Havok wrote:Ever since Jimmy Johnson instituted his draft pick value system in the early 90's and won three Superbowls, largely through the draft and Charles Haley, that has been the model pretty much every team uses.
It also forced a false value on draft picks that all the talking heads cling to like rats on a sinking ship.
It's another meaningless stat, like the 40-time. I was amused to see that the 40 Fetish was accidentally created by Paul Brown, who was looking to draft players with speed to play on special teams. The average punt was 40 yards and the desired hang time was 4-4.5 seconds. The idea was to have guys fast enough to cover the punt while the ball was in the air, or at least to give the return man as little time as possible before being tackled. Everyone latched onto the 40-time (If Paul Brown wants guys who run 40 in less than 4.5 seconds, he must be right!), but Brown gave up on it when too many of the fast guys he drafted for ST couldn't tackle.
I like guys like Mike Mayock on NFL Network that use that as a basis, but it isn't the be all end all of his analysis, like some.
The only thing that can devastate a franchise, and I think you are misquoting there a bit, is drafting badly in the top 5 in the first round because of the money you will be paying out and time lost.
That might be what they were getting at (top 5), but I've heard from many "experts" who insist that blowing it with 1st-rounders in general will set the team back for years, blah, blah, blah...
I look at the whole draft rather than focusing on Round 1, and the whole slate of players being brought in
rather than focusing on just the draft.
If you draft Jamarcus Russell, you are out 39 Million no matter what, plus his yearly salary, plus missing out on letting other QBs play (Jeff Garcia) that can lead a team and get wins.
I put THAT on coaches and management for putting draft status ahead of being ready to play. You brought up Jimmy Johnson, but when Troy Aikman (#1 overall) was stinking up the place his rookie year, Jimmy didn't hesitate to pull him and play another rookie (taken in the supplemental draft) in his place. Ability to play should
always trump money and where they guy was picked.
That said, I think devastate is too strong a word when it isn't referring to a drafted QB in the top 5. I look at when the Texans drafted Mario Williams and the Saints took Bush. Swap those picks out. Clearly, Houston has needed offensive playmakers to get anywhere in their division against the Colts. Defensive minded drafts have gotten them nowhere. The Saints had no problem rushing the ball before that draft and their offense is fairly explosive without Bush.
Imagine Bush along with Andre Johnson, and Schaub. That offense could easily rival the Colts and win all the shoot outs needed. Imagine Williams on Greg Lewis's defense. Granted the Saints won a Superbowl, but Bush wasn't that big of a factor. Williams would have had the defensive impact to maybe make it happen sooner, and maybe more often. Bush could have given the Texans the edge needed to topple the Colts.
Mario Williams has been an excellent player on a team with a crap defense. The Texans' problem is that the other defensive players they've picked have sucked. The offense is outstanding -I mean Air Coryell/Greatest Show On Turf caliber: 6000 yards of offense in 2010. So what exactly is Reggie Bush going to add to that? The only thing noteworthy he's done since turning pro is boinking Kim Kardashian. He's injury prone and has fumbleitis. You'd swap what little pass rush the Texans have for a part-time 3rd down back?
I also don't care for the idea of going up against any QB when I can't pressure him, let alone Peyton Manning. The only way to beat him is to get pressure in his face.
Another reason it's better to have Super Mario than Reggie Bush.
