If you were building a roster, what positions would you prioritize?

[BringBackOrton]

10 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I still subscribe to the Polian model, with one exception: I’d put a higher priority on a franchise CB over a franchise RB, given the changes in the game in the last generation. I wouldn’t be surprised if Polian has also evolved. Anyway, his order of positional importance as he outlined in the early 90s:

 

QB - for obvious reasons; the most important position on the field

DE - to pressure the other team’s most important player

OT - to protect your own most important player

RB - to protect leads and control clock and take pressure of your most important player

WR - to provide a reliable “go to” option for your most important player

 

Substitute that franchise CB for the RB and I still agree with BP. 
 

And we should always understand that building a team is never a linear process. By that I mean you should never bypass bluechip talent at one position to satisfy a need at another by taking a less talented player, regardless of position.

Exactly. It isn’t “building a team wrong” if you take a star prospect DB over a middling edge prospect. 

Just now, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I don't understand this comment. If the Bills had, for example, Justin Tucker on Sunday, they would be 7-2.

Please google recency bias and please stop.

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

Can we not do the "please stop" thing as if this is some kind of a bizarre contention? Great kickers make big kicks, which makes a difference toward wins and losses. It's hard to mask a bad kicker. I don't have a chance to do the research right now, but I'd wager if you looked back across the league this season, you'd see MANY outcomes that would have been different if a guy had made a kick or kicks.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Build from inside out.  What's in the trenches is the critical element.  No matter how good your offensive weapons may be, if they can't be protected your passing game will suffer immensely and your backs will continually run into stone walls (there are only so many Jim Browns around).  On defense you'll get destroyed time and again unless you can regularly stop the run and pressure the quarterback.

[Big Gun]

3 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I've been giving this some thought. If you were starting from scratch with a football team, where would you begin as GM? Would you go for a quarterback first? Build the lines and go from there? Load up on skill position players and hope for the best?

 

My initial thought is that I'd prioritize positions in this order:

 

OL
K/P
QB
DL
CB
WR
TE
RB
LB
S

 

I think a team with a dominant offensive line and kicking game can get a lot done in terms of ball control and dictating the pace of games, so that's why I would make sure I have those in place before I insert a young quarterback.

 

I could be widely panned as wrong in my thinking, but I'm curious as to what philosophies we have on the board in terms of positional importance. Ultimately, it's about Ws.

Long snapper, definitely long snapper! 

[Just Joshin']

1 hour ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

Obviously, I disagree. Another poster made the point that the Patriots have historically made it a point to have a great kicker. I think it's "criminally" underlooked. Kickers often have a greater impact on the outcome of games than any other single position, save quarterback, in my opinion.

 

The difference between a great kicker and a "whatever's left" kicker is probably 2 games per year, I would think.

Any analysis can find one data point.  Overall the question was how do you build a team.  That means how do you draft and allocate free agency spending.  So in your world you would take the best kicker and punter (2 positions by the way) before the best QB.  This is just wrong and no one would follow such a model.  Please show me one team built with a K or P ahead of QB.

 

 

[KD in CA]

5 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

My initial thought is that I'd prioritize positions in this order:

 

OL
K/P
QB

 

[BringBackOrton]

2 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

Can we not do the "please stop" thing as if this is some kind of a bizarre contention? Great kickers make big kicks, which makes a difference toward wins and losses. It's hard to mask a bad kicker. I don't have a chance to do the research right now, but I'd wager if you looked back across the league this season, you'd see MANY outcomes that would have been different if a guy had made a kick or kicks.

I said please stop, because ranking a kicker higher than a QB in positional importance is honestly the most asinine football take I have ever read. It’s so asinine that you can’t even be trolling, because that would be one of the worst troll attempts I’ve ever seen on this board. You are saying Adam Vinatieri was more important to the Colts success over the course of his career than Peyton was. Or Gostkowki has been more important than Brady. And your justification is, “the Bills missed a kick and lost a game.” 

 

And you even ranked it even with the punter which is even more bananas.

 

An average team with a good QB and an average kicker wins 100/100 times against an average team with an average QB and a good kicker. 

 

So, enough. Seriously.

Edited November 13, 2019 by BringBackOrton

[Kirby Jackson]

5 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I don't know. If you put Mahomes behind the worst line in football, with no skill position talent to speak of, would he really be successful?

He would still win 8 games. If you put the Marcus Mariota behind the best OL in football you wouldn’t win the same 8 games.
 

It’s QB by a lot. That is the only thing that you can’t scheme around. If your OL is weak you can keep an extra blocker, move the pocket, play from the gun, quick passes, etc... If your QB is weak he still has to get the ball every play and try to move the football. 

[MAJBobby]

Every list should start with a QB. If it doesn’t get out of 1970s football thinking 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Every list should start with a QB. If it doesn’t get out of 1970s football thinking 

Yep it is actually something like this:

 

QB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

something else

[MAJBobby]

5 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I don't know. If you put Mahomes behind the worst line in football, with no skill position talent to speak of, would he really be successful?

name the Brady Weapons over the years. Name the Bradys OL over the years. 

[Questionable]

LT

C

DE

DT

QB

S

WR

CB

RB

MLB

K

 

 

[MAJBobby]

QB

Protect the QB

Rush the QB

Weapons for QB 

[mjd1001]

QB, CB, DL, OL, WR

[Ethan in Cleveland]

My top 11

 

1. QB

2. Edge X 2 - DE and OLB

3. C

4. CB #1

5. TE - I listed TE over WR because a star TE is harder to find and you can scheme average WRs open

6. Safety

7. DT

8. WR

9. PK

10. RB

 

I would not have a FB on the roster. 

[Tcali]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

1. QB

2. LT

3. Pass rusher

4. #1 CB

5. #1 WR

6. C

 

But you always take the superior talent where possible.

Solid

[Ethan in Cleveland]

54 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

name the Brady Weapons over the years. Name the Bradys OL over the years. 

Gronkowski  - HOF tight end

Moss - HOF WR talent

Welker/Edelman - yes Brady made them better than they are but they got open, made great catches, were durable despite their size, and made yac

 

I agree they have been plug and play on OL for the most part. They have one of the best OL coaches in NFL. 

 

[FiftyPercent]

If you don't have an elite QB, your team is going nowhere. I don't really care about other positions if you don't have the elite QB. Yes, you have the odd SB winning team who got there by a crazy good defense and a lot of luck, but that's rare and no way to build a team.

Edited November 13, 2019 by FiftyPercent

[MAJBobby]

5 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Gronkowski  - HOF tight end

Moss - HOF WR talent

Welker/Edelman - yes Brady made them better than they are but they got open, made great catches, were durable despite their size, and made yac

 

I agree they have been plug and play on OL for the most part. They have one of the best OL coaches in NFL. 

 

so in decades of player have

No OL named

1TE

a couple of decent WRs 

And a HOFer that was going to the HOF without his 3 years in NE

 

but as I said earlier

 

QB

Protection for QB

Rush the QB

Weapons for QB

 

 

 

Everything else. 
 

 

also Rushing the QB might actually be below weapons for the QB in today’s quick throw offenses 

Edited November 13, 2019 by MAJBobby

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

1 hour ago, Just Joshin' said:

Any analysis can find one data point.  Overall the question was how do you build a team.  That means how do you draft and allocate free agency spending.  So in your world you would take the best kicker and punter (2 positions by the way) before the best QB.  This is just wrong and no one would follow such a model.  Please show me one team built with a K or P ahead of QB.

 

 

I'll reply to you and @BringBackOrton at the same time. In my mind, kicker is just something I'd take care of right off the bat to make sure I got a great one. It's not that I think a kicker is more valuable than a quarterback. I would just start with a kicker because that at least gives me some baseline of competence. Admittedly, I realize that the nuances in my thinking might not be obvious. ☺

[Tcali]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

QB

Protect the QB

Rush the QB

Weapons for QB 

good way to look at it

[John from Riverside]

QB

LT

Pass Rusher

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:

QB

LT

Pass Rusher

I would say RT if QB was a lefty  

[Bring it]

7 hours ago, T master said:

It all starts in the trenches !! On both sides of the ball !! 

That’s where I would start but if the chance to draft or acquire a special talent at a key position comes you have to take it imo! Those players are also key and probably what the current team needs. 

Qb is a special position that must be addressed! You need a good one to be a perennial contender! When that happens in a rebuild isn’t as important as making sure it at least does happen!!!

[Just Joshin']

43 minutes ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I'll reply to you and @BringBackOrton at the same time. In my mind, kicker is just something I'd take care of right off the bat to make sure I got a great one. It's not that I think a kicker is more valuable than a quarterback. I would just start with a kicker because that at least gives me some baseline of competence. Admittedly, I realize that the nuances in my thinking might not be obvious. ☺

I think you need to look up the definition of nuance.  It does not mean a bad idea with no facts of common sense.

 

Again,  please tell me one team in history that made a K their priority when building a team over QB.  Just one otherwise I am done with the trolling.

[Kirby Jackson]

23 of the last 27 Super Bowls have been won by a QB in the HOF or one that will definitely be in the HOF. 

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

55 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

I think you need to look up the definition of nuance.  It does not mean a bad idea with no facts of common sense.

 

Again,  please tell me one team in history that made a K their priority when building a team over QB.  Just one otherwise I am done with the trolling.

I think you need to look up the definition of trolling! That term gets thrown around on here for anything people disagree with. It's okay to just disagree without calling the person a troll or insulting them (not saying you did the latter, btw). No trolling intended!

[Augie]

1 hour ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Gronkowski  - HOF tight end

Moss - HOF WR talent

Welker/Edelman - yes Brady made them better than they are but they got open, made great catches, were durable despite their size, and made yac

 

I agree they have been plug and play on OL for the most part. They have one of the best OL coaches in NFL. 

 

 

 

 

 

YES,  they have probably the best OLine coach in the league, or VERY close to it. 

 

Still, the question was about Mahomes, and he told us about Brady. Trying for a little misdirection there, it seems. Mahomes would probably be better than Allen now (had he not had the year to sit and learn), I’m sure, but he wouldn’t be “Mahomes” on the current Bills. 

[MAJBobby]

25 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

 

 

 

YES,  they have probably the best OLine coach in the league, or VERY close to it. 

 

Still, the question was about Mahomes, and he told us about Brady. Trying for a little misdirection there, it seems. Mahomes would probably be better than Allen now (had he not had the year to sit and learn), I’m sure, but he wouldn’t be “Mahomes” on the current Bills. 

there is zero way to Prove that. What you can Prove and show is teams that have elite QBs win more often than they lose. 
 

so anyone prioritizing Any Other position Over QB is stuck in 70’s football. 

[Augie]

7 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

there is zero way to Prove that. What you can Prove and show is teams that have elite QBs win more often than they lose. 
 

so anyone prioritizing Any Other position Over QB is stuck in 70’s football. 

 

Of course not. It’s inherently obvious that we can’t prove any “what if’s”. My point was, I think Mahomes would not be full “Mahomes” if he had been dealt Allen’s hand. You can disagree if you want. 

 

I haven’t seen anyone putting any single position ahead of QB. That’s also obvious. Some have said win the trenches, and that has merit, but that is MANY positions. 

[vincec]

1. QB

2. DE

3. CB

4. LT

5. DT

6. MLB

 

 

It's no secret what the premium positions are.

Edited November 14, 2019 by vincec

[row_33]

4 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Gronkowski  - HOF tight end

Moss - HOF WR talent

Welker/Edelman - yes Brady made them better than they are but they got open, made great catches, were durable despite their size, and made yac

 

I agree they have been plug and play on OL for the most part. They have one of the best OL coaches in NFL. 

 

That’s a pitiful set of skill player talent for Brady for nearly 20 years, not a single RB of upper echelon

 

[US Egg]

"If you were building a roster, what positions would you prioritize ?"

 

First, I'd get a hen and a rooster.

 

Then, I'd leave the position up to them.

[Boatdrinks]

14 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Yes he would win 10 games.

Conjecture. It would certainly be interesting to see what happened, but ten games seems to be a stretch. Since we can’t put him in that situation, its impossible to prove. I would guess 10 is too many. 

[K-9]

7 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

23 of the last 27 Super Bowls have been won by a QB in the HOF or one that will definitely be in the HOF. 

The vast, vast majority of SBs have been won by HOF quarterbacks or those that will be. The non HOF quarterbacks are few and far between. I would bet less than 10 out of the 53 SB games played to date. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

8 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

23 of the last 27 Super Bowls have been won by a QB in the HOF or one that will definitely be in the HOF. 

Technically true but there is some context needed. Brady's first and hopefully last, Wilson, Roethlisberger's first, and Manning's second were all won by the defense.  If you discount those wins, it is more like 18 of the last 27, or 66.7%.  

I agree, the best chance to win a SB is to have a truly great QB.  But it can be done without a great QB or QB that is not quite ready for primetime.  

[Ethan in Cleveland]

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

That’s a pitiful set of skill player talent for Brady for nearly 20 years, not a single RB of upper echelon

 

What has Brees had?  A very good TE. He now has an elite WR, but mostly he was playing with average guys

What has Rodgers had?  A few very good WR's and a handful of ok backs, not one will be in the HOF

Peyton Manning had the most skill players around him - two elite WR's, an elite RB, a high quality C, a decent O-line, and a capable pass catching TE.  

 

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

Conjecture. It would certainly be interesting to see what happened, but ten games seems to be a stretch. Since we can’t put him in that situation, its impossible to prove. I would guess 10 is too many. 

 

Andrew Luck won 10 games under similar circumstances

Edited November 14, 2019 by matter2003

[Búfalo Blanco]

Both lines and QB would absolutely come first, imo... work on everything else after that. There should always be consideration for best player available as well, regardless of position. 

[No_Matter_What]

15 hours ago, hjnick said:

ok, let's change it up a bit... if you are building a team and how you would want to allocate *greatness*

24 Players on the field (both sides of ball):

Offense:  QB, RB, LT, RT, OG, OG, C, WR1, TE, WR2, (your option)last spot could be FB, WR3, RB2, TE2 

Defense: DT1, DE1, DE2, MLB1, OLB1, OLB2, Safety1, Safety2, CB1, CB2, (your option 4/3 or 3/4 DEF)last spot DT2 or MLB2

Special Teams: K, P

 

Using the Bell Curve: Elite (1) / All Pro (2) / Solid Starter (3) / Below Avg Player (4) / Barely NFL Caliber (5) / Not Good (6) (The number is just so you can tell if someone is that level, not how many of each for that position).

Now, for Every Elite player you have, you have to match with Not Good, All Pro with Barely NFL and solid starter with Below avg player.

Example: remember adds up to 24: 2/3/7/7/3/2

 

For me:  Breakdown per position  2 / 3 / 7 / 7 / 3 / 2

QB   1

RB    4

LT    2

RT   3

OG    4

OG    5

C     3

WR1   2

WR2   3

*WR3    6

TE     4

 

K    4

P    4

 

4/3 DEF

DT1     3

*DT2    5

DE1      1

DE2      3

MLB1   3

OLB1    4

OLB2      5

Safety1    4

Safety2    6

CB1   2

CB2   3

 

This was interesting... My OLine is the best, but I have an elite QB that hopefully will make some good decisions with an All Pro WR.  And on defense I went with an elite DE to pressure the QB and an All pro CB to lock down other teams best WR.but my linebackers, safeties, and special teams suffered.

 

This is the best post in the thread IMO and it is how this exercise makes most sense. It is much more useful to know how to construct complete winning team then just say that QB/DE/LT/whatever is most important. Thing is that you always have chance to have some elite players, some average and some clear weaknesses, and you have to realize this when constructing a roster. Good GM knows how to allocate resources. It is obviously more complicated than this, since you have 53 players on roster and not 24 (and having good CB3 might be for example more valuable than having good OLB2), but this is a good starting point.

 

As for the model itself, I'd slightly change naming structure - you can't have 5 All-Pro players in this exercise. I would also avoid "Barely NFL Caliber" term when talking about starters. I'd say it should go like Elite/All Pro (2x), Pro Bowl (3x), Solid/Good Starter (7x), Avg Starter (7x), Borderline Starter/Backup Level (3x), Liability (2x). As a base your distribution 2/3/7/7/3/2 looks reasonable to me.

 

I would also probably allow people to move players among groups, i.e. allow people to decide that they can upgrade one Liability to Borderline Starter in exchange for downgrading one Pro Bowl to Solid Starter etc.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert but my initial thoughts are as follows:

 

All Pros (2x): QB, LT

Pro Bowl (3x): DE, CB, WR

Good Starters (7x): C, RT, OG, MLB, DE2, DT, K (yes kicker here)

Avg Starters (7x): OG, OLB, WR2, RB, TE, S, CB2

Backup Level (3x): DT2, OLB2, P 

Liability (2x): S, WR3