manning (addai at 1.30) and Brady (with maroney at 1.27 or so, and Faulk in the 3rd).


You're talking pre-cap football, which is totally irrelevant.

[Abe Sargent]

Don;t worry, I'll pst another position in a fe whours, and don;t worry, this is is much closer. HE'll get you talking!

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I wouldn't.

Lewis and Urlacher both become totally inneffective when the guys in front of them decline. Neither one of them is big/strong enough to consistently get off blocks (even by TEs). They both rely on bigger guys in front of them to give them a clear route to the ball. The studs on those two defenses are Tommy Harris and Kelly Gregg/Haoli Ngata, not Urlacher and Lewis.

This seems to focus entirely on run defense where Urlacher is merely a good tackler with range, and does need solid guys in front of him and space to pursue. What makes Urlacher special is how deep he can run down the middle in pass coverage and the number of throws he alters, intercepts, or otherwise disrupts by being a very good pass defender. The Bears D is able to do a lot of things they otherwise wouldn't be able to do from trying to jump routes and jam receivers because Urlacher can get deep down the middle and the safeties can help on the outside. There really aren't many or any other merely good run defenders who can do things like that. (I still wouldn't take an MLB at 1.1, but don't discount what the great ones do.)

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

This is the key question. Levens turned out to be a surprisingly bad subject (seems like everyone remembers him being good)

At the end of the day, it all comes down to need. Blanket statements like "you must take LT, DE, QB" are all well and good, but quite conceivably the Patriots could have ended up with the #1 pick this year if the Niners had been a bit worse.

The patriots didnt need a DE in 2003. They didnt need a DT in 2004.

If the patriots had 1.1 this year, and couldn't trade it, they'd most likely take Jake Long, play him at RT next year and move Kazcur to the floating backup spot, and then hope to move Long to LT and Light to RT the year after.

Picking BPA every year is why the patriots are so good. You can find a spot for a great player, whether or not its a position of need.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

This seems to focus entirely on run defense where Urlacher is merely a good tackler with range, and does need solid guys in front of him and space to pursue. What makes Urlacher special is how deep he can run down the middle in pass coverage and the number of throws he alters, intercepts, or otherwise disrupts by being a very good pass defender.

Right, but a lot of Urlacher being able to do that is because he doesn't have to play run first, because Tommy Harris is such a monster. He's free to play pass. Urlacher is a good 4-3 coverage linebacker.

He's good, but not nearly as good as he looks most of the time, just like Asante Samuel isn't nearly as good as he looks. Great line play helps everyone arount it.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by Synovia

The patriots didnt need a DE in 2003. They didnt need a DT in 2004.

If the patriots had 1.1 this year, and couldn't trade it, they'd most likely take Jake Long, play him at RT next year and move Kazcur to the floating backup spot, and then hope to move Long to LT and Light to RT the year after.

Picking BPA every year is why the patriots are so good. You can find a spot for a great player, whether or not its a position of need.

Not trying to pick on you even though I've quoted you twice, just think there are points to argue here. The Pats did need a DE in 2003 when they drafted Ty Warren because McGinest was in his 30s and they definitely needed a DT in 2004 because their DT the year before, Ted Washington, was entering his LATE 30s. In fact, I'd argue the Pats always draft need and not BPA, they just make sure they grab the best player they can at their need position. All their first rounders in the Belichick era have been driven by need (and for poor Chad Jackson, who might as well have been a first, that need has evaporated).

Long would be a decent pick, but I think they'd do the need thing and trade down no matter whether they're getting great value to grab LB help if they were at 1.1.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Not trying to pick on you even though I've quoted you twice, just think there are points to argue here. The Pats did need a DE in 2003 when they drafted Ty Warren because McGinest was in his 30s and they definitely needed a DT in 2004 because their DT the year before, Ted Washington, was entering his LATE 30s. In fact, I'd argue the Pats always draft need and not BPA, they just make sure they grab the best player they can at their need position. All their first rounders in the Belichick era have been driven by need (and for poor Chad Jackson, who might as well have been a first, that need has evaporated).

Long would be a decent pick, but I think they'd do the need thing and trade down no matter whether they're getting great value to grab LB help if they were at 1.1.

They won't grab a LB. Bellichick has never really played rookie LBs. It seems that in his system, absolute physical skills are not as important as always making the correct reads. He definitely prefers vets (colvin, vrabel, thomas, seau, all drafted by other teams) I don't think a single rookie linebacker has started a game for the patriots since bellichick arrived (not that I can remember).

As to Warren, Jarvis Green was already a pretty decent DE at that point. There was no need. McGinnest plays a totally different position, and Rosey Colvin was signed to replace him.

Yes, Ted Washington was getting older, but hes STILL playing. Good NTs tend to play forever, again, only so many big guys who can move.






Chad Jackson should be fine, in that hes making NO money. Stallworth and/or Kelly Washington are gone. I honestly think Washington has a better chance of making the team next year (lower cap number, great specialteamer) than Stallworth. I think he's lost his spot to Gaffney, who makes close to vet-min.

[rkmsuf]

that's why the pats are smart. it was obvious ted washington was pretty much all done. and javis green was and still is very one dimensional. put in a different role I'd suggest Green wouldn't be playing as well as he does at times. whoever picks the groceries knows what they are doing picking interior linemen.

as for lb they drafted tully banta cain who made a lot of money just existing on the pats. other than that the only other guy I think was the immortal Hakim Akbar.

this is precisely why they probably take a lb. time to zag instead of zig.

[Fidatelo]

If Mike Shanahan has taught us anything besides how to abuse timeouts when the other team is about to kick a field goal, it's that running backs are mostly interchangeable.

[B & B]

Shanny is known for two things: RBBC and the late ice. So true.

[RomaGoth]

I think people remember Dorsey Levens being so good was because of the passing game the Packers had in the 90's. Their passing game opened up running lanes for a mediocre Dorsey Levens.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I think people remember Dorsey Levens being so good was because of the passing game the Packers had in the 90's. Their passing game opened up running lanes for a mediocre Dorsey Levens.

No it's because when he was up and coming his team was really good and in superbowls. had the one fantastic season at the height of packer mania in 1997.

[Toddzilla]

Jeez, isn't Dorsey Levins kind of old? I mean if he could still play, he would be. No way I waste a pick on that guy.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

I can see where you're going, but Dorsey Levens isn't going to tease things out all that well. Considering what people are saying about runningbacks being so interchangeable, what if it was Curtis Martin instead of Levens?

With Martin you're getting 10 straight 1000 yard seasons, but probably a guy that no one would ever have called dominant or elite. Probably not even a guy you can build an offense around really either, just a good, reliable, and (until the end) durable and productive back for a long time. Do you take a guy like that, or do you hope your 1.1 QB is Carson Palmer and not Tim Couch, David Carr, Alex Smith, etc?

Agreed. Would have been much closer with Martin than Levens. I looked up his numbers before I scrolled down to see they were posted here and didn't see how this could be any sort of contest.

[Fidatelo]

Who are the 2 people that chose Dorsey? Is it possible to see that somehow? I need to make note of this in case I need to shut them down in a debate some day.

[Jas_lov]

Dorsey Levens was a great Packer. I'd pick him anyday of the week.

[Fidatelo]

I shouldn't have been surprised by this.

[Balldog]

I'd take someone else, Levens is an average running back. He also benefited greatly from having Favre as his QB. He is also not worth 1.1 money.

[CU Tiger]

Id take Kijana Carter over Dorsey Levins....

[Izulde]

I'm surprised so many people remember Levens as good.