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

[RugbyMuffin]

Did Steve Smith (CAR) suddenly become a bad wide receiver last year?

Delhomme's fall from grace had something to do with it, and so did the fact that they have, IMO, the best 1,2 running back combo in the league. Not mention Smith turns 30 next year, and for each year he loses an inch or so in jumping ability his hieght is going to catch up with him.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NFL_Draft

All I did was scroll down the list of draft players, I can't see one that is even close to the production Fitzgerald has produced.

The reason Fitzgerald is so valuable, even at 12 touches per game is that there is the potential for those 12 catches to completely dominate a game, and the probability for that to happen is quite high. We have all seen it.

Not to mention that Fitzgerald continues to improve, and with that goes things like leadership and blocking. Little things that there is no denying help a football team.

JMHO.

 

[TJ]

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.

Never doubted that. I met the man at a charity event and he sat and talked with me for about 5 minutes. Great man.

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?

There was a poll on ESPN the other day asking who the best WR in the league was (this was right after the B. Marshall trade). Fitz had the highest vote total with around 45% A. Johnson 2nd around 30%.

KW had a bum shoulder last season, which took away from his production. But also understand that Fitz can impact the game one of two ways. He can either dominate with big catches and big moments or act as the biggest decoy on the field. DCs literally had to game plan around him, like many did for Jerry Rice. Even with his YAC impacted, he still had 97 catches and 13 TDs. With an improved run game next season, I see less double teams and more open field catches for Fitz.

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 never said they were bad QBs. I know that Pittsburgh ignored the run for the most part last season and Rivers is a very underrated QB.
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.

I think Rugby said it all with the link. I thumbed through that and no one stuck out in my mind.

Here is one of those re-draft sites that backs me up:

http://cfn.scout.com/2/637388.html

This one has him goind 2nd behind Jared Allen

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/04/09/2004-nfl-redraft-talented-de-sacks-a-trio-of-qbs/

 

[kerouac9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NFL_Draft

All I did was scroll down the list of draft players, I can't see one that is even close to the production Fitzgerald has produced.

The reason Fitzgerald is so valuable, even at 12 touches per game is that there is the potential for those 12 catches to completely dominate a game, and the probability for that to happen is quite high. We have all seen it.

Not to mention that Fitzgerald continues to improve, and with that goes things like leadership and blocking. Little things that there is no denying help a football team.

JMHO.

Really? Ben Roethilsberger has lead his team to two Super Bowl titles and three or four AFC North titles. Phillip Rivers has lead the San Diego Chargers to three or four consecutive AFC West titles. Please explain to me how Fitz's "productivity" is better than either of those guys.

I love Fitz; I'm glad we have him. But this is like saying that Indianapolis Colts fans sit around saying, "Yeah, Peyton Manning is good, but we could have had Charles Woodson in the 1998 draft." Or--more appropriately--do you really think that any Indianapolis Colts fan would say that they'd rather have Randy Moss than Peyton Manning? That's exactly what you guys are saying here.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I don't know if you remember, but I absolutely loved Philip Rivers and I've followed him at NC State since his freshman year. I would have to agree to a point with the premise of what you are saying, but honestly I WOULD take Ed Reed over most of the guys you've listed. Ed Reed or McKinnie? I take Ed Reed everyday and twice on Sunday. Bryant McKinnie is good, but he isn't dominate like Ed Reed is. IMO there is only one Ed Reed but there are like 10 other LTs that are as good or better than Bryant McKinnie. The same could be applied to Henderson and Haynesworth as well, neither are gamechangers.

 

[kerouac9]

I don't know if you remember, but I absolutely loved Philip Rivers and I've followed him at NC State since his freshman year. I would have to agree to a point with the premise of what you are saying, but honestly I WOULD take Ed Reed over most of the guys you've listed. Ed Reed or McKinnie? I take Ed Reed everyday and twice on Sunday. Bryant McKinnie is good, but he isn't dominate like Ed Reed is. IMO there is only one Ed Reed but there are like 10 other LTs that are as good or better than Bryant McKinnie. The same could be applied to Henderson and Haynesworth as well, neither are gamechangers.

I know that there were people that I respected here advocating for Rivers and Roethlisberger in that draft. I thought you might have been one of them, and I think that Russ thought really highly of Roethlisberger.

On the Ed Reed thing, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I was kind of stretching on Bryant McKinnie, but it was late. I will say that I'd rather have a Top 10 LT than the #1 safety in the NFL.

Henderson has made a lot of noise lately, but he was a dominant player when paired with Marcus Stroud in those mid-90s Jacksonville teams. He's still really, really good. And if you don't think that Albert Haynesworth is a game-changer, I really can't say anything that is going to convince you. To me, he's the best 4-3 DT in the NFL.

EDIT: Let me provide one more caveat--sometimes a team ends up picking toward the top of the draft even though they have a pretty good team. Last year Green Bay found themselves in this position and took B.J. Raji. Pittsburgh seems to be really good for three or four seasons and then turns in a 6-10 stinker and gets another top pick. In those situations, I think you take the BPA, because likely you don't have a glaring hole at one of the core positions on your team; you likely suffered one or two key injuries at the wrong time and ended up not being competitive.

Look at Detroit in the early 2000s. They took Harrington and suffered with him for a year. Then they take three WRs in a row with the #2, 7, and 10th overall picks. Roy Williams worked out okay for them for a while, but they ended up going WR, WR, WR, LB, WR in five years of Top 10 picks. They never got better. They passed on DeMarcus Ware, Shawne Merriman, and Jammal Brown to take a guy who hadn't played in a meaningful football game in a year and a half in 2005.

Now? They're starting from scratch with a new quarterback, and are going to build one of their lines with their next marquee pick.

 

[TJ]

Really? Ben Roethilsberger has lead his team to two Super Bowl titles and three or four AFC North titles. Phillip Rivers has lead the San Diego Chargers to three or four consecutive AFC West titles. Please explain to me how Fitz's "productivity" is better than either of those guys.

I love Fitz; I'm glad we have him. But this is like saying that Indianapolis Colts fans sit around saying, "Yeah, Peyton Manning is good, but we could have had Charles Woodson in the 1998 draft." Or--more appropriately--do you really think that any Indianapolis Colts fan would say that they'd rather have Randy Moss than Peyton Manning? That's exactly what you guys are saying here.

There is a butterfly effect that goes with the 2004 draft. We draft Rivers or Roethlisberger, Warner never signs w/ us in 2005. Do we still go to a SB? Maybe. Do we win said SB? perhaps. With the direction we took, we still got to the big game and Ill take that any day considering the ineptitude of this franchise prior. But like I said, I hate playing the hindsight game because of all the directions you can go. What if someone finds the key to the facility when Joe Montana visited here? See where Im going with this?

The bottom line is I dont like to live in the past; otherwise, I have to relive all of those 3-13, 4-12 and 5-11 seasons. I like how we drafted in 2004; which IMO is the best draft this franchise has ever had.

 

[Duckjake]

There is a butterfly effect that goes with the 2004 draft. We draft Rivers or Roethlisberger, Warner never signs w/ us in 2005. Do we still go to a SB? Maybe. Do we win said SB? perhaps. With the direction we took, we still got to the big game and Ill take that any day considering the ineptitude of this franchise prior. But like I said, I hate playing the hindsight game because of all the directions you can go. What if someone finds the key to the facility when Joe Montana visited here? See where Im going with this?

The bottom line is I dont like to live in the past; otherwise, I have to relive all of those 3-13, 4-12 and 5-11 seasons. I like how we drafted in 2004; which IMO is the best draft this franchise has ever had.

I agree, with 2003 being a close second. Sadly we only have two guys left from each draft. Meanwhile 7 guys from those two drafts are playing for other NFL teams

 

[CardLogic]

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.

That's just for bringing Wendell Bryant's name into the conversation!

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Really? Ben Roethilsberger has lead his team to two Super Bowl titles and three or four AFC North titles. Phillip Rivers has lead the San Diego Chargers to three or four consecutive AFC West titles. Please explain to me how Fitz's "productivity" is better than either of those guys.

I love Fitz; I'm glad we have him. But this is like saying that Indianapolis Colts fans sit around saying, "Yeah, Peyton Manning is good, but we could have had Charles Woodson in the 1998 draft." Or--more appropriately--do you really think that any Indianapolis Colts fan would say that they'd rather have Randy Moss than Peyton Manning? That's exactly what you guys are saying here.

Fair enough.

How about the best non-QB in the draft. QB are another beast all together, but fair enough can't say Rivers and Big Ben are not more productive than Fitz.

Now somebody else ask a question. We got K9 on a roll. Haven't seen this type of posting for 2 years! Keep it going.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

That's just for bringing Wendell Bryant's name into the conversation!

+1

There are children reading this board, for Pete's sake.

 

[Chopper0080]

Delhomme's fall from grace had something to do with it, and so did the fact that they have, IMO, the best 1,2 running back combo in the league. Not mention Smith turns 30 next year, and for each year he loses an inch or so in jumping ability his hieght is going to catch up with him.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NFL_Draft

All I did was scroll down the list of draft players, I can't see one that is even close to the production Fitzgerald has produced.

The reason Fitzgerald is so valuable, even at 12 touches per game is that there is the potential for those 12 catches to completely dominate a game, and the probability for that to happen is quite high. We have all seen it.

Not to mention that Fitzgerald continues to improve, and with that goes things like leadership and blocking. Little things that there is no denying help a football team.

JMHO.

Ben Roethilisberger
Phillip Rivers
Jared Allen
Vince Wilfork
Steven Jackson
Bob Sanders
Darnell Dockett

These guys are all more, or at least as, productive as Larry Fitzgerald. Top players at their positions, and all Pro Bowlers.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Ben Roethilisberger
Phillip Rivers
Jared Allen
Vince Wilfork
Steven Jackson
Bob Sanders
Darnell Dockett

These guys are all more, or at least as, productive as Larry Fitzgerald. Top players at their positions, and all Pro Bowlers.

Phenominal point.

I agree with it.

Now if I put Fitzgerald's name with that list, K9, and I could debate for 52 pages on which player has the most value to his team, and his overall ranking in regards to "Best Player in the NFL".

I personally have never thought of the notion, but I grade Fitzgerald's value, skill, and overall worth near the tops in the entire NFL.

He is still only 26 years old. Don't tell me Kyle Orton or Jay Cutler are these amazing QB's that allow Brandon Marshall to obtain the statistic he does. Fitzgerald is an amazing talent in the NFL, maybe not at the tops of that list, but close to it.

 

[kerouac9]

Ben Roethilisberger
Phillip Rivers
Jared Allen
Vince Wilfork
Steven Jackson
Bob Sanders
Darnell Dockett

These guys are all more, or at least as, productive as Larry Fitzgerald. Top players at their positions, and all Pro Bowlers.

If you exclude QBs, I'll say that Fitz might be the best non-quarterback in that draft. Sanders has essentially missed two entire seasons. Dockett took three years to get up to speed. Jackson is a beast, but has played for terrible teams. Allen had a four-game suspension for drugs; Wilfork is still a NT.

There's definitely an argument, especially if you consider value, but I don't really think there's an argument if you include the quarterbacks. I wouldn't trade any one of the non-quarterbacks on that list for Fitz.

 

[perivolaki]

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 agree with you, and it isn't top 5, but it's close, and Brown is switching to LT this year, so I wonder how you feel about the Levi Brown/Adrian Peterson pick?

I do like going tackle because of the potenial number of years of service for the pick. The average life span of an offensive tackle is pretty long while a running backs can be very short.

It looks like a bad pick right but often a running back can play immediately while a tackle can get better over several years time and Brown could possibly be playing long after Peterson has retired because of injury.

Sorry to open old wounds.

 

[jw7]

Article quote:

What I would propose is very similar to some of the basic tenets of the current NBA system for paying its rookies. I like the idea of two-year contracts with a team option for a third. Most teams have a pretty good feel for what they have in a player after two years but the option year would allow those teams to retain their rights at a higher salary for an additional year if they still want to give him one more year to develop or show what he can do.

​

I agree in principle with some kind of rookie slotted contract, mostly to avoid paying ginourmous money to unprovens, and to stop stupid holdouts. The NBA is nice b/c you never hear of holdouts.

The problem is that the NFL is a different animal. RB's can come in right away and contribute, but have short careers due to the pounding. QB's need to sit a while and learn the system. CB's can play right away, but OL's need some time to develop.

I know it is lame to bitch about a problem without having a solution, but I just don't know what to do.

 

[kerouac9]

I agree with you, and it isn't top 5, but it's close, and Brown is switching to LT this year, so I wonder how you feel about the Levi Brown/Adrian Peterson pick?

I do like going tackle because of the potenial number of years of service for the pick. The average life span of an offensive tackle is pretty long while a running backs can be very short.

It looks like a bad pick right but often a running back can play immediately while a tackle can get better over several years time and Brown could possibly be playing long after Peterson has retired because of injury.

Sorry to open old wounds.

I would have taken Adrian Peterson because at that time the team was so bad that they just needed playmakers. But I would've kept Leonard Davis, as well.

I still think that the Cards could have traded out of that position to someone who did want Peterson and gotten as good a starting OT later in the draft. Joe Staley, Aaron Sears, and probably Justin Blaylock have all been Levi Brown's equal and were selected much later.

 

[JeffGollin]

Each year is different.

Sometimes a draft is "top heavy" - with a plateau of a dozen blue chippers followed by a huge dropoff in talent.

Sometimes there's very few blue-chippers at the top.

Sometimes there's not much of a dropoff after the elite prospects are off the board.

Sometimes you can get what would otherwise 1st or 2nd round talent in the fifth round because "it's a deep draft."

And sometimes (though we hate to admit it) a team will be desperate to fill a need.

We were right to draft Fitz as high as we did (not drafting him probably would have cost us 2 playoffs and a Super Bowl opportunity).

But - sticking strictly to cost/benefit analysis - drafting Wendell Bryant, David Boston and Thomas Jones probably wasn't very cool.

And does anyone think Tommy Knight was worth #9 money?

Then again - look what it cost us in talent when we passed up Terrell Suggs in favor of drafting BJ and Calvin Pace later on?

Bottom-line - There is no hard and fast rule. Each year, teams have to review their available options, do their homework and make the best decision at the time.

 

[Chopper0080]

If you exclude QBs, I'll say that Fitz might be the best non-quarterback in that draft. Sanders has essentially missed two entire seasons. Dockett took three years to get up to speed. Jackson is a beast, but has played for terrible teams. Allen had a four-game suspension for drugs; Wilfork is still a NT.

There's definitely an argument, especially if you consider value, but I don't really think there's an argument if you include the quarterbacks. I wouldn't trade any one of the non-quarterbacks on that list for Fitz.

I totally agree that Fitzgerald belongs on this list. My point was that there isn't the disparity in talent that some were insinuating there was. This should be the year that we see Fitzgerald's true worth. He has been extremely productive with a Hall of Fame QB throwing him the ball, now lets see how is without one. Brandon Marshall and Andre Johnson have been near the top of their positions without spectacular QB play, and have made their QB's better. We will see if Larry can as well.

 

[Duckjake]

I totally agree that Fitzgerald belongs on this list. My point was that there isn't the disparity in talent that some were insinuating there was. This should be the year that we see Fitzgerald's true worth. He has been extremely productive with a Hall of Fame QB throwing him the ball, now lets see how is without one. Brandon Marshall and Andre Johnson have been near the top of their positions without spectacular QB play, and have made their QB's better. We will see if Larry can as well.

Fitzgerald had 1409 yards receiving in 2005 (4th in the NFL), led the NFL with 103 receptions, and was a pro-bowl selection with Josh McCown starting 6 games and a less than spectacular Warner 10.

He also had 8 TD catches as a rookie with McCown and Shaun King throwing to him.

I'd say he's already shown he can be productive without spectacular QB play.

 

[Chopper0080]

Fitzgerald had 1409 yards receiving in 2005 (4th in the NFL), led the NFL with 103 receptions, and was a pro-bowl selection with Josh McCown starting 6 games and a less than spectacular Warner 10.

He also had 8 TD catches as a rookie with McCown and Shaun King throwing to him.

I'd say he's already shown he can be productive without spectacular QB play.

That was without being targeted as one of the top wide receivers in the league. Now he has to do it when there is an expectation to win, without Anquan Boldin on the other side of the field, and being the primary weapon on the field offensively. Being a top wide receiver this year will be far more difficult than in 2004 & 2005, and will show if he truly belongs in ranks of the elite all time. I do not expect to be disappointed.

 

[Duckjake]

That was without being targeted as one of the top wide receivers in the league. Now he has to do it when there is an expectation to win, without Anquan Boldin on the other side of the field, and being the primary weapon on the field offensively. Being a top wide receiver this year will be far more difficult than in 2004 & 2005, and will show if he truly belongs in ranks of the elite all time. I do not expect to be disappointed.

I don't expect to be disappointed either. Because being a top receiver this year won't be any harder than in 2004 or 2005 or 2009. What top Wide Receiver has ever been stopped by NFL defenses? Regardless of who the QB was or what team they were on.