Is Cyrus Kouandjio Still a Bust?

[Blokestradamus]

Still a great oline coach. Maybe Mills is diarrhea and not a solid turd that can be polished. To point to a late round pick who joined us late in the season as a failure on kromer is just wrong. I'm willing to wait to see if he improves throughout the season with more coaching.If he still struggles, that's not a black mark on kromer. Kromer is still a damn good oline coach.

 

I was being critical of Mills, not Kromer. Aaron Kromer isn't my kind of human being but there's no doubting his credentials.

[mikemac2001]

Jerry Hughes is a bust

[Kelly the Dog]

Jerry Hughes is a bust

That's a good example.

[BADOLBILZ]

I think a question like this is flawed. Even if there weren't superior OT's taken after Kujo, taking Kujo that high would still make him a bust. Especially because players at other positions did contribute a lot more than a swing tackle in year 3.

 

On another note, some of the players taken after Kujo in the second are... Davante Adams, WR, Jeremy Hill, RB, Kony Ealy, DE (of SB fame), Allen Robinson, WR, Jimmy Garropalo, QB and Jarvis Landry, WR. When looking at the contributions of those guys, excluding Garopolo for obvious reasons, hasn't every single one of them proven to contribute more than Kujo?

 

 

Yeah but they NEEDED an offensive tackle.

 

I wonder how many people were thinking how much the Bills were missing Shaq and Ragnuts yesterday when a bunch of players nobody else in the NFL wanted were doing an excellent job of executing Rex's defense.

[GunnerBill]

 

Yeah but they NEEDED an offensive tackle.

 

I wonder how many people were thinking how much the Bills were missing Shaq and Ragnuts yesterday when a bunch of players nobody else in the NFL wanted were doing an excellent job of executing Rex's defense.

I'll still take Shaq every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[eball]

 

Yeah but they NEEDED an offensive tackle.

 

I wonder how many people were thinking how much the Bills were missing Shaq and Ragnuts yesterday when a bunch of players nobody else in the NFL wanted were doing an excellent job of executing Rex's defense.

 

You know, for every bit of legitimate football knowledge and analysis you impart, you really lessen yourself when you feel the need to "rag" on a guy who did nothing other than tear up his knee.

 

Just a thought.

[section122]

 

Yeah but they NEEDED an offensive tackle.

 

I wonder how many people were thinking how much the Bills were missing Shaq and Ragnuts yesterday when a bunch of players nobody else in the NFL wanted were doing an excellent job of executing Rex's defense.

2 things here.

 

1. They did need an OT they just happened to get him in the 7th that year instead of the 2nd.

 

2. Are you implying that better players wouldn't make the defense better?

[thebandit27]

 

Yeah but they NEEDED an offensive tackle.

 

I wonder how many people were thinking how much the Bills were missing Shaq and Ragnuts yesterday when a bunch of players nobody else in the NFL wanted were doing an excellent job of executing Rex's defense.

 

Well, they did need a tackle.

 

My problem with the Kouandjio pick isn't the position, it's the player; player quality should govern in most cases.

 

Also, I don't necessarily think it's safe to say that guys like Shaq and Ragland wouldn't and won't eventually be better than the guys out there simply because they were able to execute the game plan for a quarter.

 

I do see your larger point--that there are certain pieces that are more replaceable than others. That doesn't, however, mean that there's diminishing returns on all non-QB positions.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

Well, they did need a tackle.

 

My problem with the Kouandjio pick isn't the position, it's the player; player quality should govern in most cases.

 

Also, I don't necessarily think it's safe to say that guys like Shaq and Ragland wouldn't and won't eventually be better than the guys out there simply because they were able to execute the game plan for a quarter.

 

I do see your larger point--that there are certain pieces that are more replaceable than others. That doesn't, however, mean that there's diminishing returns on all non-QB positions.

This is a big part of the reason that I want an upgrade at WR. That is a place where the talent level clearly dictates the plays that can be made. It is really tough to "scheme up" ways to get Ruvell Martin open. At some point you have to have the talent to beat your man.

 

That isn't necessarily the case on the line (both sides of the ball). You can run away from the weak side of the line, you can use a back or TE to help in pass protection. On the defensive side you can run stunts, zone blitzes and different things to create mismatches and confusion. That is tougher to do with the skill positions. That is why I am (and always have been) a proponent of using my early picks on guys that can impact the game on their own. I cannot see a scenario where I would take an OL or ILB in the 1st. Give me the pass rusher, QB (obviously) or skill player 8 days a week.

[JohnC]

This is a big part of the reason that I want an upgrade at WR. That is a place where the talent level clearly dictates the plays that can be made. It is really tough to "scheme up" ways to get Ruvell Martin open. At some point you have to have the talent to beat your man.

 

That isn't necessarily the case on the line (both sides of the ball). You can run away from the weak side of the line, you can use a back or TE to help in pass protection. On the defensive side you can run stunts, zone blitzes and different things to create mismatches and confusion. That is tougher to do with the skill positions. That is why I am (and always have been) a proponent of using my early picks on guys that can impact the game on their own. I cannot see a scenario where I would take an OL or ILB in the 1st. Give me the pass rusher, QB (obviously) or skill player 8 days a week.

Your position makes sense but I respectfully disagree with it. It's become a cliche when discussing the draft to stick with your board and take the highest rated player. But in the long run that is the best approach to take. There are occasions when a team has a surplus of good players at a particular position so the draft strategy can be modified to a limited extend. In the long run drafting players where they are rated regardless of the position seems to work out the best. However, that is not to say that addressing desperate needs of the roster shouldn't require some flexibility when deciding whom to take. Following one's board is the Ozzie Newsome approach to drafting. In my opinion it is smart to follow the example of one of the most astute GMs in the game.

 

It should be noted that Newsome/Baltimore selected an OT with their first pick this year.

Edited August 22, 2016 by JohnC

[Big C]

Kujo was projected to be a mid-1st to mid-2nd round pick and we took him at a very reasonable spot (remember we also traded down a few spots for him). Maybe his knee is worse than we thought and he'll never be a stud tackle as a result, but maybe he just needed better coaching. He seemed very promising when we drafted him and he has a good head on his shoulders. I really don't know what to expect from him in the next couple years, but if he develops as it appears he's doing, at worst he becomes a trustworthy backup & swing tackle and that wouldn't be a bust if we've got good starters on both sides (of course that doesn't appear to be the case at RT, but we'll have to wait and see).

[Kirby Jackson]

Your position makes sense but I respectfully disagree with it. It's become a cliche when discussing the draft to stick with your board and take the highest rated player. But in the long run that is the best approach to take. There are occasions when a team has a surplus of good players at a particular position so the draft strategy can be modified to a limited extend. In the long run drafting players where they are rated regardless of the position seems to work out the best. However, that is not to say that addressing desperate needs of the roster shouldn't require some flexibility when deciding whom to take. Following one's board is the Ozzie Newsome approach to drafting. In my opinion it is smart to follow the example of one of the most astute GMs in the game.

I don't disagree with following your board but it would be rare (if ever) that I would have a guard, center, RT, ILB or run stuffing DT in with a 1st round grade. I would listen to the argument for a franchise LT but not in the top 10. You cannot use a pick that early for someone that is dependent on those around them for success. Again, JMO but as an example do you think in hindsight the Rams would have rather drafted Bortles, Watkins or Mack than Greg Robinson? The Falcons took Jake Matthews over Mike Evans, Anthony Barr, Odell Beckham and Aaron Donald. Bortles, Watkins, Mack, Evans, Barr, Beckham and Donald are in positions to control the outcome of a play. They can either rush the passer or put points on the board. I throw CB into that mix as well. Give me those guys all day long in the 1st and I will take my chances. The Cowboys start 3 really good 1st round OL and another guy that would have went in the 1st if not for that crazy situation and they won 4 games. The Broncos won the Super Bowl with elite pass rushers, corners, and receivers.

[CardinalScotts]

he just turned 23 a month ago....there will be tackles drafted this year older. I'm not giving up on him yet , I think his career is really just beginning. We needed a tackle that we could plug and play to take him that high would have made more sense to pick a guy with even a lower ceiling but was going to be solid.

[mannc]

I don't disagree with following your board but it would be rare (if ever) that I would have a guard, center, RT, ILB or run stuffing DT in with a 1st round grade. I would listen to the argument for a franchise LT but not in the top 10. You cannot use a pick that early for someone that is dependent on those around them for success. Again, JMO but as an example do you think in hindsight the Rams would have rather drafted Bortles, Watkins or Mack than Greg Robinson? The Falcons took Jake Matthews over Mike Evans, Anthony Barr, Odell Beckham and Aaron Donald. Bortles, Watkins, Mack, Evans, Barr, Beckham and Donald are in positions to control the outcome of a play. They can either rush the passer or put points on the board. I throw CB into that mix as well. Give me those guys all day long in the 1st and I will take my chances. The Cowboys start 3 really good 1st round OL and another guy that would have went in the 1st if not for that crazy situation and they won 4 games. The Broncos won the Super Bowl with elite pass rushers, corners, and receivers.

Great post. This is how a smart GM should approach the draft. BPA is a silly concept, unless positional value is taken heavily into consideration, and I think you have laid out a coherent and convincing approach to positional value, especially in round one Edited August 22, 2016 by mannc

[Big C]

I don't disagree with following your board but it would be rare (if ever) that I would have a guard, center, RT, ILB or run stuffing DT in with a 1st round grade. I would listen to the argument for a franchise LT but not in the top 10. You cannot use a pick that early for someone that is dependent on those around them for success. Again, JMO but as an example do you think in hindsight the Rams would have rather drafted Bortles, Watkins or Mack than Greg Robinson? The Falcons took Jake Matthews over Mike Evans, Anthony Barr, Odell Beckham and Aaron Donald. Bortles, Watkins, Mack, Evans, Barr, Beckham and Donald are in positions to control the outcome of a play. They can either rush the passer or put points on the board. I throw CB into that mix as well. Give me those guys all day long in the 1st and I will take my chances. The Cowboys start 3 really good 1st round OL and another guy that would have went in the 1st if not for that crazy situation and they won 4 games. The Broncos won the Super Bowl with elite pass rushers, corners, and receivers.

 

Agree with this post. It baffles me when teams take OTs in the top 10. Fisher sure loved trolling the Skins for that coin toss, and we all had a good chuckle, but wow what a Browns-esque squandering of picks, and now they've basically gone and done the exact same thing that the Skins did to take a far worse prospect than RGIII.

 

I think with the Cowboys they had the luxury of a stud group of skill players on offense when they took all those OL players. Also worth noting they traded down to select Frederick. And of course your reference to their winning only 4 games last year does not mention the crippling injuries they suffered. They had a really, really good team in 2014.

[NoSaint]

Great post. This is how a smart GM should approach the draft. BPA is a silly concept, unless positional value is taken heavily into consideration, and I think you have laid out a coherent and convincing approach to positional value, especially in round one

well, thats what BPA generally is. but that doesnt mean teams are weighting the positions how you would. The best FB in the history of the game wouldnt be above even a shot at an ok qb in any BPA strategy.

[GunnerBill]

I would take a franchise LT high. Hard for me to support o-line in the first round otherwise. Don't mind if you think the guy you picked needs to learn on the right side or even at guard for a year or so... but if you take an o-lineman in round 1 you better believe he can be a long term starter at LT down the road.

[mannc]

I would take a franchise LT high. Hard for me to support o-line in the first round otherwise. Don't mind if you think the guy you picked needs to learn on the right side or even at guard for a year or so... but if you take an o-lineman in round 1 you better believe he can be a long term starter at LT down the road.

Don't disagree re the importance of LTs, but the success rate of LT prospects who have been taken in the top ten in the past five or so years has been miserable. Perhaps it's just a really difficult position to project, but the extended history of NFL teams not being able to get the position right even when using very high picks has to be factored in.

[GunnerBill]

I just believe it comes down to good talent evaluation. There is no way I'd have taken Greg Robinson 2nd overall, hell I didn't have him as a top 10 player on my board that year.

 

I think tackle is an example of a position where I want refined technique over raw potential. I think teams get it wrong at that position more than others because they are wowed by the measurables.

[Nervous Guy]

I just believe it comes down to good talent evaluation. There is no way I'd have taken Greg Robinson 2nd overall, hell I didn't have him as a top 10 player on my board that year.

 

I think tackle is an example of a position where I want refined technique over raw potential. I think teams get it wrong at that position more than others because they are wowed by the measurables.

 

Remember Jason Peters?