How much of a difference does having an elite guard make?

[jrry32]

My argument is as follows:

* We shouldn't draft a tackle highly because we already have one (unless the talent differential between Watkins and [Robinson and/or Matthews] is massive.)

* We shouldn't draft a guard highly because even though it's a major need, it's a lower tier position that teams can and often do find great people for later. (I know you disagree vehemently with that one.) My viewpoint on this may change if BOTH guard positions are still not settled going into the draft.

* If talent is anything approaching equal between the picks in question, we should pick Watkins because #1 WR is something we don't have right now and something you can't get later barring getting really lucky.

And the argument doesn't work. Because that one player manages to be both "valuable" as a tackle and fill a need as an OG. That's the point. That's why it ends up in circles. Because you're arguing as if it's mutually exclusive when it's not. Matthews and Robinson are both OTs and OGs. They both fill a need at OG, have the value of being able to play LT and give us a LT of the future. That's the point. They're all of those things. You're treating them as if they can ONLY be one of those things.

It would be like me arguing that Watkins can't be a #1 WR because he didn't play like a NFL #1 WR in college...only catching 30 passes 6+ yards down the field.

 

[jrry32]

Yeah, the "You get a elite guard in the 3rd or 4th round," comment through me off.

OK. A solid starting guard being easily found in rounds 2, 3, & 4 pretty much goes without saying. At the same time, there have been some draft classes where that hasn't turned out to be the case.

Agreed. And the risk with those picks is that you are more likely to whiff on them the longer the draft goes. But you can also find solid WRs in rounds 2, 3, and 4. That's also conveniently ignored.

 

[Boffo97]

And the argument doesn't work. Because that one player manages to be both "valuable" as a tackle and fill a need as an OG. That's the point. That's why it ends up in circles. Because you're arguing as if it's mutually exclusive when it's not. Matthews and Robinson are both OTs and OGs. They both fill a need at OG, have the value of being able to play LT and give us a LT of the future. That's the point. They're all of those things. You're treating them as if they can ONLY be one of those things.

It would be like me arguing that Watkins can't be a #1 WR because he didn't play like a NFL #1 WR in college...only catching 30 passes 6+ yards down the field.

I already reputed the "mutually exclusive" nonsense. And how it IS you deliberately putting it into circles, which I sadly thought you were done with. As I said earlier:

I *know* Robinson or Matthews would play guard now. And I *know* that hopefully sometime in the future, they'd be moved to tackle preventing a need there in the future. This is not new information. I *still* think that, unless there's a big talent disparity, we'd be better off taking the #1 WR we very likely don't have right now, and fixing our immediate guard problem later in the draft.

Will you please please stop pretending I don't know what the plan is? Will you please stop taking the argument in circles? Please?

Or do I need to save the above quote and just repost it whenever you attempt to do so?

But you can also find solid WRs in rounds 2, 3, and 4. That's also conveniently ignored.

But not #1's unless you're incredibly lucky. That's been stated several times.

But you CAN find good and even elite guards in those rounds. Maybe they can't also be a tackle later, but they fill guard holes.

 

[jrry32]

But not #1's unless you're incredibly lucky. That's been stated several times.

But you CAN find good and even elite guards in those rounds. Maybe they can't also be a tackle later, but they fill guard holes.

In fact, I'll give a list:
Antonio Brown - 6th round
Pierre Garcon - 6th round
Alshon Jeffery - 2nd round
Josh Gordon - 2nd round
DeSean Jackson - 2nd round
Jordy Nelson - 2nd round
Brandon Marshall - 4th round
Vincent Jackson - 3rd round
Anquan Boldin - 2nd round
Marques Colston - 7th round
Mike Wallace - 3rd round
Torrey Smith - 2nd round

At worst, you can argue 3-6 of these guys are not "true #1 WRs" depending on your standards. Regardless, that's 12 names. 10 of those 12 names had 1000+ yards in 2013.

So, can anyone give me 10 very good/great OGs that were drafted outside the first round?

And then you have guys that are either retired or have declined such as:
Terrell Owens - 3rd round
Steve Smith - 3rd round
Isaac Bruce - 2nd round
Cris Carter - 4th round
Henry Ellard - 2nd round
Andre Reed - 4th round
Steve Largent - 4th round
Steve Smith - 2nd round
Charlie Joiner - 4th round
Hines Ward - 3rd round

I'm going to stop there. So either we gotta apply the incredibly lucky comment to guards too or we stop using it for WRs.

 

[Boffo97]

I think you could point those out as the lucky exceptions.

And I think your list of very good to elite guards outside the 1st round will be longer. But I will concede that I don't have such a list handy if it keeps us from going into more circles.

You're free to have your opinion, and I freely admit there's merit to it. I still retain my opinion however.

 

[RamFan503]

One other thing. We know who we can get with the #2 pick. We'd have a dang good idea with the 4th or 5th. But as you get farther down the draft, you have less and less ability to know with any certainty where teams are going with their pick or that your guy is going to be there at #20 or #32. So saying you can get a Guard in Rd #2 is going to be greatly affected by how other teams see your guy. We KNOW we can get Watkins or Matthews or Robinson with our pick. We DON'T know either of the top Guard prospects will be there when we pick in the second. So if you do take Watkins (and if he is the most impactful player then go for it) you can't make the argument that you can address the gaping hole at guard in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. UNLESS you are willing to take a much lesser player than what you want for your team.

 

[Boffo97]

One other thing. We know who we can get with the #2 pick. We'd have a dang good idea with the 4th or 5th. But as you get farther down the draft, you have less and less ability to know with any certainty where teams are going with their pick or that your guy is going to be there at #20 or #32. So saying you can get a Guard in Rd #2 is going to be greatly affected by how other teams see your guy. We KNOW we can get Watkins or Matthews or Robinson with our pick. We DON'T know either of the top Guard prospects will be there when we pick in the second. So if you do take Watkins (and if he is the most impactful player then go for it) you can't make the argument that you can address the gaping hole at guard in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. UNLESS you are willing to take a much lesser player than what you want for your team.

I've actually backed off my earlier stance that Yankey or Su'a-Filo would be there in the 2nd round. Now I'd like the Rams to trade up into the 1st round... or if their stock keeps going up, consider taking them at 13 or trading slightly down.

That said, I have to think even if Robinson or Matthews tops their boards, the Rams have to have a good read on a number of lesser round offensive linemen and have a pretty good idea who will be available at each pick.

Even if we draft Watkins or Clowney or anyone else not on the OL, the OL will be addressed.

 

[Angry Ram]

I vehemently disagree, Angry. There's a monster difference in my eyes when I watch a guy like Earl Thomas play in comparison to a Donte Whitner or Dashon Goldson. I noticed a monster difference between Rodger Saffold and Harvey Dahl at RG. I notice a monster difference between Lavonte David and Brandon Spikes.

Read the end of my sentence. It's not individual, I did say players are better than others. It's through the course of games where it doesn't make that big a difference. It's not 1 player to spend a buttload of resources.

When did Logan Mankins become an elite guard?? He gave up 8.5 sacks last year according to http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=7208

IDK, he's just the 1st guy I thought of that's still playing.

 

[jrry32]

Read the end of my sentence. It's not individual, I did say players are better than others. It's through the course of games where it doesn't make that big a difference. It's not 1 player to spend a buttload of resources.

I disagree. It's pretty noticeable to me. It was noticeable to me the way Saffold was blasting holes open and picking up the blitz and Dahl wasn't.

 

[Angry Ram]

I disagree. It's pretty noticeable to me. It was noticeable to me the way Saffold was blasting holes open and picking up the blitz and Dahl wasn't.

Yeah, and the Rams OL went down the crapper down the stretch. They still lost games, and some pretty bad. So through 60 mins of play? Ehh. It wouldn't have mattered much regardless of who was playing.

 

[jrry32]

Yeah, and the Rams OL went down the crapper down the stretch. They still lost games, and some pretty bad. So through 60 mins of play? Ehh. It wouldn't have mattered much regardless of who was playing.

That's pure crazy talk. The Rams went 4-2 and in those 6 games, the Rams rushed for 885 yards(147.5 yards per game), 4.8 yards per carry and 8 rushing TDs. It was quite evident the difference he made and the claim that it didn't matter who was playing is preposterous.

 

[nighttrain]

Well with Saffold back, seems we have an elite guard, that can play both tackles in a pinch

train

 

[RamFan503]

There are several ways we could go in this draft. If the brass thinks that Watkins is a true difference maker and can do things like protect their main investment and allow for the offense to take the next step that I think we all agree is to score more points then I'm ok with that. I don't as a non-paid NFL Draft analyst agree but I think they know just a smidge more than me - just a smidge.

It's really nice to have options and I agree that there are more ways than one to skin a cat. I'm not going to go to saying any view is preposterous or crazy talk NOR am I going to agree that proposing certain scenarios is moving the goal posts. What I will say is that we keep trying to piece together a very important part of the offense and that is the O-line. I'm tired of seeing this. But it is just my opinion.

My opinion is that no #1 receiver unless he is a true freak like a CJ is going to get us to the point of averaging enough points to be champions. I couldn't really give a damn if a player can get open more than the next. What I care about is facing the different teams, what gives us the opportunity to dictate the game. If a team can double a receiver, or in the case of Seattle and play one up on our best receiver while their stellar D-line punishes our QB, I vote not to have our QB pounded.

Sam is a very good QB given even a modicum of time in a fairly clean pocket. Being that he is a standard in all this, I would LOVE to see him have time to throw. If you watch the games, I have a really hard time thinking that even in light of a fairly low sack total, anyone can truly say he has had that time and clean pocket.

QBs can make WRs look pretty damn good. OCs can make offenses look pretty damn good. But when you get a QB that is tops in the league and you hurry him and slap him around, virtually NO offense looks good unless they have a powerhouse running game to turn to.

The trenches need to be won in either case IMO. And there is no way in Haites that we are set on the offensive side of the trenches.

 

[RamFan503]

Well with Saffold back, seems we have an elite guard, that can play both tackles in a pinch

train

??? Did I miss something Train?

 

[RamFan503]

Apparently so. WTH??? So how many other supposed deals are not so? I gotta say... this does change quite a bit if true.

 

[nighttrain]

Apparently so. WTH??? So how many other supposed deals are not so? I gotta say... this does change quite a bit if true.

apparently Oakland suffered an unusual degree of buyers remorse, worked out fine for us.

train

 

[nighttrain]

One other thing. We know who we can get with the #2 pick. We'd have a dang good idea with the 4th or 5th. But as you get farther down the draft, you have less and less ability to know with any certainty where teams are going with their pick or that your guy is going to be there at #20 or #32. So saying you can get a Guard in Rd #2 is going to be greatly affected by how other teams see your guy. We KNOW we can get Watkins or Matthews or Robinson with our pick. We DON'T know either of the top Guard prospects will be there when we pick in the second. So if you do take Watkins (and if he is the most impactful player then go for it) you can't make the argument that you can address the gaping hole at guard in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. UNLESS you are willing to take a much lesser player than what you want for your team.

Snead reaped a whirlwind when trading down last time and ending up with 14th overall pick, I value his abilities.
train

 

[Angry Ram]

That's pure crazy talk. The Rams went 4-2 and in those 6 games, the Rams rushed for 885 yards(147.5 yards per game), 4.8 yards per carry and 8 rushing TDs. It was quite evident the difference he made and the claim that it didn't matter who was playing is preposterous.

Ram's OL was shit down the stretcher. You aren't getting it w/ anything I post. Whether it be draft or this or anything.

I SAID INDIVIDUALLY PLAYER X CAN BE BETTER THAN PLAYER Y, BUT NOT THROUGH THE COURSE OF A GAME, IT IS NOT NOTICEABLE ENOUGH TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF A GAME THROUGH 60 MINUTES.

Especially at positions like guard, safety OLB, you can have a win with say a Harvey Dahl player over a Steve Hutchinson type. Or Donte Whinter over Troy Polamalu. Who's better Troy or Donte? Troy, duh. But SF has won more games w/ Donte over Troy. See my point now? Which is the idea of the OP..what's the difference b/w an elite guy and a good player. There is little to none for difference b/w wins or losses.

THAT is all I am saying.

 

[jjab360]

Ram's OL was crap down the stretcher. You aren't getting it w/ anything I post. Whether it be draft or this or anything.

I SAID INDIVIDUALLY PLAYER X CAN BE BETTER THAN PLAYER Y, BUT NOT THROUGH THE COURSE OF A GAME, IT IS NOT NOTICEABLE ENOUGH TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF A GAME THROUGH 60 MINUTES.

Especially at positions like guard, safety OLB, you can have a win with say a Harvey Dahl player over a Steve Hutchinson type. Or Donte Whinter over Troy Polamalu. Who's better Troy or Donte? Troy, duh. But SF has won more games w/ Donte over Troy. See my point now? Which is the idea of the OP..what's the difference b/w an elite guy and a good player. There is little to none for difference b/w wins or losses.

THAT is all I am saying.

This makes no sense.

 

[jrry32]

Ram's OL was crap down the stretcher. You aren't getting it w/ anything I post. Whether it be draft or this or anything.

I SAID INDIVIDUALLY PLAYER X CAN BE BETTER THAN PLAYER Y, BUT NOT THROUGH THE COURSE OF A GAME, IT IS NOT NOTICEABLE ENOUGH TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF A GAME THROUGH 60 MINUTES.

Especially at positions like guard, safety OLB, you can have a win with say a Harvey Dahl player over a Steve Hutchinson type. Or Donte Whinter over Troy Polamalu. Who's better Troy or Donte? Troy, duh. But SF has won more games w/ Donte over Troy. See my point now? Which is the idea of the OP..what's the difference b/w an elite guy and a good player. There is little to none for difference b/w wins or losses.

THAT is all I am saying.

Well, I won't get it because it's not accurate. The only games "down the stretch" where they performed badly were the second Seattle game...without Jake Long and Rodger Saffold forced to play LT and the Arizona game.

It's not enough to influence the outcome of the game? I disagree, I think it is. I think PRIME Troy Polamalu influenced the outcome of quite a few games over his career. Current Polamalu is no longer an elite or great safety. He's old and in decline.

Being able to win with a Harvey Dahl player over a Steve Hutchinson type doesn't mean jack. You can win with a lesser player at ANY position if you have a better team. So no, I don't get the point. It's flying well over my head. San Francisco has won more games with Colin Kaepernick and Alex Smith than New Orleans has won with Drew Brees over the past few years. And yet, I'd never consider the QB position to be one where having an elite player doesn't matter or doesn't influence the outcome of games.

Do you want another QB example? Joe Flacco's team has won more games than Tony Romo's team over the past few years as well.