Sound_n_Fury Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 I love analyzing the draft and all the grand plans that get thrown around on TSW for trading up/down etc. Most of them usually based on "...if we could only get this guy, we'd be all set..playoffs, here we come." Yet, every year when I look back at prior drafts, I always wonder what the furor was about. Here are the top 5 offensive player ratings at each position from Pro Football Weekly's 2003 draft guide. A few names jump out (one big notable one, too!), but really, how many of these guys are "difference makers" even after two years in the league? To me, it just shows how much of a team sport football is, where guys play important roles, but don't make or break a team's roster for the most part. Next week's draft will be fun, as always, but the new players we acquire will have a lot of development to do and may have only a limited impact on the 2005 record. Quarterbacks: Carson Palmer USC 6.60 Byron Leftwich Marshall 6.50 Kyle Boller Cal 6.40 Rex Grossman Florida 6.10 Chris Simms Texas 6.05 Running Backs: Willis McGahee Miami 6.50 Larry Johnson Penn State 6.20 Lee Suggs Virginia Tech 6.10 Chris Brown Colorado 5.90 Onterrio Smith Oregon 5.90 Wide Receiver: Charles Rogers Michigan St. 6.51 Andre Johnson Miami 6.50 Taylor Jacobs Florida 6.00 Kelley Washington Tennessee 5.80 Bryant Johnson Penn State 5.80 Tight Ends: Jason Witten Tennessee 6.00 Dallas Clark Iowa 5.90 Bennie Joppru Michigan 5.50 Robert Johnson Auburn 5.30 Aaron Walker Florida 5.30 Offensive Tackle: Jordan Gross Utah 6.45 Kwame Harris Sanford 6.30 George Foster Georgia 6.10 Wayne Hunter Hawaii 5.80 Brett Williams Florida State 5.60 Offensive Guard: Eric Steinbach Iowa 6.38 Vince Manuwai Hawaii 6.00 Montrae Howard Florida State 5.80 Derrick Dockery Texas 5.80 Torrin Tucker S. Mississippi 5.60 Center: Jeff Faine Notre Dame 5.99 Al Johnson Wisconsin 5.60 Bruce Nelson Iowa 5.60 Dan Koppen Boston College 5.55 Wayne Lucier Colorado 5.38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Good points. It would be interesting to see the list beyond the top 5 to see how many starters contributors came from later in the draft. The draft a crap shoot at best--but in the days of the cap--you better be successful at picking contributors no matter what draft position you have because you need guys who can at least contribute during their early and cheap years in order to win and to acheive cost balance on your roster. You can't buy or acquire established talent at more than 5 or 6 positions--young guys have to come through...For every Takeo Spikes you need a Terrence McGee and a Ron Edwards to step up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Although its still early, I have to say I'm amazed at what flops Harris and Foster have been at OTs in the NFL. Both have really struggled to make the transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 That's pretty interesting, and another reason why TD took Willis McGahee when he did. The other talent just wasn't there for the picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJsackedagain Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Hmmm, looks like the 2003 draft was a pretty good one for running backs -- all those guys can carry the rock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Although its still early, I have to say I'm amazed at what flops Harris and Foster have been at OTs in the NFL. Both have really struggled to make the transition. 306922[/snapback] All the more reason to get a proven guy like Shelton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 All the more reason to get a proven guy like Shelton. 307067[/snapback] Joke--this isn't directed only at you--but Shelton has not been a model of consistency. He has been less of an acheiver than our own Mike Williams in a lot of people's minds. He will have trouble beating out Teague for the LT position and he costs $3M..... Teague is not the same player who was rehabbing off a knee injury and gave up 12.5 sacks at LT in Denver 4 years ago...he improved as much as anyone on the line last year. His issues in Denver were both with speed rushers and being overpowered--he took a big step up last year in being able to defend against the bull rush and i think at least some of the problems with speed had to do with the knee. I wouldn't discount him being the best LT we have at the end of camp no matter whom of the current suspects (draft, FA, June 1 cuts) we bring in to compete... Again just my opinion--but I wouldn't sell Trey short in the LT competition. Plus I really like Tucker and say Jason Brown, Chris Spencer, etc competition at C.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Joke--this isn't directed only at you--but the guy has not exactly been a model of consistency. He will have trouble beating out Teague. Teague is not the same player who was rehabbing off a knee injury and gave up 12.5 sacks at LT in Denver 4 years ago...he improved as much as anyone on the line last year. His issues in Denver weren't with speed rushers it was being overpowered--he took a big step up last year in being able to defend against the bull rush...I wouldn't discount him being the best LT we have at the end of camp no matter whom of the current suspects we bring in to compete... Again just my opinion--but I wouldn't sell Trey short in the LT competition. Plus I really like Tucker and say Jason Brown, Chris Spencer, etc competition at C.... 307076[/snapback] Minus the 2002 season Shelton gave up about 4.5 sacks per season, which isn't too shabby. I know he gave up 4 last season in 12 games but let's not forget he did that at a new position, RT. So unsure where the idea of inconsistancy comes from. Sure he's not a Pro Bowler but considering the alternatives we have on the roster currently and could potentially get, I think Shelton is the far best thing out there. I don't like the idea of moving Teague to LT for a variety of reasons, the biggest though is continuity. As right now if keep Teague at C we would then only have new starters at LG and LT as opposed to C, LG and LT if we do shift Teague to LT. In other words, why move Teague when he's not the hole we're trying to fill? I understand Teague at LT and Spencer (or Brown) might be better than a Terry at LT and Teague at C combo but to me the best combo is far and away Shelton at LT and Teague at C. Not only that but with Losman being an inexperienced QB, I'd feel more comfortable with an experienced C maning the line calls etc. To me Tucker is a good depth player, much like Marcus Price was, he's great in stints but not someone you want to count on full time. Also, while not the best of arguements, if Tucker was so good then why are the Bills his 3rd NFL team? It's not like he was lost as an UFA and paid big money to be here. As my mock draft shows, I like Jason Brown and will admit like Spencer even more but not enough that either could surpass Teague as rookies but would definately provide depth and possibly replace Teague if he leaves via free agency following the forthcoming season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Minus the 2002 season Shelton gave up about 4.5 sacks per season, which isn't too shabby. I know he gave up 4 last season in 12 games but let's not forget he did that at a new position, RT. So unsure where the idea of inconsistancy comes from. Sure he's not a Pro Bowler but considering the alternatives we have on the roster currently and could potentially get, I think Shelton is the far best thing out there. I don't like the idea of moving Teague to LT for a variety of reasons, the biggest though is continuity. As right now if keep Teague at C we would then only have new starters at LG and LT as opposed to C, LG and LT if we do shift Teague to LT. In other words, why move Teague when he's not the hole we're trying to fill? I understand Teague at LT and Spencer (or Brown) might be better than a Terry at LT and Teague at C combo but to me the best combo is far and away Shelton at LT and Teague at C. Not only that but with Losman being an inexperienced QB, I'd feel more comfortable with an experienced C maning the line calls etc. To me Tucker is a good depth player, much like Marcus Price was, he's great in stints but not someone you want to count on full time. Also, while not the best of arguements, if Tucker was so good then why are the Bills his 3rd NFL team? It's not like he was lost as an UFA and paid big money to be here. As my mock draft shows, I like Jason Brown and will admit like Spencer even more but not enough that either could surpass Teague as rookies but would definately provide depth and possibly replace Teague if he leaves via free agency following the forthcoming season. 307088[/snapback] Your argument is definitely a track the Bills can follow and be successful...I look at the same set of circumstances and conclude: 1) Tucker did a good job at C last year when called upon. Read Bills Digest two years ago when he was thrown into a starting role for a while. The guy knows everyone else's on the lines assignments. He is a line coach on the field. 2) Shelton uses up $1.75 million in cap money (his $3 million minus the $1.25 million we get back for Henry)--that's two rookie contracts at the second round level...give me the extra second rounder instead. Usually second rounders get around $400-500K in amortized bonus on a 4 or 5 year deal plus a rookie min contract. I think we are better off in the short and long term--not tying Shelton to whatever we get for Travis.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts