C'mon and Ride the Wagon...the David DeCastro Bandwagon!

[Cardiac]

One thing I would take into consideration are what positions have the most and least talent differences between 1st round picks and 2-4th round selections.

Guards, Inside Linebackers, and lately Running Backs are probably the most likely positions where more guys taken in round 3 turn out just as good as guys taken in round one. How much better is the "best" offensive Guard than the 8th best Offensive Guard? How much better is the 3rd best CB than the 11th best CB?

Figuring that stuff out is why guys like Ozzie Newsome make so much money.

I've been specifically thinking about this with RB's and OG's, and especially this draft.

It's why I haven't jumped on the DeCastro band wagon that Stout just started a thread about. I also don't want Richardson or any RB in rd1.

Now if Leuchy (sp) is our choice I would be okay with that. His combine #'s show that he is not just some smart over achiever but an atheletic everydown LBer.

 

[JeffGollin]

Here is one from PFT.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

That chart looks the same as one I used recently. What it showed was that, in exchange for the 1150 points we'd surrender for our #13, we'd get back roughly 1340 for Cleveland's two picks. Is Cleveland gonna want to do that deal?

 

[Cardiac]

That chart looks the same as one I used recently. What it showed was that, in exchange for the 1150 points we'd surrender for our #13, we'd get back roughly 1340 for Cleveland's two picks. Is Cleveland gonna want to do that deal?

As has been posted countless times none of us have a legit trade value chart at this time due to the new CBA and how it impacts monies for top ten picks.

I don't believe the Browns would do this trade since they are more than one player away from pushing for the playoffs.

Teams like the Falcons of last year may roll the dice, the question which teams fall under that scenario this year?

Bengals - Have 2 first rd picks and made the playoffs last year. Thing is Brown is soooooooo cheap that I doubt he gives up the dollars savings of having an extra rookie contract on the books.

Pats - They just simply never trade up. Never say never but...

Eagles - Have the fire power and a history of trading up. Thing is they would probably trade in front of us instead of with us. Maybe Reid feels he owes us one based on the Kolb trade.

Packers - They have had several outstanding drafts and UDFA success in recent years so they may feel they are just a pass rusher away.

Texans - Another team that looks like they need quality more than quantity.

Any other teams????

 

[Chopper0080]

One thing I would take into consideration are what positions have the most and least talent differences between 1st round picks and 2-4th round selections.

Guards, Inside Linebackers, and lately Running Backs are probably the most likely positions where more guys taken in round 3 turn out just as good as guys taken in round one. How much better is the "best" offensive Guard than the 8th best Offensive Guard? How much better is the 3rd best CB than the 11th best CB?

Figuring that stuff out is why guys like Ozzie Newsome make so much money.

Elite players are elite players, especially at positions that play the majority of the respective unit's snaps. You draft them, plug them into your starting lineup and are set at the position for 10 years.

Ed Reed, Alan Faneca, Steve Hutchinson, Kevin Mawae, and Nick Mangold are just a few players who dropped because they did not play an "impact" position. You could argue any one of them as a retoractive top 10 pick in their respective draft classes. I get the point you are trying to make, but sometimes the BPA doesn't play a premium position. That doesn't mean however, that you pass that player up.

I would never advocate for trading up for DeCastro as he is an OG, but if you sit at #13 and a bonafide 10yr Pro Bowl type player, you take him. He will play every offensive snap, and instantly be the 2nd or 3rd most talented player on your offense.

 

[Duckjake]

Elite players are elite players, especially at positions that play the majority of the respective unit's snaps. You draft them, plug them into your starting lineup and are set at the position for 10 years.

Ed Reed, Alan Faneca, Steve Hutchinson, Kevin Mawae, and Nick Mangold are just a few players who dropped because they did not play an "impact" position. You could argue any one of them as a retoractive top 10 pick in their respective draft classes. I get the point you are trying to make, but sometimes the BPA doesn't play a premium position. That doesn't mean however, that you pass that player up.

I would never advocate for trading up for DeCastro as he is an OG, but if you sit at #13 and a bonafide 10yr Pro Bowl type player, you take him. He will play every offensive snap, and instantly be the 2nd or 3rd most talented player on your offense.

No it doesn't mean you pass them up but if there are 2,3,4 impact players available when it is your time to pick it would help to know which positions have the least amount of difference. If historically the top Guards are only 12% better than a 3rd round guard but the top CB's are 43% better than the 3rd round CBs then you would probably want to take the CB in the first and get your Guard in the 3rd. Or you could even consider just the current draft. How much better is DeCastro than Brandon Brooks compared to how much better is Stephon Gilmore than Casey Hayward? Surely in this day of micro analysis somebody has done that.

 

[Chopper0080]

No it doesn't mean you pass them up but if there are 2,3,4 impact players available when it is your time to pick it would help to know which positions have the least amount of difference. If historically the top Guards are only 12% better than a 3rd round guard but the top CB's are 43% better than the 3rd round CBs then you would probably want to take the CB in the first and get your Guard in the 3rd. Or you could even consider just the current draft. How much better is DeCastro than Brandon Brooks compared to how much better is Stephon Gilmore than Casey Hayward? Surely in this day of micro analysis somebody has done that.

I will just give you my opinion on the matter which is far less scientific, and in the end, probably worthless.

When I am looking at the value of a position, I start with snaps. Because the NFL is essentially 11 players trying to win 11 one on one battles, the amount of snaps played matters most to me. If the player/position I am looking to draft doesn't play a significant number of snaps, then I downgrade it. This is why I put such an emphasis on offensive linemen, and the importance of having great players on that unit. They effect the success of almost every offensive snap, so why wouldn't you value those positons most?

The 2nd item that I look at is, how does that player's positon effect the QB, either team or opposing? This is a reason I feel S's are underrated. By being the last line of defense and plaing in the middle of the field, they are generally the QBs first read, and can directly influence where the QB decides to go with the football. Also, by being in position to prevent big plays, they can lengthen the amount of plays the opposing offense will take to score. By rule, the more plays in a drive, the more opportunity for an offensive mistake. OGs directly effect both the running game and the passing game, which makes them very valuable as well.

The 3rd item is, how does that position effect 3rd downs? I beleive 3rd down is the most important down in football in today's NFL. It either extends or stops drives, and I believe a teams ability to be successful on 3rd down in relation to both sides of the ball will dictate their success as a team. So, if I'm drafting a player, I want the player to make a difference on 3rd down most of all. This is why I believe quantity can win over quality when it comes down to CBs and WRs. You can always double a team's best WR, but it's how your #3 or #4 CB match up against the opposing teams 3rd or 4th receiving option that can dictate the outcome of the play.

As far as how this all goes into player evaluation, which is why you hear teams reference to where players rank on their board. I could argue that the the 3rd OG on the Cardinals draft board should be Senio Kelemente who is tabbed as a 4th round or later player. This is how teams build solid units with later draft picks. They identify players who fit a "type" that fits their specific scheme and then draft that player a bit earlier than the league values that player. The Cardinals have struggled with this because they have had so much turnover in the organization it makes it hard to see what types of players fit best.

My final thought on the matter is if I have a definite need to improve my offensive line, and I feel that Devid DeCastro is the best player to do this, I draft him at #13. However, if I feel that Brandon Brooks is almost as good of a player and I can draft him in the 3rd round, I draft both players and am set at both OG spots for the forseable future.

 

[Cardiac]

I will just give you my opinion on the matter which is far less scientific, and in the end, probably worthless.

When I am looking at the value of a position, I start with snaps. Because the NFL is essentially 11 players trying to win 11 one on one battles, the amount of snaps played matters most to me. If the player/position I am looking to draft doesn't play a significant number of snaps, then I downgrade it. This is why I put such an emphasis on offensive linemen, and the importance of having great players on that unit. They effect the success of almost every offensive snap, so why wouldn't you value those positons most?

The 2nd item that I look at is, how does that player's positon effect the QB, either team or opposing? This is a reason I feel S's are underrated. By being the last line of defense and plaing in the middle of the field, they are generally the QBs first read, and can directly influence where the QB decides to go with the football. Also, by being in position to prevent big plays, they can lengthen the amount of plays the opposing offense will take to score. By rule, the more plays in a drive, the more opportunity for an offensive mistake. OGs directly effect both the running game and the passing game, which makes them very valuable as well.

The 3rd item is, how does that position effect 3rd downs? I beleive 3rd down is the most important down in football in today's NFL. It either extends or stops drives, and I believe a teams ability to be successful on 3rd down in relation to both sides of the ball will dictate their success as a team. So, if I'm drafting a player, I want the player to make a difference on 3rd down most of all. This is why I believe quantity can win over quality when it comes down to CBs and WRs. You can always double a team's best WR, but it's how your #3 or #4 CB match up against the opposing teams 3rd or 4th receiving option that can dictate the outcome of the play.

As far as how this all goes into player evaluation, which is why you hear teams reference to where players rank on their board. I could argue that the the 3rd OG on the Cardinals draft board should be Senio Kelemente who is tabbed as a 4th round or later player. This is how teams build solid units with later draft picks. They identify players who fit a "type" that fits their specific scheme and then draft that player a bit earlier than the league values that player. The Cardinals have struggled with this because they have had so much turnover in the organization it makes it hard to see what types of players fit best.

My final thought on the matter is if I have a definite need to improve my offensive line, and I feel that Devid DeCastro is the best player to do this, I draft him at #13. However, if I feel that Brandon Brooks is almost as good of a player and I can draft him in the 3rd round, I draft both players and am set at both OG spots for the forseable future.

Now that's a great read and fantastic post!

I like what Duckjake is thinking and agree with his hypothesis and this post just shows how many variables and thought goes into how teams draft.

With the new CBA the way teams look at top ten picks in the draft will change. Obviously more teams will be willing to trade up into these top spots since the monies are no longer stupid.

Will FO's however take into account Choppers philosophies in his post? I think part of the hesitation of taking an OG in the top ten was not just about the perceived importance of the position but how paying an OG top ten money would screw up their overall CAP strategy.

We have also witnessed a recent trend with some teams in builiding a dynamic interior O-line unit to not only help with the SMEL (running game) but more importantly create a secure pocket for the QB to step up into.

It will be very interesting to see how high DeCastro goes in this years draft. Even if he doesn't go before our pick it might be due to Duck's thoughts on this being a deep OG draft and how much more of an impact would DeCastro have over these other highly regarded OG's.

 

[kerouac9]

I will just give you my opinion on the matter which is far less scientific, and in the end, probably worthless.

When I am looking at the value of a position, I start with snaps. Because the NFL is essentially 11 players trying to win 11 one on one battles, the amount of snaps played matters most to me. If the player/position I am looking to draft doesn't play a significant number of snaps, then I downgrade it. This is why I put such an emphasis on offensive linemen, and the importance of having great players on that unit. They effect the success of almost every offensive snap, so why wouldn't you value those positons most?

The 2nd item that I look at is, how does that player's positon effect the QB, either team or opposing? This is a reason I feel S's are underrated. By being the last line of defense and plaing in the middle of the field, they are generally the QBs first read, and can directly influence where the QB decides to go with the football. Also, by being in position to prevent big plays, they can lengthen the amount of plays the opposing offense will take to score. By rule, the more plays in a drive, the more opportunity for an offensive mistake. OGs directly effect both the running game and the passing game, which makes them very valuable as well.

The 3rd item is, how does that position effect 3rd downs? I beleive 3rd down is the most important down in football in today's NFL. It either extends or stops drives, and I believe a teams ability to be successful on 3rd down in relation to both sides of the ball will dictate their success as a team. So, if I'm drafting a player, I want the player to make a difference on 3rd down most of all. This is why I believe quantity can win over quality when it comes down to CBs and WRs. You can always double a team's best WR, but it's how your #3 or #4 CB match up against the opposing teams 3rd or 4th receiving option that can dictate the outcome of the play.

As far as how this all goes into player evaluation, which is why you hear teams reference to where players rank on their board. I could argue that the the 3rd OG on the Cardinals draft board should be Senio Kelemente who is tabbed as a 4th round or later player. This is how teams build solid units with later draft picks. They identify players who fit a "type" that fits their specific scheme and then draft that player a bit earlier than the league values that player. The Cardinals have struggled with this because they have had so much turnover in the organization it makes it hard to see what types of players fit best.

My final thought on the matter is if I have a definite need to improve my offensive line, and I feel that Devid DeCastro is the best player to do this, I draft him at #13. However, if I feel that Brandon Brooks is almost as good of a player and I can draft him in the 3rd round, I draft both players and am set at both OG spots for the forseable future.

I get that, but all starters play more or less 100% of snaps. I understand why you'd prioritize a starting safety over a slot WR, but I'd guess that most NFL front offices are going to, as well.

Your argument doesn't make sense when it comes to OL, though. Is a guard more impactful/important than a tackle? Don't they both have impact on running plays and passing plays? Shouldn't tackles be prioritized because most of the time they can also be moved inside to guard, where their movement abilities are a great asset?

I disagree with you that safeties are undervalued in today's NFL. With the rise of the Super-tight end, safeties have never been more valuable. The problem is that in college the super-tight end isn't a factor, so you're not seeing those response guys come out.

 

[Shane]

Completely off the Decastro train. Not that I think he wont be a great player. He will. But inevitably we all know what will happen. If we take him he will start at Guard and Snyder will play RT. While he has experience there he isn't very good at it. Thus Levi stays on the LT and we see a lot of pocket collapsing yet again. If we sign Bell Im back on but until then.

 

[juza76]

Completely off the Decastro train. Not that I think he wont be a great player. He will. But inevitably we all know what will happen. If we take him he will start at Guard and Snyder will play RT. While he has experience there he isn't very good at it. Thus Levi stays on the LT and we see a lot of pocket collapsing yet again. If we sign Bell Im back on but until then.

good shane, u are a football expert..we need a tackle or a playmaker

 

[Chopper0080]

I get that, but all starters play more or less 100% of snaps. I understand why you'd prioritize a starting safety over a slot WR, but I'd guess that most NFL front offices are going to, as well.

Your argument doesn't make sense when it comes to OL, though. Is a guard more impactful/important than a tackle? Don't they both have impact on running plays and passing plays? Shouldn't tackles be prioritized because most of the time they can also be moved inside to guard, where their movement abilities are a great asset?

I disagree with you that safeties are undervalued in today's NFL. With the rise of the Super-tight end, safeties have never been more valuable. The problem is that in college the super-tight end isn't a factor, so you're not seeing those response guys come out.

Yes a tackle is the more important position because it is afforded less help in blocking schemes, but not at the expense of taking a less talented player. In my mind, the end result is taking the best player, especially in the first round. Why take the 3rd best OT in a weak OT class, when you can draft the best OG in a strong OG class. In the first round especially, you need to be able to target and draft a starter. More to the point on OGs, they help set the front of the pocket which if set well, allows QBs to slide up in the pocket to avoid edge rushers when OTs get beat. Like any group, a great OG can make up for an average OT and vice versa.

Example, if the Cards started DeCastro and Levi Brown on the right side, Levi could set better against the inside/bull rush because he could trust DeCastro to handle the inside which would allow Skelton to slide up in the pocket to avoid the outside rush. If you have a crappy OG, Skelton either stays back in the pocket and gets drilled, or moves up and gets engulfed by the DT. In the end, adding talent should be the key.

K9, the arguement is similar to your arguement for RBs in the first round. IF the player is that good, it transends all the normal "rules." You don't pass on Adrian Peterson because RBs only play until they are 30. The same goes for OGs. The Tampa Bay Bucs were in this position in 2001. They had the #14 pick and needed to improve their offensive line. They chose Kenyatta Walker OT over Steve Hutchinson OG. The Seahawks had the #17 pick and they took Steve Hutchinson over Jeff Backus. In the end, drafting talent in the first round serves you better in the long run.

I agree in the importance of S's, but I wonder why the position is so weak right now if teams aren't taking it for granted. If you know, let me know.

 

[Chopper0080]

Completely off the Decastro train. Not that I think he wont be a great player. He will. But inevitably we all know what will happen. If we take him he will start at Guard and Snyder will play RT. While he has experience there he isn't very good at it. Thus Levi stays on the LT and we see a lot of pocket collapsing yet again. If we sign Bell Im back on but until then.

That's like not fixing your car engine because you can't afford tires or to pay the gas when it's running. If you want to eventually be able to drive, you have to start somewhere.

 

[Chopper0080]

good shane, u are a football expert..we need a tackle or a playmaker

Where are those rankings for top playmakers in the draft? Are they listed before or after specialty players?

How about we start by drafting a player in the first round that we keep for more than 3 years?

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Completely off the Decastro train. Not that I think he wont be a great player. He will. But inevitably we all know what will happen. If we take him he will start at Guard and Snyder will play RT. While he has experience there he isn't very good at it. Thus Levi stays on the LT and we see a lot of pocket collapsing yet again. If we sign Bell Im back on but until then.

So if we don't sign Bell, we should pass on DeCastro and do what?

(Reach for an O/T?)

IMO: Levi, Colledge, Sendlein, DeCastro, Snyder is a more likely outcome than Bell, Colledge, Sendlein, Snyder, Levi

 

[kerouac9]

Yes a tackle is the more important position because it is afforded less help in blocking schemes, but not at the expense of taking a less talented player. In my mind, the end result is taking the best player, especially in the first round. Why take the 3rd best OT in a weak OT class, when you can draft the best OG in a strong OG class. In the first round especially, you need to be able to target and draft a starter. More to the point on OGs, they help set the front of the pocket which if set well, allows QBs to slide up in the pocket to avoid edge rushers when OTs get beat. Like any group, a great OG can make up for an average OT and vice versa.

Example, if the Cards started DeCastro and Levi Brown on the right side, Levi could set better against the inside/bull rush because he could trust DeCastro to handle the inside which would allow Skelton to slide up in the pocket to avoid the outside rush. If you have a crappy OG, Skelton either stays back in the pocket and gets drilled, or moves up and gets engulfed by the DT. In the end, adding talent should be the key.

K9, the arguement is similar to your arguement for RBs in the first round. IF the player is that good, it transends all the normal "rules." You don't pass on Adrian Peterson because RBs only play until they are 30. The same goes for OGs. The Tampa Bay Bucs were in this position in 2001. They had the #14 pick and needed to improve their offensive line. They chose Kenyatta Walker OT over Steve Hutchinson OG. The Seahawks had the #17 pick and they took Steve Hutchinson over Jeff Backus. In the end, drafting talent in the first round serves you better in the long run.

Of course, in 2001 the Seattle Seahawks already had Walter Jones just entering his prime. Kind of one of the best players at the Left Tackle position ever.

Man, that 2001 draft class was pretty awful, as well. Some solid NFL players, but outside of Vick, no one really scintillating. Interesting that people are also so quick to pencil in a first-round offensive lineman as a "starter for a decade" and "Pro Bowler for a decade." It's been 10 years and Steve Hutchinson is on his third team and hasn't been to the Pro Bowl since '09.

I agree in the importance of S's, but I wonder why the position is so weak right now if teams aren't taking it for granted. If you know, let me know.

I think it's because it's not an important college position. Same reason that there aren't dominant tackles in the NFL anymore. The Super Tight End takes a year to develop in the NFL because wideouts are schemed open in so many NCAA programs now (which is why a guy like Victor Cruz can slip through the cracks). The tight end position isn't that important in the NCAA, so there's no real impetus to develop safeties to combat the threat of the super tight end.

I think you'll see not more/better safeties, or smaller, faster linebackers, but third corners like Antrel Rolle and Richard Marshall getting paid more because they can survive inside against the run and more or less match up with the bigger, faster safeties. The Super Tight End for now has to be schemed around.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Of course, in 2001 the Seattle Seahawks already had Walter Jones just entering his prime. Kind of one of the best players at the Left Tackle position ever.

Man, that 2001 draft class was pretty awful, as well. Some solid NFL players, but outside of Vick, no one really scintillating. Interesting that people are also so quick to pencil in a first-round offensive lineman as a "starter for a decade" and "Pro Bowler for a decade." It's been 10 years and Steve Hutchinson is on his third team and hasn't been to the Pro Bowl since '09.



I think it's because it's not an important college position. Same reason that there aren't dominant tackles in the NFL anymore. The Super Tight End takes a year to develop in the NFL because wideouts are schemed open in so many NCAA programs now (which is why a guy like Victor Cruz can slip through the cracks). The tight end position isn't that important in the NCAA, so there's no real impetus to develop safeties to combat the threat of the super tight end.

I think you'll see not more/better safeties, or smaller, faster linebackers, but third corners like Antrel Rolle and Richard Marshall getting paid more because they can survive inside against the run and more or less match up with the bigger, faster safeties. The Super Tight End for now has to be schemed around.

Good point about Hutchinson. He's good , but, for the most part, he has always had a top level LT playing next to him. A good OT can make the OG's look alot better but not so much is that the case in reverse. Pittsburgh has usually had pretty good tackles playing next to Faneca as well. I'm not taking anything away from those guys but OT's are just much more important.

 

[Garthshort]

To be truthful I'm always happy with whomever the Cards draft, and I guess that makes me a Kool-Aider. But I always have my own picks, whom I hope the team picks and this year is no exception. As of today, and subject to change, I'm on the DeCastro bandwagon. I'm basing my hopes on Mike Mayock, who I think is an excellent talent evaluator, and he thinks that DeCastro can start from day one. And if he's not available, I'm hoping for Michael Floyd, the ND wideout. Bottom line, imo, BOTH are worthy of the thirteenth pick, and I'd be happy with either one.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

To be truthful I'm always happy with whomever the Cards draft, and I guess that makes me a Kool-Aider. But I always have my own picks, whom I hope the team picks and this year is no exception. As of today, and subject to change, I'm on the DeCastro bandwagon. I'm basing my hopes on Mike Mayock, who I think is an excellent talent evaluator, and he thinks that DeCastro can start from day one. And if he's not available, I'm hoping for Michael Floyd, the ND wideout. Bottom line, imo, BOTH are worthy of the thirteenth pick, and I'd be happy with either one.

I'm with you on your potential selections at #13, but I'd add a few darkhorse choices: Donta Hightower and C. Glenn.

 

[40yearfan]

I know it isn't very probable, but I'd really like to see Blackmon fall to #13. Can you imagine Fitz and he on the field both at the same time?

 

[Chopper0080]

I know it isn't very probable, but I'd really like to see Blackmon fall to #13. Can you imagine Fitz and he on the field both at the same time?

Yeah, I saw it when Fitzgerald and Boldin played together. The problem is we no longer have a Kurt Warner to get them the ball.

 

[Chopper0080]

Good point about Hutchinson. He's good , but, for the most part, he has always had a top level LT playing next to him. A good OT can make the OG's look alot better but not so much is that the case in reverse. Pittsburgh has usually had pretty good tackles playing next to Faneca as well. I'm not taking anything away from those guys but OT's are just much more important.

I really struggle to believe that a player can be on an All Decade team because he played next to Walter Jones and Bryant McKinnie.

As far as an OG making an OT look better, see Matt Light (Logan Mankins), DeBrickshaw Fergusan (Alan Faneca) and Jermon Bushrod (Jahri Evans). That is just off the top of my head.

 

[Duckjake]

I really struggle to believe that a player can be on an All Decade team because he played next to Walter Jones and Bryant McKinnie.

As far as an OG making an OT look better, see Matt Light (Logan Mankins), DeBrickshaw Fergusan (Alan Faneca) and Jermon Bushrod (Jahri Evans). That is just off the top of my head.

How do we know it wasn't the other way around? Faneca sure didn't make Levi Brown look any better.

 

[Chopper0080]

How do we know it wasn't the other way around? Faneca sure didn't make Levi Brown look any better.

We don't, but Ferguson has performed worse since Faneca left. Don't get me wrong, Faneca regressed quickly but was still a better player in New York than he was in Arizona.

 

[Duckjake]

We don't, but Ferguson has performed worse since Faneca left. Don't get me wrong, Faneca regressed quickly but was still a better player in New York than he was in Arizona.

Sadly isn't everybody? No wait. Jeff King.

 

[Chopper0080]

Sadly isn't everybody? No wait. Jeff King.

What about Mike Gandy?
Kerry Rhodes?
Richard Marshall?

We do ok in free agency, but I know what you mean. AZ really should stick to adding bit parts in FA because we have a history of "swinging and missing" when it comes to the big fish.