LB vs WR vs LT

[Billsrhody]

I posted this in another thread but someone suggested making it a topic... what say you?

 

Lets assume Kuechly, Floyd and Martin all turn out to be great picks and have fantastic NFL careers. For sake of argument, pick one:

 

Patrick Willis

Larry Fitzgerald

Jake Long

 

Who would you pick and why?

 

I'll take Patrick Willis because I don't think you need to have a stud wideout to win a Superbowl. If you have a good enough quarterback then he'll make your WRs better. Having a Jake Long type would be great I have to admit. Taking a stud LT is hard to pass up, but I like having a leader on defense who can make all the plays.

[Captain Hindsight]

Fitz to Fitz has a nice ring to it

 

In a passing league, Ill take the one of the leagues best

[thebandit27]

I posted this in another thread but someone suggested making it a topic... what say you?

 

Lets assume Kuechly, Floyd and Martin all turn out to be great picks and have fantastic NFL careers. For sake of argument, pick one:

 

Patrick Willis

Larry Fitzgerald

Jake Long

 

Who would you pick and why?

 

I'll take Patrick Willis because I don't think you need to have a stud wideout to win a Superbowl. If you have a good enough quarterback then he'll make your WRs better. Having a Jake Long type would be great I have to admit. Taking a stud LT is hard to pass up, but I like having a leader on defense who can make all the plays.

 

I'll just paste my response from the other thread:

 

For this team, right now, I'd take Long. I just think that, of the 3 positions, none raises the level of play of the entire team more than a stud LT. It improves the running game, gives your QB more time, which gives your WRs more opportunity to get open, etc. I also think that a team's LBs will benefit from solid DL play, which we should have this year.

 

Great topic...

[NoSaint]

Well, I think all three will fall short of those comparisons.... But if strictly talking positional value, I'll go LT a shade over wr with lb a clear third.

 

And LT only because I think they are harder to acquire just from a rare body stand point.

Edited April 13, 2012 by NoSaint

[Lurker]

Adding the names of proven all-pros next to unproven draft picks is a bit misleading.

 

While I think OT is clearly the Bills' greatest need (who needs a WR if your QB is on his back all the time), I'd have to take Fitzgerald from your list (he currently ranks fourth all-time in league history in receiving yards per game for a career).

 

The probability of Floyd being that good is a BIG, BIG, BIG if, however...

[Billsrhody]

I'll just paste my response from the other thread:

 

For this team, right now, I'd take Long. I just think that, of the 3 positions, none raises the level of play of the entire team more than a stud LT. It improves the running game, gives your QB more time, which gives your WRs more opportunity to get open, etc. I also think that a team's LBs will benefit from solid DL play, which we should have this year.

 

Great topic...

 

haha thanks for the suggestion.. you get the assist on this thread

Edited April 13, 2012 by Billsrhody

[Kelly the Dog]

That's a really interesting question, and while I know what you are saying about those three guys this year, it's impossible to imagine that any of them will be the players that you are comparing them to.

 

As far as Willis, Fitz and Long go, I think there is a great argument for any of the three, and there is no no brainer.

 

With Willis, it could make the defense a truly dominant one, which alone could make the Bills a Super Bowl contender if it lives up to its clear potential.

 

With Fitz, suddenly the offense could become electric and Stevie even more valuable (as well as Fred and CJ) and the role guys like Nelson and Chandler and BSmith (which is why I love the idea of Floyd at #10 because he has the potential to be a star if he blossoms. A guarantee like Fitz is almost too good to pass up.

 

I voted for Jake Long, however, even though Willis and Fitz are better at their positions than Long is. It seemed to me to be the safest bet for prolonged success. If we get a good solid OL and give Fitz a lot of time, he now has a lot of weapons to spread the ball around to, as well as potentially very good defense, and we would be a contender right away, too, IMO, as long as we stayed relatively healthy.

[Dragonborn10]

I posted this in another thread but someone suggested making it a topic... what say you?

 

Lets assume Kuechly, Floyd and Martin all turn out to be great picks and have fantastic NFL careers. For sake of argument, pick one:

 

Patrick Willis

Larry Fitzgerald

Jake Long

 

Who would you pick and why?

 

I'll take Patrick Willis because I don't think you need to have a stud wideout to win a Superbowl. If you have a good enough quarterback then he'll make your WRs better. Having a Jake Long type would be great I have to admit. Taking a stud LT is hard to pass up, but I like having a leader on defense who can make all the plays.

Long allows your QB time to find the open WR. Put enough WR's in the spread and protect the QB and there is always one open. Willis is great but he doesn't rush the passer. Protect the passer and rush the passer. That is the formula for success.

And possibly for a lesser reason, which position is likely to have a star last longer. I would argue LT>WR>LB.

[BBeck/cuba]

Id take Willis because I love defense and having a top player at LB would really set this unit apart. That being said I belive that LT would be most important for the team to take the next step. I've always had a "build from the trenches" attitude and Oline creates all your offense. They protect your QB, open lanes for your running game and provide your recivers with the time to setup routes.

[Bufcomments]

Fitz to Fitz does sounds nice. A slight edge over Long.

 

You can keep a TE in to block on the left side for more time. Then you would have to deal with Freddie, Spiller, Stevie and Fitz on the outside. Who u cover one one is gonna get beat.

 

Points wins games. That why I choose Fitz.

[uncle flap]

I posted this in another thread but someone suggested making it a topic... what say you?

 

Lets assume Kuechly, Floyd and Martin all turn out to be great picks and have fantastic NFL careers. For sake of argument, pick one:

 

Patrick Willis

Larry Fitzgerald

Jake Long

 

Who would you pick and why?

 

I'll take Patrick Willis because I don't think you need to have a stud wideout to win a Superbowl. If you have a good enough quarterback then he'll make your WRs better. Having a Jake Long type would be great I have to admit. Taking a stud LT is hard to pass up, but I like having a leader on defense who can make all the plays.

 

 

I'm going to assume that you're asking who the Bills should pick at ten between those three. So I voted Floyd/Fitzgerald.

 

I don't disagree with anyone's assessments of how those respective positions impact teams, but let's look at the Bills going into next year: Certainly they'd benefit from an upgrade at all of those positions, so the question now is; which one has the most impact?

 

I'll start with Martin/Long. Adding a Pro Bowl LT gives the QB more time in the pocket and adds to the run game. However, Fitzpatrick (and by association, the offense as a whole) gets better with better talent at receiver. He could have all day to throw, but is still limited by his accuracy, and more so by the lack of talent on the receiving end. How many passes did we see bounce off the hands of receivers last year? What I'm saying is vs a stud LT and a stud WR in the Bills offense, a stud WR is more valuable. You can scheme around a weak Oline, but unless you're throwing screens every pass play, you can't scheme around WRs that can't catch consistently.

 

Next, Kuechly/Willis. If we are talking Willis's level of talent, there's no denying his mere presence affects the opponent's gameplan/playcalling. But on the Bills, we have to ask if Sheppard can then start at Sam? I don't know for sure, but I think he's likely much better suited at Mike. So you may have an issue at Sam. Which the Bills already seemingly do. Don't get me wrong, I'd take Willis over Shep all day, but even with a suffocating defense, the offense still has to be able to score. The Bills aren't built like the SB winning Ravens who were able to play ball control run-first offense. The line is not good enough for that and if there is only one true threat at receiver, opposing defenses will put 8 or 9 in the box. Fred and CJ are good, but not that good without the line help.

 

So here we have Floyd/Fitzgerald. The Bills run a spread offense that needs talent on the outside. With Fitzgerald-type talent, you get exactly what Buddy meant when he said he wants a WR that is open when he's covered. The guy who can beat press coverage then track down a less than perfect throw while outjumping a DB. The Bills have what looks to be a good D on paper. The offense is good, but we all know the limitations. It seems obvious to me that adding a top flight receiver adds another dimension and makes defenses think twice before committing extra resources in any one area. Take away Floyd/Fitz, SJ gets single coverage and vice versa. Give safety help to both, then the middle is wide open for the run game, the TEs, or the slot receivers.

 

"Serviceable" will do for the Bills at LT and LB when added to the current lineups. Upgrading at those positions don't help the team as a whole as much as upgrading at WR would. I'm not saying the Bills shouldn't upgrade at those positions, but I think they should not overlook the WR position to do so.

Edited April 13, 2012 by uncle flap

[roccitybillsfan]

I think I might take the All Pro LT if he were available. The only problem with this is that Kalil will be long gone before we pick. He is the only LT in this draft that i'd be willing to bet would be as good of a LT as Long. I can't say that about Martin or that I think he'll even be a stud. You can read my post in the other thread referred to by the OP to see my thoughts on Keuchly. I do think that Floyd will be a stud though....

[JWell]

This is a passing league! and in order to pass efectively... you need to catch.

 

Im taking the WR any day

[Orton's Arm]

This was a tough choice for me. If you have a franchise QB, there are only two things the defense can do to stop him. 1) Take away his time to throw. 2) Take away targets for him to throw to. A LT addresses the first of those things, and a WR the second.

 

Unfortunately, the Bills don't, in fact, have a franchise QB, which is why I would have voted for a QB in a heartbeat if that position had been on the list. Since it wasn't, I had to choose between the LT and the WR. (Either of which will do a lot more for your passing offense than a 4-3 LB will do for your pass defense.)

 

At first I was tempted to come down on the side of a LT. But then I started thinking about upside. Let's say that you have a Matt Light at LT, and upgrade him to an Orlando Pace. Matt Light is good enough to handle pass rushers one-on-one, so it's not like this upgrade is going to free up a TE who would otherwise have been kept in to block. Orlando Pace will absolutely neutralize whichever DE he's assigned to block. But neutralizing that one guy will turn into added pass protection only to the extent that your other four linemen can also block for very long periods of time. Odds are that on most plays, Matt Light won't be your weak link. So it's not like upgrading from Light to Pace will add all that much to the time the QB has in the pocket. If you measure an offensive line's effectiveness by the amount of time a QB has in the pocket, there's a limit to how much an elite LT like Pace can contribute. If (for example) Pace can block his man for 20 seconds, but everyone else on the line can only block for 5 seconds, the QB will only have 5 seconds to throw.

 

The same logic does not apply to elite WRs, such as Larry Fitzgerald. You can force the defense to double cover him, and even then still have him run wild. Matt Light + Larry Fitzgerald would make a very strong combination. Light will prevent the LT spot from becoming the OL's weak link; and Fitzgerald will destroy opposing secondaries! The combination of Orlando Pace + Anquan Boldin, on the other hand, seems like it would be less productive, and would result in fewer passing yards.

 

If the OP had promised us an above average player, I probably would have taken the LT. But since he promised us an elite player, I opted for the receiver.

[Cash]

Adding the names of proven all-pros next to unproven draft picks is a bit misleading.

 

While I think OT is clearly the Bills' greatest need (who needs a WR if your QB is on his back all the time), I'd have to take Fitzgerald from your list (he currently ranks fourth all-time in league history in receiving yards per game for a career).

 

The probability of Floyd being that good is a BIG, BIG, BIG if, however...

This...

 

This was a tough choice for me. If you have a franchise QB, there are only two things the defense can do to stop him. 1) Take away his time to throw. 2) Take away targets for him to throw to. A LT addresses the first of those things, and a WR the second.

 

Unfortunately, the Bills don't, in fact, have a franchise QB, which is why I would have voted for a QB in a heartbeat if that position had been on the list. Since it wasn't, I had to choose between the LT and the WR. (Either of which will do a lot more for your passing offense than a 4-3 LB will do for your pass defense.)

 

At first I was tempted to come down on the side of a LT. But then I started thinking about upside. Let's say that you have a Matt Light at LT, and upgrade him to an Orlando Pace. Matt Light is good enough to handle pass rushers one-on-one, so it's not like this upgrade is going to free up a TE who would otherwise have been kept in to block. Orlando Pace will absolutely neutralize whichever DE he's assigned to block. But neutralizing that one guy will turn into added pass protection only to the extent that your other four linemen can also block for very long periods of time. Odds are that on most plays, Matt Light won't be your weak link. So it's not like upgrading from Light to Pace will add all that much to the time the QB has in the pocket. If you measure an offensive line's effectiveness by the amount of time a QB has in the pocket, there's a limit to how much an elite LT like Pace can contribute. If (for example) Pace can block his man for 20 seconds, but everyone else on the line can only block for 5 seconds, the QB will only have 5 seconds to throw.

 

The same logic does not apply to elite WRs, such as Larry Fitzgerald. You can force the defense to double cover him, and even then still have him run wild. Matt Light + Larry Fitzgerald would make a very strong combination. Light will prevent the LT spot from becoming the OL's weak link; and Fitzgerald will destroy opposing secondaries! The combination of Orlando Pace + Anquan Boldin, on the other hand, seems like it would be less productive, and would result in fewer passing yards.

 

If the OP had promised us an above average player, I probably would have taken the LT. But since he promised us an elite player, I opted for the receiver.

...and this. Both great posts. Of the 3 actual NFL players, I would take Fitty, because he has the most impact. Edwards' Arm broke down the importance and limitations of LT splendidly. It is a very important position, but it got way too overrated for a while, because the pass protection as a unit is only as strong as its weakest member. (To say nothing of poor coaching, communication, or cohesion, any of which can lead to unblocked rushers on stunts or blitzes that aren't properly picked up.) It's absolutely crucial to have a decent starter at LT, unless you've got the ultra-rare QB like Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, or Ben Roethlisberger who can singlehandedly mask a bad O-line. But the upgrade from average pass protector to elite pass protector, while still helpful, doesn't provide a huge benefit. Considering Hairston is far from a sure thing at LT, and couldn't stay healthy last year anyway, AND there's no backup, I'd prefer if the Bills drafted an LT in the first round. He might not turn into a stud, but chances are pretty good that he'd be at least a passable starter.

 

So having said all that, I voted for Fitzgerald, but would prefer the Bills not take Floyd. Why? Because I'd be shocked if Floyd ever got as good as Fitzgerald. Fitty and Megatron are the highest-rated, surest-bet WR prospects in the 20 years or so that I've been closely following the draft. In terms of pre-draft rating, Floyd is not in their league, and not even in the league of AJ Green last year. But Floyd is in the league of Julio Jones last year, who was pretty good - not trying to rag on Floyd, just saying he's nowhere near as safe a bet as Fitzgerald was when Fitzgerald was drafted.

 

As for Kuechly, it's clear I'll never convert any LB-lover, so it's probably time to just agree to disagree. I'll give it one more shot though. Kuechly does at least seem to be a 3-down LB, which means picking him is justifiable, and if he develops into an elite (basically Hall of Fame) linebacker then it's a really good pick. Otherwise, meh. I just view LBs about the same as RBs in the modern NFL -- there are a very few elite difference-makers (Ray Lewis in his prime, Adrian Peterson), but everyone else is mostly a product of the system they play in and the players around them. (Key word: MOSTLY. Obviously Michael Turner is better than Bennie Green-Ellis or Danny Woodhead, but both of the latter guys run well and put up good numbers in the Pats' offense. Turner, meanwhile, is a really good player who is eminently replaceable.) For linebackers, there are some exceptions (Tampa-2 requires a really good MLB to be effective, for example), but I feel like in most schemes, and especially in the Miami U/Jimmy Johnson/Wannstache defense, the big resources need to go into the D-line and the linebackers are plug & play. As long as you've got a guy with a decent ability level, you should be fine, so don't break the bank. Put another way: most LBs are only as good as the D-line in front of them, but the converse is not true. The impact of the D-line is largely unaffected by the play of the LBs behind them. That's my opinion, anyway.

[sharebear]

You could have the best LT in the nfl and still suck on offense with no WR's behind stevie so IMO you can do better with an average LT and awesome WR's Then average WR's and excellent LT, so id go floyd def! But having a ray lewis type player on your defense aka P willis would be hard to pass up, guy is a beaaaaaast. Could you imagine if willis would of slid one pick past the niners to us? And if we woulda picked orakpo over maybin??? Our front 7 would be the best in the nfl with williams williams darieus and anderson, then orakpo barnet and willis?!?! oh my

Edited April 14, 2012 by sharebear