Immediate Impact or Long Term Dominance?

[Solar7]

I feel like a lot of people have mentioned certain players that might provide an "immediate impact." I feel like that's only important for a team who is only a player or two away, which I don't see us as.

So what would you rather have? A lesser player who immediately contributes, or a player who is dominant in the long term but might not be an immediate starter?

Of course we all want a player who is elite right out of the gate and never wavers, but that's often not the case.

 

[oaken1]

I feel like a lot of people have mentioned certain players that might provide an "immediate impact." I feel like that's only important for a team who is only a player or two away, which I don't see us as.

So what would you rather have? A lesser player who immediately contributes, or a player who is dominant in the long term but might not be an immediate starter?

Of course we all want a player who is elite right out of the gate and never wavers, but that's often not the case.

I think you can have both
Immediate impact does not necessarily mean immediate pro bowl player it could just mean immediate starter

it’s not out of line to expect a rookie tackle to start.....play decent.....and steadily improve as the season progresses
Thus giving immediate impact as well as long term stability
Assuming of course that he develops

 

[Harry]

I think you can have both
Immediate impact does not necessarily mean immediate pro bowl player it could just mean immediate starter

it’s not out of line to expect a rookie tackle to start.....play decent.....and steadily improve as the season progresses
Thus giving immediate impact as well as long term stability
Assuming of course that he develops

I would agree with this on most positions.

 

[CardNots]

I feel like a lot of people have mentioned certain players that might provide an "immediate impact." I feel like that's only important for a team who is only a player or two away, which I don't see us as.

So what would you rather have? A lesser player who immediately contributes, or a player who is dominant in the long term but might not be an immediate starter?

Of course we all want a player who is elite right out of the gate and never wavers, but that's often not the case.

I’ll just consider your last sentence to be kindling for your next firestorm against a first choice WR and just answer your question.

I look for short term production. I’m expecting starters for up to middle of first round picks barring injuries.

I feel like a lot of people have mentioned certain players that might provide an "immediate impact." I feel like that's only important for a team who is only a player or two away, which I don't see us as.

ahhh taking tips from the media?

look I read most of the threads here. I see people saying we need a potential star regardless of immediate impact. I see those who believe you can have an immediate impact player (Boldin pick) who just get better over their career.

 

[Zeno]

I would say a guy who makes an immediate impact as a rookie has a higher chance of being dominant long term than the guy that sits for a year with hopes that he develops (Mahomes being a notable exception for sure). Projecting what a player may develop in to long term is fools gold...I can understand that in a late round pick but not early in the draft.

 

[Finito]

I feel like a lot of people have mentioned certain players that might provide an "immediate impact." I feel like that's only important for a team who is only a player or two away, which I don't see us as.

So what would you rather have? A lesser player who immediately contributes, or a player who is dominant in the long term but might not be an immediate starter?

Of course we all want a player who is elite right out of the gate and never wavers, but that's often not the case.

no such thing as taking a player who you know will be dominate in the future. That’s called “a project” and the problem with drafting those guys is they don’t pan out most of the time.

we have a QB on a rookie contract now is the time

 

[Krangodnzr]

Ultimately long term dominance matters more.

I remember when @kerouac9 kept saying years ago that the Cardinals should have taken Roy Williams, WR Texas, over Larry Fitzgerald because Roy Williams was better early on. That didnt age well.

 

[Solar7]

I think you can have both
Immediate impact does not necessarily mean immediate pro bowl player it could just mean immediate starter

it’s not out of line to expect a rookie tackle to start.....play decent.....and steadily improve as the season progresses
Thus giving immediate impact as well as long term stability
Assuming of course that he develops

See below for some more examples, but I'm more talking about if you take the guy who started for four years and is "safe" to play right away, or the guy with more long term potential when you get your coaching staff to work with him.

I’ll just consider your last sentence to be kindling for your next firestorm against a first choice WR and just answer your question.

I look for short term production. I’m expecting starters for up to middle of first round picks barring injuries.


ahhh taking tips from the media?

look I read most of the threads here. I see people saying we need a potential star regardless of immediate impact. I see those who believe you can have an immediate impact player (Boldin pick) who just get better over their career.

I'm not looking to bait anyone into any discussions about position group or anything.

And I'm also not sure how it's "taking tips from the media" to feel that this is a roster with room for improvement before it's a true contender.

I read most of the threads here too. But undoubtedly, year in and year out, there are players who are projected as more "pro ready," compared to others who will need some polish. Since you're sensitive to WR, let's use a position group I want to draft.

Wills is considered to be more ready to step in and play at RT immediately over Wirfs or Becton, who may require some finesse. His technique is more sound at the moment, according to some. But Wirfs and Becton are oozing with potential, with one possibly requiring a position change. That's not "immediate impact," but a case where I'm kinda leaning Wirfs over Wills.

Make sense?

no such thing as taking a player who you know will be dominate in the future. That’s called “a project” and the problem with drafting those guys is they don’t pan out most of the time.

we have a QB on a rookie contract now is the time

I'm not talking about a project player, but I get what you're saying here.

 

[Solar7]

Ultimately long term dominance matters more.

I remember when @kerouac9 kept saying years ago that the Cardinals should have taken Roy Williams, WR Texas, over Larry Fitzgerald because Roy Williams was better early on. That didnt age well.

Yeah, you understand where I'm coming from it sounds like.

 

[WildBB]

Top 10 pick you need both definately.

Down the line then you look to develop to take over a spot in a year or two. See Mason Cole or Zach Allen as recent picks. Anyone after the 2nd round is usually more of a project or role player.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Yeah, you understand where I'm coming from it sounds like.

This is why I can understand taking Mekhi Becton at #8.

His technique is raw, but you can't coach physical ability. With Kugler as the OL coach, you can gamble on a guy who needs to be taught. Bring him in and halfway through his rookie year, he'll be crushing fools.

 

[WildBB]

This is why I can understand taking Mekhi Becton at #8.

His technique is raw, but you can't coach physical ability. With Kugler as the OL coach, you can gamble on a guy who needs to be taught. Bring him in and halfway through his rookie year, he'll be crushing fools.

So could Wills or Thomas and they're very proven.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

This is why I can understand taking Mekhi Becton at #8.

His technique is raw, but you can't coach physical ability. With Kugler as the OL coach, you can gamble on a guy who needs to be taught. Bring him in and halfway through his rookie year, he'll be crushing fools.

Becton is 100% the player I have flipped on. His size and agility mitigates his floor. Our coach should be able to refine his technique.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Becton is 100% the player I have flipped on. His size and agility mitigates his floor. Our coach should be able to refine his technique.

Don't we hear this about a bunch of our former OL coaches:

Russ Grimm
Ray Brown

 

[Solar7]

Don't we hear this about a bunch of our former OL coaches:

Russ Grimm
Ray Brown

Kugler's been one of the #1 reasons I've heard that we don't need to draft a more talented offensive lineman. I feel like he's been given the benefit of the doubt really quickly.

 

[Finito]

This is why I can understand taking Mekhi Becton at #8.

His technique is raw, but you can't coach physical ability. With Kugler as the OL coach, you can gamble on a guy who needs to be taught. Bring him in and halfway through his rookie year, he'll be crushing fools.

My problem with him is if he’s so physically dominate and his numbers are great why wasn’t he better? Cause he grades out well below the other 3 and I mean well below.

this dude has size and that’s it

 

[kerouac9]

Ultimately long term dominance matters more.

I remember when @kerouac9 kept saying years ago that the Cardinals should have taken Roy Williams, WR Texas, over Larry Fitzgerald because Roy Williams was better early on. That didnt age well.

We all had hot takes in our early 20s. I think the reason I wanted Roy Williams (looking back on some threads, because I have little memory of this) was because we had Anquan coming off his big season, and I thought R. Williams was a great complementary piece to take the lid off the defense and open up space for Anquan (sound familiar?).

I'd love to hear some examples of guys who were "long-term dominant" who didn't also have "immediate impact." I'm sure the list is very long.

 

[TheCardFan]

Kugler's been one of the #1 reasons I've heard that we don't need to draft a more talented offensive lineman. I feel like he's been given the benefit of the doubt really quickly.

I think he should be given the credit...think about what he is working with (talent wise right now).

I would love to see him get a stud OL and be able to make them an All Pro.

 

[Finito]

Ultimately long term dominance matters more.

I remember when @kerouac9 kept saying years ago that the Cardinals should have taken Roy Williams, WR Texas, over Larry Fitzgerald because Roy Williams was better early on. That didnt age well.

wtf Roy Williams never at any stage was the player Larry was.

 

[cardncubfan]

We need a player that can dominate & has shown they were dominant in the past with their dominance. Make sense?

 

[football karma]

wtf Roy Williams never at any stage was the player Larry was.

oh boy. Early on it wasn't so clear cut. Just search "Fitz cant get separation" on the forum

 

[Finito]

oh boy. Early on it wasn't so clear cut. Just search "Fitz cant get separation" on the forum

I watched both of them. I don’t put any stock into this forum. The sky is always falling

 

[Solar7]

I'd love to hear some examples of guys who were "long-term dominant" who didn't also have "immediate impact." I'm sure the list is very long.

I would imagine 90% of rookies?

Using the NFL's top 100 of 2019, here's some examples (trying to stick to 1st rounders-ish):

Drew Brees
Stephon Gilmore
Melvin Gordon
Patrick Peterson

...Getting a little tired of the research, I'll admit, so sorry that this isn't more comprehensive.

I'd argue Fitz basically applies. But I guess it's also up to interpretation about what we define as impact.

 

[kerouac9]

I would imagine 90% of rookies?

Using the NFL's top 100 of 2019, here's some examples (trying to stick to 1st rounders-ish):

Drew Brees
Stephon Gilmore
Melvin Gordon
Patrick Peterson

...Getting a little tired of the research, I'll admit, so sorry that this isn't more comprehensive.

I'd argue Fitz basically applies. But I guess it's also up to interpretation about what we define as impact.

I assumed that QBs are excluded from this list.

Stephon Gilmore started 16 games and had 16 passes defensed his rookie season.
Melvin Gordon isn't "long-term dominant."
Patrick Peterson went to the Pro Bowl his first season.

 

[gbrim21]

There are obviously examples of guys who were raw and started out with little impact early in their careers. Danielle Hunter was an athletic project who had 6 sacks his rookie season, which also happens to match Chandler Jones rookie sack total. Most CB's come out of the gate shaky and improve later on for example.

I think the crux of the OP's question comes down to a preference between high floor and high ceiling and how you value that. For me, it comes down to how much value you provide over the first 5 years of your contract if you're a 1st rounder, or 4 years if 2nd or later. Yeah drafting a guy also gives you first chance to negotiate, but teams rarely get hometown discounts. Thus, a guy who takes 2 years to become a good starter will give me 2 years of value outperforming his contract. Generally speaking if im taking you in the first, i want some early contributions with plus production by your second year at a minimum though, with lower total value expectations as we go down in draft rounds.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk