Top 10 picks are more of a burden than a blessing ?

[RugbyMuffin]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/04/14/rookie.wage.scale/index.html

Mr. Tucker thinks so, and I agree.

 

[kerouac9]

Top 5 picks probably are; Top 10 picks I don't really think so. Was having Larry Fitzgerald really a burden? Was having Leonard Davis for so long?

If you hit on a Top 5 or 10 pick, then they become the player that you can build your franchise around. It becomes a burden when a team invests Top 5 or 10 money on a complementary player (which is why Seattle drafting Aaron Curry with the #4 overall pick was such a mistake), or the player the draft fails to develop, that they become burdensome.

No team should take a player that is not a QB, LT, DE, or CB in the Top 5--and I say that with a lot of respect for Larry Fitzgerald, but we're going to pay him 5 years, $52 million dollars in a season or two, with some $25 million guaranteed. That's a lot of money to invest in a guy who's going to touch the ball at most 12 times per game.

 

[Pariah]

When you bust on that pick it is.

When you land a franchise player, it's completely worth it.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Top 5 picks probably are; Top 10 picks I don't really think so. Was having Larry Fitzgerald really a burden? Was having Leonard Davis for so long?

If you hit on a Top 5 or 10 pick, then they become the player that you can build your franchise around. It becomes a burden when a team invests Top 5 or 10 money on a complementary player (which is why Seattle drafting Aaron Curry with the #2 overall pick was such a mistake), or the player the draft fails to develop, that they become burdensome.

No team should take a player that is not a QB, LT, DE, or CB in the Top 5--and I say that with a lot of respect for Larry Fitzgerald, but we're going to pay him 5 years, $52 million dollars in a season or two, with some $25 million guaranteed. That's a lot of money to invest in a guy who's going to touch the ball at most 12 times per game.

I thought Curry fell to 4?

 

[kerouac9]

I thought Curry fell to 4?

That's right. Not quite as bad, but still a mistake.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

That's right. Not quite as bad, but still a mistake.

LB's, and good ones have just as much impact as a CB for example, don't you think?

They just swung and didn't strike out per se, maybe a foul ball. Would you not be willing to take a Ray Lewis or a Patrick Willis in the top 5? I sure as hell would.

 

[TJ]

Top 5 picks probably are; Top 10 picks I don't really think so. Was having Larry Fitzgerald really a burden? Was having Leonard Davis for so long?

If you hit on a Top 5 or 10 pick, then they become the player that you can build your franchise around. It becomes a burden when a team invests Top 5 or 10 money on a complementary player (which is why Seattle drafting Aaron Curry with the #4 overall pick was such a mistake), or the player the draft fails to develop, that they become burdensome.

No team should take a player that is not a QB, LT, DE, or CB in the Top 5--and I say that with a lot of respect for Larry Fitzgerald, but we're going to pay him 5 years, $52 million dollars in a season or two, with some $25 million guaranteed. That's a lot of money to invest in a guy who's going to touch the ball at most 12 times per game.

The issue is more so with the contract escalators. Fitz, Rolle, Leinart and Brown all had/have contract escalators which needed or need to be addressed. Prior to Fitz's contract being renegotiated, we could not do squat in free agency in 2008. Fortunately, Fitz is a great guy and did it primarily for the betterment of the team. Even still, the marquee signing that season was LaBoy.

But I digress. At least we have DRC and Beanie for another few years and dont have to worry about egregious escalators. As long as we stay out of the top 10 for a while, this team will not have to deal with the headache of restructuring those types of contracts

As with Fitz's contract situation; IMO 5 years, $52 mil w/ $25 mil guaranteed is probably what he is going to get, give or take. He is a better receiver than Marshall and deserves to be paid as such.

Re-signing Fitz next offseason should be priority #1 IMO.

 

[CardsFan88]

It is a hindrance because of the cap. (now of course we're in the position where it doesn't matter this year, but could again soon). Now that the cards are good of course rofl.

Think of it this way. When you pick in the top 10 (or near it) every year for a decade, sorry let me say 7 years, you have a possibility of having 7 players on your roster that you signed to 25-70 million dollar deals. Which means, you're almost paying Albert Haynesworth EVERY YEAR, and you have a ~50 percent chance to bust.

Which means over a course of 7 years, if you busted on say 3 of them, and 2 more were overpaid for what they're worth, you'd literally could have 35-50 million in crappy draft picks eating your cap space.

Meanwhile someone like the Patriots might have 5-10 million in crappy draft picks eating space.

This is a huge difference because
A) It creates a condition where you can't re-sign the GOOD players you drafted
B) It creates a condition where every year you need to have many millions of space under the cap so you have to make $$$ decisions much more often, rather than decisions based on playing ability
c) You have less money to dip into free agency to bolster a weak link or whatnot.

I started saying this a few years ago, made a nice long post. Kind of funny that others are picking up on a thought process I've been espousing for years. No one told me this, I figured it out. But of course with no cap, this year it means crap. But you still have to consider it, as you don't want to go too over this year only to have to cut next year if a cap is put in.

It's why what the Eagles and Patriots does works. They like lower first round choices, more middle rounds, and cheap but quality free agents. Build around this model, and you spend less, have more flexibility, less glaring holes in your roster, and a better chance to compete year in and year out.

It's also becoming the CARDS way, and I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!

 

[kerouac9]

LB's, and good ones have just as much impact as a CB for example, don't you think?

They just swung and didn't strike out per se, maybe a foul ball. Would you not be willing to take a Ray Lewis or a Patrick Willis in the top 5? I sure as hell would.

No. Darelle Revis takes Larry Fitzgerald out of the game. Ray Lewis... ensures that your running back averages 3 YPC instead of four?

There's also the question of positional value. Cornerbacks like Revis, Woodson, Asomuga (sp) and Bailey tower over the rest of the league. The drop off from one of these top guys to even a Pro Bowl player like Asante Samuel is still pretty steep (IMO).

On the other hand, there are probably a dozen or more top ILBs and maybe more OLBs in the NFL, and they have very little relation to the overall relevance of the rest of the defense. Patrick Willis has convinced me he's the top linebacker in the NFL right now, but is he that much better than a healthy Brian Urlacher? Is he that much better than Nick Barnett in Green Bay? Is he that much better than Karlos Dansby? I'd argue not, and especially not to the extent where it's worth some $5 to $7 million per season in salary.

I guess the example is A.J. Hawk. 5th overall pick by the Packers in 2006. To justify that kind of draft position, he better come into the league averaging 95+ tackles per season to go with 7+ sacks and 3+ INTs per year. He hasn't come close to that.

I think that the long and short of it--at least on the defensive side of the ball--is that you need a player whom opposition coordinators will game plan around. No one game plans around linebackers. Unless they're pass rush specialists like Ware.

 

[Shane]

Re-signing Fitz next offseason should be priority #1 IMO.

Whats the priority if we dont resign Dockett this off season? No way in hell we sign both in one off season.

 

[Shane]

No. Darelle Revis takes Larry Fitzgerald out of the game. Ray Lewis... ensures that your running back averages 3 YPC instead of four?

There's also the question of positional value. Cornerbacks like Revis, Woodson, Asomuga (sp) and Bailey tower over the rest of the league. The drop off from one of these top guys to even a Pro Bowl player like Asante Samuel is still pretty steep (IMO).

On the other hand, there are probably a dozen or more top ILBs and maybe more OLBs in the NFL, and they have very little relation to the overall relevance of the rest of the defense. Patrick Willis has convinced me he's the top linebacker in the NFL right now, but is he that much better than a healthy Brian Urlacher? Is he that much better than Nick Barnett in Green Bay? Is he that much better than Karlos Dansby? I'd argue not, and especially not to the extent where it's worth some $5 to $7 million per season in salary.

I guess the example is A.J. Hawk. 5th overall pick by the Packers in 2006. To justify that kind of draft position, he better come into the league averaging 95+ tackles per season to go with 7+ sacks and 3+ INTs per year. He hasn't come close to that.

I think that the long and short of it--at least on the defensive side of the ball--is that you need a player whom opposition coordinators will game plan around. No one game plans around linebackers. Unless they're pass rush specialists like Ware.

Umm how many Revis type of talents are in the NFL as a whole and avaialble on a year to year basis? VERY FEW. The only other one playing the league right now is the guy whose name I cant spell in Oakland. Seems like your you would be waiting for a long time if you are waiting to drafta CB with that type of skill/talent in the first 5 picks.

 

[TJ]

Whats the priority if we dont resign Dockett this off season? No way in hell we sign both in one off season.

This is a good point and it's completely debatable as to who is more valuable to the team. IMO it's Fitz but Dockett is a close second as he has been one of the more vocal leaders on defense.

This is why I hope the franchise tag is still in effect after the new CBA is negotiated.

 

[Shane]

This is a good point and it's completely debatable as to who is more valuable to the team. IMO it's Fitz but Dockett is a close second as he has been one of the more vocal leaders on defense.

This is why I hope the franchise tag is still in effect after the new CBA is negotiated.

All I know is that if we don't sign Dockett now. He will be PISSED and we will be in a BIG PICKLE next year. It really is a huge concern IMO.

 

[DoTheDew]

No team should take a player that is not a QB, LT, DE, or CB in the Top 5--and I say that with a lot of respect for Larry Fitzgerald, but we're going to pay him 5 years, $52 million dollars in a season or two, with some $25 million guaranteed. That's a lot of money to invest in a guy who's going to touch the ball at most 12 times per game.

If you can be fairly confident that one of those touches is going to be a touchdown almost every game you might be talking about the difference between going 10-6 or 6-10. I see the issue more that good WRs can be found in the 2nd or 3rd rounds historically. That isn't true of the positions you mentioned.

 

[TJ]

All I know is that if we don't sign Dockett now. He will be PISSED and we will be in a BIG PICKLE next year. It really is a huge concern IMO.

100% agree

 

[MadCardDisease]

No team should take a player that is not a QB, LT, DE, or CB in the Top 5--and I say that with a lot of respect for Larry Fitzgerald, but we're going to pay him 5 years, $52 million dollars in a season or two, with some $25 million guaranteed. That's a lot of money to invest in a guy who's going to touch the ball at most 12 times per game.

I completely agree. With the money involved with those picks it's almost crazy to draft another position outside of those 4. If you do draft outside of those positions, you for the most part instantly make that player the highest paid at their position. It becomes almost impossible for them to live up to those expectations.

 

[kerouac9]

It is a hindrance because of the cap. (now of course we're in the position where it doesn't matter this year, but could again soon). Now that the cards are good of course rofl.

Think of it this way. When you pick in the top 10 (or near it) every year for a decade, sorry let me say 7 years, you have a possibility of having 7 players on your roster that you signed to 25-70 million dollar deals. Which means, you're almost paying Albert Haynesworth EVERY YEAR, and you have a ~50 percent chance to bust.

Which means over a course of 7 years, if you busted on say 3 of them, and 2 more were overpaid for what they're worth, you'd literally could have 35-50 million in crappy draft picks eating your cap space.

Meanwhile someone like the Patriots might have 5-10 million in crappy draft picks eating space.

This is a huge difference because
A) It creates a condition where you can't re-sign the GOOD players you drafted
B) It creates a condition where every year you need to have many millions of space under the cap so you have to make $$$ decisions much more often, rather than decisions based on playing ability
c) You have less money to dip into free agency to bolster a weak link or whatnot.

I started saying this a few years ago, made a nice long post. Kind of funny that others are picking up on a thought process I've been espousing for years. No one told me this, I figured it out. But of course with no cap, this year it means crap. But you still have to consider it, as you don't want to go too over this year only to have to cut next year if a cap is put in.

It's why what the Eagles and Patriots does works. They like lower first round choices, more middle rounds, and cheap but quality free agents. Build around this model, and you spend less, have more flexibility, less glaring holes in your roster, and a better chance to compete year in and year out.

It's also becoming the CARDS way, and I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!

That's why most teams today don't offer escalators; they offer voidable years. With a voidable year, the player becomes a free agent in year 5 instead of year 6, and you can apply the Franchise tag to them for a lower cost than an escalating salary. That's on the Cards, not on the system.

As for the system, it's set up so that no team should be drafting in the Top 10 seven out of ten years. And most teams don't. Only perennial losers like the Cards (until recently) and Lions were stuck with that problem, and bad drafting lead them to that (and not being able to hang on to your own good players).

Competent front offices find a way to keep top picks around because they're the best players on your team. If you have 3 Top 10 picks every 10 years, then you should be able to replenish your top talent at marquee positions.

None of this is to say that there shouldn't be a rookie salary scale, but after the Top 10 picks, the salaries become really, really manageable.

 

[CardLogic]

Yes. A bad top 10 pick or two can strap the franchise for 7-8 years. I agree with CF88, and I also have been saying the same for several years.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

No. Darelle Revis takes Larry Fitzgerald out of the game. Ray Lewis... ensures that your running back averages 3 YPC instead of four?

There's also the question of positional value. Cornerbacks like Revis, Woodson, Asomuga (sp) and Bailey tower over the rest of the league. The drop off from one of these top guys to even a Pro Bowl player like Asante Samuel is still pretty steep (IMO).

On the other hand, there are probably a dozen or more top ILBs and maybe more OLBs in the NFL, and they have very little relation to the overall relevance of the rest of the defense. Patrick Willis has convinced me he's the top linebacker in the NFL right now, but is he that much better than a healthy Brian Urlacher? Is he that much better than Nick Barnett in Green Bay? Is he that much better than Karlos Dansby? I'd argue not, and especially not to the extent where it's worth some $5 to $7 million per season in salary.

I guess the example is A.J. Hawk. 5th overall pick by the Packers in 2006. To justify that kind of draft position, he better come into the league averaging 95+ tackles per season to go with 7+ sacks and 3+ INTs per year. He hasn't come close to that.

I think that the long and short of it--at least on the defensive side of the ball--is that you need a player whom opposition coordinators will game plan around. No one game plans around linebackers. Unless they're pass rush specialists like Ware.

Even if they redo the rookie scale to be similar to the NBA's, would you feel the same way?

 

[kerouac9]

Even if they redo the rookie scale to be similar to the NBA's, would you feel the same way?

I'm honestly not familiar with how the NBA rookie scale works, but I don't think you'll see that model working in the NFL, in part because there are more players and different positions.

Veterans DO want top picks to get some big contracts because it increases the value of their position--especially their franchise tag value. Of the top 5 OL salaries in the NFL last season, 2 were rookie contracts.

Top 10 picks are still going to get eight-figure deals under any rookie scale, but I think the NFL does want to make the top picks a little less hazardous for teams.

On the other hand, they should still be a little cost prohibitive to keep teams from tanking at the end of the year like they do in the NBA.

 

[Monty]

The issue is more so with the contract escalators. Fitz, Rolle, Leinart and Brown all had/have contract escalators which needed or need to be addressed. Prior to Fitz's contract being renegotiated, we could not do squat in free agency in 2008. Fortunately, Fitz is a great guy and did it primarily for the betterment of the team. Even still, the marquee signing that season was LaBoy.

But I digress. At least we have DRC and Beanie for another few years and dont have to worry about egregious escalators. As long as we stay out of the top 10 for a while, this team will not have to deal with the headache of restructuring those types of contracts

As with Fitz's contract situation; IMO 5 years, $52 mil w/ $25 mil guaranteed is probably what he is going to get, give or take. He is a better receiver than Marshall and deserves to be paid as such.

Re-signing Fitz next offseason should be priority #1 IMO.

Your whole argument is valid but you cant go wrong as a team if you do what ive highlighted in your post TJ. These days the depth in the draft is immense and quality players can be found through out the whole draft. The key to the statement that picking in the top 10 is more of a burden then a blessing is simple : not if you know how to draft. If you are the Raiders you're fooked no matter where you draft because you look for ridicolous peripheral numbers to judge what players will become the best NFL players. However with the drafting structure we have in place i would expect to hit on a top quality pick no matter where pick in the first round and the chances increase when we are picking in the top 10. With other teams if they are worried what their crazy GM will do next when they are picking at 25, then they'll be as worried if not more worried then if they were before. Sure the escalating contracts issue brings with an added headache most could do without but you have to weigh that up against what you could potential draft which is a potential franchise changer like Fitzgerald. If a team knows what they are doing in the draft they'll know how to exploit their position in the draft best whether thats picking at #1 overall or at #32.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Kerouac,

I agree to a point on the positions you listed, but I still believe that Larry Fitz was definitely worth #3 overall pick. It's just smarter, and more of a sure thing (if there is a sure thing) to draft one of those positions.

Lawrence Taylor was not one of those positions and the Pittsburgh Steelers have proven that you can find 3-4 OLB's in the 4th round consistently, but the impact Lawrence Taylor had on the game was greater than nearly any CB, LT, DE, or QB drafted over almost the entire decade he was drafted.

As a general rule, I believe you're correct, but the caveat should be that a player that could truly be an impact player at any position outside of kicker (Ed Reed anyone?) should be considered at the top of the draft.

 

[kerouac9]

Kerouac,

I agree to a point on the positions you listed, but I still believe that Larry Fitz was definitely worth #3 overall pick. It's just smarter, and more of a sure thing (if there is a sure thing) to draft one of those positions.

Lawrence Taylor was not one of those positions and the Pittsburgh Steelers have proven that you can find 3-4 OLB's in the 4th round consistently, but the impact Lawrence Taylor had on the game was greater than nearly any CB, LT, DE, or QB drafted over almost the entire decade he was drafted.

As a general rule, I believe you're correct, but the caveat should be that a player that could truly be an impact player at any position outside of kicker (Ed Reed anyone?) should be considered at the top of the draft.

Lawrence Taylor is a rush linebacker. Maybe I should have said "pass rusher" instead of DE, because that's what I meant. Kansas City was nuts to draft Tyson Jackson 3rd overall last year.

Pittsburgh may have been able to locate those hybrid pass rushers in the past, but that was when they were the only 3-4 defense in the NFL. It's no mistake that they invested a 2nd round pick in LaMarr Woodley three years ago; those players are going to be harder and harder to find late as more teams transition to the 3-4; half the teams in the league are running it now.

Fitz worked out, but it's hard to say that the Cards probably wouldn't be better off today if they'd passed on him (and I don't feel comfortable saying this, either, honestly; I love Larry Fitzgerald and you know where I came down in the Fitz/Boldin debates three years ago) and taken either Phillip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger. That's just the fact of the matter. Those guys are just as good as Fitz at their own position, but the quarterback position is of greater value on the football field. What's the argument for Larry Fitzgerald over Phillip Rivers now, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?

Ed Reed's good, but is he wouldn't be a top 5 pick in his own draft if it were held today (the 2001 draft would probably go Dwight Freeney, Julius Peppers, Albert Haynesworth, Bryant McKinnie, John Henderson--man, that was a good draft. How did we walk away with Wendell Bryant? The 2001 draft is an excellent example of the importance of a good scouting department. There were a lot of busts in that group, but there were a lot of gems, too. This year might be like that.).

Ed Reed is a great player, and has been for a long time, but him at his peak wasn't much better than a half-dozen other safeties who were at their peak at about the same time--guys like John Lynch, Weapon X Brian Dawkins, Darren Sharper, or Rodney Harrison. There just isn't that much of a difference between the best S in the game and an above-average safety on a game-to-game basis.

 

[TJ]

Lawrence Taylor is a rush linebacker. Maybe I should have said "pass rusher" instead of DE, because that's what I meant. Kansas City was nuts to draft Tyson Jackson 3rd overall last year.

Pittsburgh may have been able to locate those hybrid pass rushers in the past, but that was when they were the only 3-4 defense in the NFL. It's no mistake that they invested a 2nd round pick in LaMarr Woodley three years ago; those players are going to be harder and harder to find late as more teams transition to the 3-4; half the teams in the league are running it now.

Fitz worked out, but it's hard to say that the Cards probably wouldn't be better off today if they'd passed on him (and I don't feel comfortable saying this, either, honestly; I love Larry Fitzgerald and you know where I came down in the Fitz/Boldin debates three years ago) and taken either Phillip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger. That's just the fact of the matter. Those guys are just as good as Fitz at their own position, but the quarterback position is of greater value on the football field. What's the argument for Larry Fitzgerald over Phillip Rivers now, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?

Ed Reed's good, but is he wouldn't be a top 5 pick in his own draft if it were held today (the 2001 draft would probably go Dwight Freeney, Julius Peppers, Albert Haynesworth, Bryant McKinnie, John Henderson--man, that was a good draft. How did we walk away with Wendell Bryant? The 2001 draft is an excellent example of the importance of a good scouting department. There were a lot of busts in that group, but there were a lot of gems, too. This year might be like that.).

Ed Reed is a great player, and has been for a long time, but him at his peak wasn't much better than a half-dozen other safeties who were at their peak at about the same time--guys like John Lynch, Weapon X Brian Dawkins, Darren Sharper, or Rodney Harrison. There just isn't that much of a difference between the best S in the game and an above-average safety on a game-to-game basis.

The highlighted doesnt make sense. Fitz is either the best or 2nd best WR in the league, while Rivers and Roethlisberger are anywhere from 4-10 depending on how you see it.

I know the point you're trying to convey about the QB position but any competent front office knows to draft the BPA as long as they dont have extreme depth at that position. Fitz at the time was the BPA and the argument can be made that he was the best player in the 2004 NFL draft.

In addition, I dont play the hindsight game for a reason. It gives me a headache. I'm sure the other 31 teams, knowing what they know now about Tom Brady, are kicking themselves for not taking him, knowing they had several opportunities to do so. This is just an example.

Personally, I'm happy that we took Fitz. He was one of the primary reasons we made it to the Superbowl and made the Cardinals relevant. Even if given the opportunity now, I wouldnt trade for Ben or Philip straight up for Fitz.

 

[kerouac9]

The highlighted doesnt make sense. Fitz is either the best or 2nd best WR in the league, while Rivers and Roethlisberger are anywhere from 4-10 depending on how you see it.

I know the point you're trying to convey about the QB position but any competent front office knows to draft the BPA as long as they dont have extreme depth at that position. Fitz at the time was the BPA and the argument can be made that he was the best player in the 2004 NFL draft.

In addition, I dont play the hindsight game for a reason. It gives me a headache. I'm sure the other 31 teams, knowing what they know now about Tom Brady, are kicking themselves for not taking him, knowing they had several opportunities to do so. This is just an example.

Personally, I'm happy that we took Fitz. He was one of the primary reasons we made it to the Superbowl and made the Cardinals relevant. Even if given the opportunity now, I wouldnt trade for Ben or Philip straight up for Fitz.

Let me make one thing explicitly clear before going on: I LOVE LARRY FITZGERALD. He's my favorite Cardinal on the team right now. I love his work ethic and I love the leadership role that he's taken on the last two years. I love Larry Fitzgerald.

Larry Fitzgerald, despite being, according to you, the best or second-best WR in the NFL right now, was 17th in the NFL in receiving yardage. Why was this? Because Kurt Warner was not as good in 2009 as he was in 2008. WR is a dependent position. Coming into 2010, Larry Fitzgerald is at best the third-most important member of the Cardinal offense after Matt Leinart and Levi Brown (and you could argue Keith/Bridges/Johnson and Beanie might be more important as well); Leinart and Brown can do well without Fitz doing well, but Fitz isn't going to excel unless those two guys are doing their job at an above-average level. Did Steve Smith (CAR) suddenly become a bad wide receiver last year?

On the other hand, Phillip Rivers was the 4th highest rated QB last season. In 2008 he was the highest-rated QB. Ben Roethlisberger has more rings than any quarterback in the NFL not named Tom Brady. Roethlisberger was the reason that the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl two seasons ago. If you look at the yards per attempt statistic, Rivers and Roethlisberger are #1 and #2 in the NFL, even though they played on offenses that didn't have a legitimate running game (19th and 31st in the NFL, respectively).

I think that Phillip Rivers is a prick, and I think that Ben Roethlisberger is an idiot. But from a pure football perspective, the sentence that I underlined from your original post makes no sense. No one in the NFL would make that same decision.

I would like to hear your argument that Larry Fitzgerald is the best player in the 2004 draft, though.