Here's a thread to debate the merits of trading up vs trading down, taking QBs with every pick or never taking them in the first round, seeking out or specifically avoiding SEC prospects, etc.
I'll kick it off - I increasingly feel like taking tackles high is overrated.
Here are the tackles taken in the top 10 in the last 10 years:
2004 - #2 Robert Gallery, OAK - huge bust, eventually became an average G for a couple years
2006 - #4 D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NYJ - fine, he's been an above-average tackle for the Jets
2007 - #3 Joe Thomas, CLE - he's been great
2007 - #5 Levi Brown, ARZ - he hasn't
2008 - #1 Jake Long, MIA - he was great for 4 years, now he's OK
2009 - #2 Jason Smith, STL - huge bust
2009 - #6 Andre Smith, CIN - took a little bit but now he's an excellent RT
2009 - #8 Eugene Monroe, JAX - solid LT, probably about average
2010 - #4 Trent Williams, WAS - he's been great
2010 - #6 Russell Okung, SEA - solid LT, probably about average
2011 - #9 Tyron Smith, DAL - he's been great
I'll ignore the 2012 (Kalil) and 2013 guy (Fisher, Joeckel, Johnson) because I think it's too early to tell.
Overall, I think the hit rate is OK - 3 busts out of 11, several stars. Small sample size, but the bust / star rate smells about average.
Joe Thomas is almost the platonic ideal of a LT - his teams have finished 8th, 30th, 29th, 31st, 30th, 24th, 27th in points. In Jake Long's hey-day, the Dolphins were 21st, 15th, 30th, 20th. Even if you get a great LT, it doesn't seem like it helps that much. Having a terrible LT certainly seems like a problem (although the elite guys like Manning and Brees were largely able to overcome it), but how much difference is there between the very best LTs in the league and an average one? Would the Pats score any more points upgrading from Solder to Thomas? If the answer is no, why would you use a top-10 pick on one?
I think there's a catch-22 here: you want a great LT to protect a star QB, but the star QBs don't need great LTs because they have quick releases and pocket presence. Maybe a top LT helps more limited guys, but how far are you going with a QB like that anyway?
I'll kick it off - I increasingly feel like taking tackles high is overrated.
Here are the tackles taken in the top 10 in the last 10 years:
2004 - #2 Robert Gallery, OAK - huge bust, eventually became an average G for a couple years
2006 - #4 D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NYJ - fine, he's been an above-average tackle for the Jets
2007 - #3 Joe Thomas, CLE - he's been great
2007 - #5 Levi Brown, ARZ - he hasn't
2008 - #1 Jake Long, MIA - he was great for 4 years, now he's OK
2009 - #2 Jason Smith, STL - huge bust
2009 - #6 Andre Smith, CIN - took a little bit but now he's an excellent RT
2009 - #8 Eugene Monroe, JAX - solid LT, probably about average
2010 - #4 Trent Williams, WAS - he's been great
2010 - #6 Russell Okung, SEA - solid LT, probably about average
2011 - #9 Tyron Smith, DAL - he's been great
I'll ignore the 2012 (Kalil) and 2013 guy (Fisher, Joeckel, Johnson) because I think it's too early to tell.
Overall, I think the hit rate is OK - 3 busts out of 11, several stars. Small sample size, but the bust / star rate smells about average.
Joe Thomas is almost the platonic ideal of a LT - his teams have finished 8th, 30th, 29th, 31st, 30th, 24th, 27th in points. In Jake Long's hey-day, the Dolphins were 21st, 15th, 30th, 20th. Even if you get a great LT, it doesn't seem like it helps that much. Having a terrible LT certainly seems like a problem (although the elite guys like Manning and Brees were largely able to overcome it), but how much difference is there between the very best LTs in the league and an average one? Would the Pats score any more points upgrading from Solder to Thomas? If the answer is no, why would you use a top-10 pick on one?
I think there's a catch-22 here: you want a great LT to protect a star QB, but the star QBs don't need great LTs because they have quick releases and pocket presence. Maybe a top LT helps more limited guys, but how far are you going with a QB like that anyway?