Kelly the Dog Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) The Dolphins offered him 8m a year and he turned them down for about 9m per. The Dolphins couldnt think too low of him. Similar, I'd say, to the Jason Peters situation. The Bills were willing to pay him 9m a year but not 10m. He wanted 10m and the Eagles were willing to pay him that much so that is where he went. Edited March 18, 2013 by Kelly the Dog
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 I'm finding that comment quite odd. Discounting QB.....what positions do you think are not folly to be picked that high in the first round? What's odd is this thread. Did anyone at all start a thread claiming Long wasn't worth a big contract or the Dolphins are better without him?
dr.fishopolis Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 What was the last SB winner to pick an LT in the top 5? the short answer is "not many super bowl winning teams ever pick in the top 5" Here are teams that picked in the top 5 since 2000 AND won a superbowl after their draft: 2000 #5: Ravens - Jamal Lewis (RB) 2004 #4: NY Giants - Philip Rivers (QB) 2006 #2: NO Saints - Reggie Bush (RB) 2006 #5: Green Bay - AJ Hawk (OLB) Of these, only Jamal Lewis would probably be described as a difference maker for his super bowl winning team (though Eli Manning would if he were here). Rivers never played for the Giants, Bush was never more than a backup HB (who had his worst year in the superbowl year), and they talk about releasing Hawk basically every year. The answer to your quesiton, however: 1997 #1: St Louis - Orlando Pace (T) 1996 #4: Baltimore - Jonathan Ogden (G)
Kelly the Dog Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 You would have to count 2004 with the Giants and Eli Manning since he was the #1 pick and they came away with him the first day.
dr.fishopolis Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 You would have to count 2004 with the Giants and Eli Manning since he was the #1 pick and they came away with him the first day. I chose not to, as the question was about super bowl winning teams and who they drafted in the top 5. I guess it's pedantic, but would you say we drafted Drew Bledsoe? Even though we came away from the draft with him? I wouldn't.... The Chargers drafted Eli, and they did not win a Super Bowl.
GG Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 I chose not to, as the question was about super bowl winning teams and who they drafted in the top 5. I guess it's pedantic, but would you say we drafted Drew Bledsoe? Even though we came away from the draft with him? I wouldn't.... The Chargers drafted Eli, and they did not win a Super Bowl. Not really, the Manning/Rivers trade was orchestrated on draft day and Mannings were emphatic that Eli wouldn't play in SD. So even though they picked him first, there was near 100% certainty he would be traded before round one was over.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 I chose not to, as the question was about super bowl winning teams and who they drafted in the top 5. I guess it's pedantic, but would you say we drafted Drew Bledsoe? Even though we came away from the draft with him? I wouldn't.... The Chargers drafted Eli, and they did not win a Super Bowl. That's just not the same thing. The Giants came away from the draft with a QB with their #1 pick with an hour or so. They began the day in the top five, too. If they made the trade two hours earlier and just drafted Eli #1 he would have to be on your list, so those two hours really change things for you? That distinction you're making, in my mind, is really just a technicality and disingenuous. It's not nearly the same as the Bledsoe situation, especially because Bledsoe was not a rookie.
Peter Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Dols fans weren't happy with his play last year. The question is whether Jonathan Martin can handle the LT spot. If he can't, that negates all their off-season moves. You are correct. If they cannot protect the QB, Mike Wallace's speed is not going to make a huge amount of difference.
Dibs Posted March 18, 2013 Author Posted March 18, 2013 What's odd is this thread. Did anyone at all start a thread claiming Long wasn't worth a big contract or the Dolphins are better without him? Well no.....they didn't. Are you just being Mr. Grumblebum or do you have some sort of legitimate beef?
dr.fishopolis Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Not really, the Manning/Rivers trade was orchestrated on draft day and Mannings were emphatic that Eli wouldn't play in SD. So even though they picked him first, there was near 100% certainty he would be traded before round one was over. And when you go back to the official results of the 2004 draft, the NY Giants selected Philip Rivers with the #4 selection. None of this changes the point, of course, as the 2004 Giants are already counted in the list of "teams that drafted in the top 5 and went on to win a super bowl", with a position noted as "QB". That's just not the same thing. The Giants came away from the draft with a QB with their #1 pick with an hour or so. They began the day in the top five, too. If they made the trade two hours earlier and just drafted Eli #1 he would have to be on your list, so those two hours really change things for you? That distinction you're making, in my mind, is really just a technicality and disingenuous. It's not nearly the same as the Bledsoe situation, especially because Bledsoe was not a rookie. Disingenuous? I'm quoting the official draft results from nfl.com, in a conversation about historical draft results. You're arguing with them. And I'm disgenuous? If you think the Giants should be listed as drafting Eli Manning, you should take it up with history, and not me.
Mr. WEO Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 the short answer is "not many super bowl winning teams ever pick in the top 5" Here are teams that picked in the top 5 since 2000 AND won a superbowl after their draft: 2000 #5: Ravens - Jamal Lewis (RB) 2004 #4: NY Giants - Philip Rivers (QB) 2006 #2: NO Saints - Reggie Bush (RB) 2006 #5: Green Bay - AJ Hawk (OLB) Of these, only Jamal Lewis would probably be described as a difference maker for his super bowl winning team (though Eli Manning would if he were here). Rivers never played for the Giants, Bush was never more than a backup HB (who had his worst year in the superbowl year), and they talk about releasing Hawk basically every year. The answer to your quesiton, however: 1997 #1: St Louis - Orlando Pace (T) 1996 #4: Baltimore - Jonathan Ogden (G) As Kelly pointed out, the NYG got Manning and won 2 SBs. The Rams sucked before and after Warner, who was sacked 87 times in 43 games--38 times (a career high) in 2001. Pace, "the Greatest LT of All Time", was Warner's LT those years. Ogden was a guard on a Baltimore line and offense that ranked in the top 15 3 times over 12 years.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 And when you go back to the official results of the 2004 draft, the NY Giants selected Philip Rivers with the #4 selection. None of this changes the point, of course, as the 2004 Giants are already counted in the list of "teams that drafted in the top 5 and went on to win a super bowl", with a position noted as "QB". Disingenuous? I'm quoting the official draft results from nfl.com, in a conversation about historical draft results. You're arguing with them. And I'm disgenuous? If you think the Giants should be listed as drafting Eli Manning, you should take it up with history, and not me. Disingenuous, yes. It's a technicality you're basing your premise on, not the real world. Like I said, if the exact same trade happened two hours earlier, you would have had them listed. Those two hours, in the real world, changed absolutely nothing. The Giants had a top five pick, and came out of the first hour of the draft with a top five QB they won the SB with from that same draft.
Dibs Posted March 18, 2013 Author Posted March 18, 2013 As Kelly pointed out, the NYG got Manning and won 2 SBs. The Rams sucked before and after Warner, who was sacked 87 times in 43 games--38 times (a career high) in 2001. Pace, "the Greatest LT of All Time", was Warner's LT those years. Ogden was a guard on a Baltimore line and offense that ranked in the top 15 3 times over 12 years. Honestly.....SB teams rarely pick inside the top 5......and usually there are 2-5 elite prospects so teams have a limited variety of positions to chose from. Apart from QB.....is there any position that is worth the pick? If you don't have an Elite QB.....virtually all top picks are going to be wasted.
Mr. WEO Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Honestly.....SB teams rarely pick inside the top 5......and usually there are 2-5 elite prospects so teams have a limited variety of positions to chose from. Apart from QB.....is there any position that is worth the pick? If you don't have an Elite QB.....virtually all top picks are going to be wasted. A bad team has to pick a player who will have a noticable impact. Obviously QB. If you already drafted one recnetly, then you take a top WR for him, or a D player who can get to the QB. LT can be found anywhere and I reeally don't think that much separates the best LT in the history of the league and a decent LT. There are very few positions where you can say that (the others are also on the O-line). Look at Peters when he was here. Half the board thought he was great, the other half thought he sucked. The reason is it is very hard to jusdge the impact of a single offensive lineman. He is there to prevent something bad from happening, not to make something happen (for the most part). Bad teams need to draft game changers in the top 5. An LT will never be a game changer.
Malazan Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 What's odd is this thread. Did anyone at all start a thread claiming Long wasn't worth a big contract or the Dolphins are better without him? You may have missed some threads that have made this into a meme for the board.
dr.fishopolis Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Disingenuous, yes Disingenous, right. It's real insincere and backhanded of me to transcribe the results from nfl.com, and leave a parenthetical aside about where Eli fit in if he met the criteria that started the conversation. I almost pulled the wool over your eyes, thanks for rescuing everybody by catching and calling out my true motive. Like I said, if the exact same trade happened two hours earlier, you would have had them listed. Yes, if things had happened differently, I would have had them listed differently. How sneaky of me!
GG Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Disingenous, right. It's real insincere and backhanded of me to transcribe the results from nfl.com, and leave a parenthetical aside about where Eli fit in if he met the criteria that started the conversation. I almost pulled the wool over your eyes, thanks for rescuing everybody by catching and calling out my true motive. Yes, if things had happened differently, I would have had them listed differently. How sneaky of me! Of course it's disingenuous. Both teams picked in the top 5. Giants needed a QB, and were targeting Manning, while Chargers could afford to trade him because they had Brees on their roster. The larger point is that a team targeted a QB with its top pick, which they bundled with other picks to grab the No. 1 pick. The Giants' clear intent was to get Manning and the only reason the trade lasted until after pick 5 was to make sure that Rivers was still on the board. If he wasn't there, Giants' compensation to Chargers would have been different. But the bottom line was that Giants wanted the top QB with their top pick. If Redskins ever win a SB with RGIII, would your theory be validated or invalidated? Edited March 18, 2013 by GG
Dibs Posted March 18, 2013 Author Posted March 18, 2013 A bad team has to pick a player who will have a noticable impact. Obviously QB. If you already drafted one recnetly, then you take a top WR for him, or a D player who can get to the QB. LT can be found anywhere and I reeally don't think that much separates the best LT in the history of the league and a decent LT. There are very few positions where you can say that (the others are also on the O-line). Look at Peters when he was here. Half the board thought he was great, the other half thought he sucked. The reason is it is very hard to jusdge the impact of a single offensive lineman. He is there to prevent something bad from happening, not to make something happen (for the most part). Bad teams need to draft game changers in the top 5. An LT will never be a game changer. I understand what you are saying.....but it being difficult for Joe Average to assess the impact of an individual LT does not detract from the concept that LT is a very important position on a team......many placing it in the top 3....most certainly in the top 6. This is reflected generally by the high dollar amounts that top LTs earn in the NFL. When a team finally gets their Elite QB, they want to make sure he is protected.....and that protection usually comes in the form of a good LT. I totally agree that teams with Elite(or hopefully elite) QBs draft WR high......typically not Top 5, but that is due to not having many Top 5 picks after obtaining an Elite QB. You may be right with your assessment/opinion on the LT position.....but unfortunately it seems impossible to quantify.
dave mcbride Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) As Kelly pointed out, the NYG got Manning and won 2 SBs. The Rams sucked before and after Warner, who was sacked 87 times in 43 games--38 times (a career high) in 2001. Pace, "the Greatest LT of All Time", was Warner's LT those years. Ogden was a guard on a Baltimore line and offense that ranked in the top 15 3 times over 12 years. I don't understand your use of stats here. Warner was sacked on average 32 times per season in those years, which isn't too bad. Also, bear in mind that he was a) not mobile and b) the Rams offense was predicated on deep passing, not short stuff. Plays took longer to develop. Re: Pace, is it worth mentioning that the Rams were #1 in both yards and points all three of those years (199-2001)?? Edited March 18, 2013 by dave mcbride
dr.fishopolis Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Of course it's disingenuous. Both teams picked in the top 5. Giants needed a QB, and were targeting Manning, while Chargers could afford to trade him because they had Brees on their roster. The larger point is that a team targeted a QB with its top pick, which they bundled with other picks to grab the No. 1 pick. The Giants' clear intent was to get Manning and the only reason the trade lasted until after pick 5 was to make sure that Rivers was still on the board. If he wasn't there, Giants' compensation to Chargers would have been different. But the bottom line was that Giants wanted the top QB with their top pick. If Redskins ever win a SB with RGIII, would your theory be validated or invalidated? I don't have a theory. Weo asked for stats about superbowls and top 5 draft picks. I provided historically accurate stats with a frigging parenthetical aside describing the edge case of Eli Manning. Now I'm having motives and theories ascribed to me, and generally having my integrity questioned. My bad, I guess.
Recommended Posts