Astrobot Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 The success of Gore in SF and Bush in NO makes me wonder if certain positions are better off being filled through FA, where you need acquired savvy (quarterback, middle linebacker) and others being filled through draft, where speed, raw athleticism and relentlessness (DE, DT, RB) can make a difference earlier in the player's career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 WR, CB, outside LB are probably the easiest to get up to speed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 WR, CB, outside LB are probably the easiest to get up to speed with. 867360[/snapback] RB is the easiest for sure. IMO, second are DT and WR. You simply don't have to learn as much new stuff or responsibilities to be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 This kind of thinking would be necessary in one's draft/FA strategy. You might keep London Fletcher for his savvy, bring along a drafted Angelo Crowell, but be more willing to sign a FA for your #1 middle linebacker. You might let Nate go because it's easier to bring a CB up to speed. You might draft DE this year and sign a year-4 or -5 linebacker FA for the same reason. Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 RB is the easiest for sure. IMO, second are DT and WR. You simply don't have to learn as much new stuff or responsibilities to be effective. 867368[/snapback] Â CB, DE, and RB are probably the easiest for rooks to pick up right away and succeed. Rook WR's can put up big numbers, but lots of times it takes a WR 3 years to get acclimated and fully learn a system and route's etc. Â CB and RB are almost purely based on athleticism, making it extremely easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 what a relief, when i saw positions and rookies in the title i thought this would be another meazza thread  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 The success of Gore in SF and Bush in NO makes me wonder if certain positions are better off being filled through FA, where you need acquired savvy (quarterback, middle linebacker) and others being filled through draft, where speed, raw athleticism and relentlessness (DE, DT, RB) can make a difference earlier in the player's career. 867355[/snapback] 1 QB- Longest 2. OL/DL- 3. CB/WR- 4. MLB/TE- 5. RB's- Shortest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 1 QB- Longest2. OL/DL-Â 3. CB/WR- 4. MLB/TE- 5. RB's- Shortest 867405[/snapback] Seems to me any LB....not just MLB at #4.....I'd probably have CB at #4 too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Seems to me any LB....not just MLB at #4.....I'd probably have CB at #4 too. 867409[/snapback] Anything past QB's hardest and RB's easiest is debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 what a relief, when i saw positions and rookies in the title i thought this would be another meazza thread  I thought it would be an entertaining thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 1 QB- Longest2. OL/DL-Â 3. CB/WR- 4. MLB/TE- 5. RB's- Shortest 867405[/snapback] Â I agree, but in recent years LBs are stepping right in and playing well. Cowart, Vilma and Ryans are quick examples that come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 RB is the easiest for sure. IMO, second are DT and WR. You simply don't have to learn as much new stuff or responsibilities to be effective. 867368[/snapback] I disagree. True you can bring in a RB who can be athletic and productive, however, to get them involved in the offense overall most have to learn blocking assignments and route running. I think those are some of the hardest things for a running back really to learn and kills the career of a lot of them due to no mental capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 WR, CB, outside LB are probably the easiest to get up to speed with. 867360[/snapback] Â WR is the hardest....If you look at the NFL, most of the top WR picks takes a few years to understand the NFL.....Very few exceptions where WR have begun to explode right from day one. Â CB, LB and RB are the easiest to learn in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 I disagree. True you can bring in a RB who can be athletic and productive, however, to get them involved in the offense overall most have to learn blocking assignments and route running. I think those are some of the hardest things for a running back really to learn and kills the career of a lot of them due to no mental capacity. 867615[/snapback] I agree with that completely. But all positions take three years to really be an all around great player, which is what you are saying. It takes that long for WRs to block and to understand the zones and learn all the tricks. It takes that long for CBs to learn to play off blocks and defend the run as good as the pass and to handle the game's best receivers. There are few exceptions to all positions. What I meant was, a RB you can just throw in there day one and teach him five plays and he can be very productive and run for 100 yards. Look at Sam Gado last year. He had little experience in college let alone pros. That position you don't have to understand the offense or the defense to play and run and catch swing passes and dump offs and you can start right away. You will never have all the intricacies down for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Missionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Without a doubt, RB is the easiest position for a rookie to fill. It's just get the hand off and run downhill. They dictate to the defense sooo..... it's easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 WR, CB, outside LB are probably the easiest to get up to speed with. 867360[/snapback] No way re: WR, it takes most WR's, even good ones, about 3 years to hit their stride. Â RB yes, CB yes, LB in general yes. Â OL, QB, and WR definetly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 I thought it would be an entertaining thread! 867458[/snapback] We could spice it up a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Did ANYBODY read this thread title and not think about sex with a virgin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Did ANYBODY read this thread title and not think about sex with a virgin? 868175[/snapback] Oh, no you dont, Dateline! Fool me twice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts