Dibs

What he said.

There's always exceptions but.....you're preaching to the converted there my friend.

You've inspired me.... Here are 1st/2nd/3rd DLmen choices for all teams over the last 8 drafts......10-6 records or better in bold.....5-11 records or worse in red. Vikings 4/2/0 Eagles 4/1/3 Rams 4/0/2 Texans 4/0/1 Saints 3/1/1 Patriots 3/1/0 Cowboys 3/0/1 Jets 3/0/0 Chiefs 2/3/2 ***Bills 2/3/2*** Ravens 2/3/0 Cardinals 2/2/3 Giants 2/2/2 Bears 2/2/1 Packers 2/0/3 Bengals 2/0/1 Browns 2/0/0 Jaguars 2/0/0 Broncos 1/2/2 Titans 1/2/2 49ers 1/2/1 Steelers 1/2/1 Colts 1/2/1 Seahawks 1/2/1 Panthers 1/1/2 Falcons 1/1/1 Buccaneers 1/1/0 Chargers 1/1/0 Raiders 1/0/2 Lions 0/4/1 Dolphins 0/1/0 Redskins 0/0/0 I conclusively conclude that any conclusion is inconclusive.

I fail to see how this is a good move for the Chiefs. This board has been crazy about 'building the lines' lately and yet it seems to be a relative consensus good move that the Chiefs get rid of one of the best young pass rushing DEs in the league. What a combo Allen/Hali might have been for them over the next 5-8 years. Draft picks are over-valued. They get the #17 pick & a couple of 3rd rounders. The #17 pick gives them a 50% chance of getting a bust......with obviously a much smaller chance of getting a player as good as Allen. 2 3rd rounders......chances are slim. It would be perhaps different if he was old but he is only entering his 5th season & is 26 years old. Bad move by the Chiefs IMO.

Have a good one.

Is that a fact?

BINGO! ....and if that does not happen(most often at the QB position) teams will keep spending resources(not just draft picks) on filling that position. Conversely, if a team has filled a position through whatever means(FA, later round picks, etc) they will not spend as many resources on that position. Why is this soooooo hard for certain posters here to understand?

Of course it is disputed! In previous threads I showed that the positions selected in the 7 drafts for teams leading up to a SB appearance was no different than the rest of the league. If people really really want I will use his 'point' system on those 10 SB teams in the 7 drafts leading up to their appearances(far more relevant than the latest 7 drafts).....as well as every team for the last 7 drafts.....and it will show absolutely no correlation to what he is saying. I am a BIG believer in building the lines. I am a BIGGER believer in putting forward information in a manner that does not try to distort the facts. NO THEY DON'T!!!!! Are you following this at all? Productivity of position is not being discussed at all.....which is a major flaw in the whole premise of studying draft selections. In relation to the original premise that 'good teams spend more resources on the DL in the draft' I showed that the Giants actually spent more on the DB position(using AKCs system). What does that prove? It does not say that the way to build a team is to by drafting DBs. It does however say that to say 'good teams spend more resources on the DL in the draft' is not correct. In order for it to be correct, one would have to show the drafting percentages of all teams.....compared to those of teams preceding their SB appearances. A team that drafts DL often but busts out on most of those picks(i.e. Browns 200-2001....Cardinals 1996-2003) has no success. AKC won't even adapted his premise to 'successful' drafting of DLmen. The theory as it stands is just plain incorrect. *In context.....as I said....I am a BIG believer in building a team through the lines. The point is that there are many, many ways to do this & trying to force the concept that 'successful teams draft DLmen more than unsuccessful teams' by distorting numbers is disingenuous & stupid.*

If you really want to establish a correlation to the draft.....even though it is just one of many, many factors in building a team.....and you want to compare it to superbowl teams.......then you should analyse the 7 drafts leading up to each superbowl teams record NOT the latest 7 drafts. The reasons for doing this are IMO obvious. It would show the draft trends leading up to the teams pinnacle achievement.....not after. Also, since one singular team comprises a full 40% of the data(Pats) using a system of stagnant drafting analysis skews the result greatly in favour of that one team......in this case heavy DL drafting. I can only imagine that you have chosen this particular methodology of studying the draft to not actually garner information in order to find a trend......but to actually attempt to prove a long running theory you have. Using your system with the preceding 7 drafts of each SB appearance..... Giants I was going to waste my time doing all 10 teams(which would definitely show the Steelers used more on WR than DL) but upon doing the Giants......which both of our methods would use the same drafts(the last 7).....I found..... DB 26% DL 21% QB 15% WR 14% TE 13% OL 9% LB 1% RB 0% I can't for the life of me figure what your point could possibly be. DBs lead the way with the Giants. 14% was spent on WRs.....to achieve 14% a team could chose a few in the 2nd or late 1st rounds.....or hit one good one high in the draft(as the Giants did at the QB position(15%). One would actually expect more DL drafting than WR for the simple factor that most teams start 2 WRs & 4(3) DL. If your concern is that the Bills front office does not hold the same philosophy as yourself......just look at the history of where they have chosen to spend their overall resources. They clearly have placed heavy emphasis on the lines. You have tried to prove this theory in the past. It didn't work then just as it doesn't work now. The whole concept is so waaaaay over simplified that apart from the data not actually backing your point, it falls flat against the myriad of other factors involved. Just a simple one......if E.Manning had become a bust instead of a SB winner then the percentage spent at QB would definitely have gone up(thus dropping the other percentages). This would work at all positions. If a high picked DL busts then more resources would need to be spent on the DL than normal.....if a high picked DB or WR busts then ditto. FApickups, injury, later picked gems, UDFA, FA loses......all of these will effect what a team does in regards to their drafting strategy.

It will be interesting to see how the Packers WRs go without Favre throwing to them.

My mistake.....McGee was re-signed under the TD era.....editing main post to reflect this.

PFWs big board has him in rated 37-42......he got my vote.

....and Justin Smith.......and Josh Brown.

.....and that's exactly right. The CB position is not worth elite $$$ in this defense. It was not worth it then & it is not worth it now. How can drafting to obtain a good CB be compared with paying elite money? We need solid CBs(not elite ones).....but that means we still need to find solid CBs(we need 3). If drafting in the 1st helps set us up in that area then why is that such a huge problem? All areas of the team will need to be at least solid to get to SB level.

Many feel(myself included) that the best way to build a team(apart from obtaining a top QB) is to build the offensive & defensive lines. To put a large amount if not a majority of resources into them. When looking at the last 3 off-seasons, 2 seasons & 2 drafts it is clear that the Levy era(including since he left) is of similar views. Re-signings(not including minor backups or 'stopgap' players) DE Schobel......Long term & good money.....multi-probowler DE Kelsay......Long term & good money.....assumed to be worth the money at the time. OT Peters......Long term & decent money.....Probowl LT PR/WR Parrish......Long term & decent money.....Probowl PR, good #3 WR P Moorman......Long term & good money.....Probowl Punter K Lindell......Long term & decent money.....good K FA acquisitions(not including minor backups or 'stopgap' players)(including trades) OG Dockery......Long term & good money.....good LG OT Walker......Long term & good money.....good RT DT Stroud......3 years & good money.....multi-probowl DT LB Mitchell......Long term & decent money.....good LB DT Johnson......Long term & decent money.....good depth/backup DT(same money given as starting LB Mitchell) Draft(1st rounders) S Whitner(8)......position of high need & importance to team.....immediate solid starter DT McCargo(26) RB Lynch(12)......position of high need & importance to team.....immediate solid starter Looking at where the front office is choosing to spend the money it is apparent that they place a very high importance on the lines as well as special teams. Apart from the 3 special teams players(2 probowlers) there has been only one player where significant money has been invested who is not a lineman......and even then it is only $3.5mil/year. I fully expect Evans & Crowell to be re-signed this season for good money but this is only after 7 of 8 big contracts have been allocated to the trenches......with a 1st rounder on top. I personally have no worries about what views management has on the importance of the lines......virtually every major move they have made to date has been spent on either the Lines or Special Teams. This I like.

It's a joke article people. Emmit Smith didn't really write it.

My plan??? Please don't assume what I may or may not prefer. My beef is with people automatically assuming that the can't miss player(in this case a lineman).....(and also in this case is not even one of the premiere talents in the draft) can't miss. History shows consistently that there are as many busts from the 7-13 range as from the 14-20 range.....or the difference is so small it equates to them being the same. Whoever we pick....if we trade up.....if we trade down....if we reach at #11....if a premiere talent drops to #11.....we will not be able to consider them 'can't miss' until they prove themselves on the field and any player taken by us has roughly the same potential to become a star(unless we trade into the top 4ish)

All talent is questionable when selecting in the draft.....to say that 'the players I like' are going to be impact players while the players rated slightly lower will not is unrealistic.

I never realized that playmakers were only gettable from the #11 spot & that at the #19 selection there are only marginal players......thanks for the wise insight.

And what is reasonable? Since he is viewed as a premier receiver by those around the league, a reasonable deal would be him being paid as a premier WR wouldn't it?

Seems like their criteria for non-1st rounders extends to 2nd rounders as well. No Larry Allen either.

What is the point of this?

Have a cry about it why don't you.

I'd say yes......but we'd have to equip all the players on the D with rubber gloves.