How to Start a Rebuild ... "Infrastructure" or "Playmakers"?

[JoeWillie]

Some believe "infrastructure" players are the way to start the rebuilding process.

Others prefer building around the "playmakers" first.

Is there really a "right" way and a "wrong" way to start rebuilding a football team.

I don't believe there is one absolute "right way" to build a team. I think history has shown that both ways can work.

Some have done it Mangini's way, by taking the "infrastructure" guys first, which is a winning approach. It might be a bit more boring for draftniks on years that those players are taken, ala this year for Jet fans, but it is a proven winning formula.

Some have done it by building around the QB (Cowboys and Aikman), which has also been a winning approach and probably a bit "sexier".

If D'Brick and Mangold turn out to be busts (which I don't think they will be), a lot of people will think the philosophy of taking O-linemen first is not the right way to go in the future, which is also wrong.

Bottom line is this ...

Regardless of what philosophy you choose to build your team, it comes down to picking good players, whether they're QB's or linemen or whatever.

Let's hope we got 2 good ones and not the next Robert Gallerys. If we got two solid starters for years to come, and some of our later picks can fill some other holes, the rebuilding has begun.

Then, maybe 2007 will be the year of the "Playmakers" for the Jets.

[bitonti]

Let's hope we got 2 good ones and not the next Robert Gallerys. If we got two solid starters for years to come, and some of our later picks can fill some other holes, the rebuilding has begun.

Robert Gallery is a solid starter.

Generally i agree with your post - there's no sense in drafting a top 5 QB or RB and when they get here they get killed.

[JoeWillie]

Robert Gallery is a solid starter.

Generally i agree with your post - there's no sense in drafting a top 5 QB or RB and when they get here they get killed.

The Cowboys did with Aikman.

Of course, he almost got killed his first year.

But it did work out pretty well for them.

PS. I think Gallery's OK, but has not turned out to be what they thought he would be for being taken so high.

[Bugg]

Teams like the Broncos, Steelers and Panthers year after year succeed with different RBs. The Seahawks lost Alexander to injuries late in the year and didn't miss a beat. How is it Jake Plummer, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Dilfer and numerous other middling QBs succeed in playoff games? It's called a solid offensive line. And we may on the verge of having one.

Cowboys also drafted or had Nate Newton, Flozell Adams, Mark Stepnoski, and Larry Allen, which didn't hurt either. Until the OL came togerther it was pretty lousy.

[JetCane]

Foundation before window dressing.

[JoeWillie]

Teams like the Broncos, Steelers and Panthers year after year succeed with different RBs. The Seahawks lost Alexander to injuries late in the year and didn't miss a beat. How is it Jake Plummer, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Dilfer and numerous other middling QBs succeed in playoff games? It's called a solid offensive line. And we may on the verge of having one.

Cowboys also drafted or had Nate Newton, Flozell Adams, Mark Stepnoski, and Larry Allen, which didn't hurt either. Until the OL came togerther it was pretty lousy.

I guess you prefer the "Infrastructure" way, which is fine.

I'm not going to argue which way is better, because as I said, for every example you sight, there is an example the other way, as well.

I still think it comes down mostly to the specific players you draft and how well they do in the NFL.

[RSJ]

There is only one way to build a championship football team. It starts with the trenches.

Steelers of the 70's - Great OL and front 7. Almost ran Bradshaw out of town before they got their trenches built up.

49ers of the 80's - Great OL and front 7.

Redskins of the 80's - The Hoggs, also a great D.

Giants of the 80's - Great OL and front 7 on D.

Dallas of the early 90's - Maybe the best OL ever. Great DL too.

Pats last 5 years - Great OL and defensive front 7.

Bucs, Ravens, Rams, Packers, Carolina, Eagles of recent times - all great OL and DL.

The Rams were not known for their defense but they had great DT's and a otherwise solid D.

Again, defensive lineman, offensive lineman, and QB's take the longest time to develop and are quintessential to have in order to be a super bowl champion. We got 2 out of 3 positions filled in this draft (hopefully). That combined with good development and competition should solidify our OL and QB. Our defensive front 7 is pretty good right now. It will need a few more players (maybe one or two). But right now I think it is pretty good.

RB's routinely come in and rush for 1000 yards as rookies.

WR's take generally 3 years to fully develop. However, if you use your wideouts like the Pats do and other teams have, it will not take you 3 years to get a WR acclimated with beating certain types of coverages. And while they may not get you 1000 yards they still will be able to be effective in limited roles.

TE's can generally come in and be effective after 2 years. They are not all that important though. They just need to be solid and reliable.

DB's can generally come in and start as rookies but will need about 2 years before being at least solid to spectacular.

Skill positions sell tickets and newspapers on draft day. But OL, and DL wins championships.

[JoeWillie]

There is only one way to build a championship football team. It starts with the trenches.

Steelers of the 70's - Great OL and front 7. Almost ran Bradshaw out of town before they got their trenches built up.

49ers of the 80's - Great OL and front 7.

Redskins of the 80's - The Hoggs, also a great D.

Giants of the 80's - Great OL and front 7 on D.

Dallas of the early 90's - Maybe the best OL ever. Great DL too.

Pats last 5 years - Great OL and defensive front 7.

Bucs, Ravens, Rams, Packers, Carolina, Eagles of recent times - all great OL and DL.

The Rams were not known for their defense but they had great DT's and a otherwise solid D.

Again, defensive lineman, offensive lineman, and QB's take the longest time to develop and are quintessential to have in order to be a super bowl champion. We got 2 out of 3 positions filled in this draft (hopefully). That combined with good development and competition should solidify our OL and QB. Our defensive front 7 is pretty good right now. It will need a few more players (maybe one or two). But right now I think it is pretty good.

RB's routinely come in and rush for 1000 yards as rookies.

WR's take generally 3 years to fully develop. However, if you use your wideouts like the Pats do and other teams have, it will not take you 3 years to get a WR acclimated with beating certain types of coverages. And while they may not get you 1000 yards they still will be able to be effective in limited roles.

TE's can generally come in and be effective after 2 years. They are not all that important though. They just need to be solid and reliable.

DB's can generally come in and start as rookies but will need about 2 years before being at least solid to spectacular.

Skill positions sell tickets and newspapers on draft day. But OL, and DL wins championships.

You're inferring that I'm saying the O-line is not important which I'm not doing. I believe the trenches is where you win football games.

The question is where do you start considering time to develop, financial considerations, etc...?

All the teams you mention had good O-lines (eventually) but not all started their rebuilding that way.

Dallas of the early 90's was built around the QB. Aikman took a beating his first year when they went 1-15. The offensive line was horrible. The spent most of their subsequent years after Aikman's first improving the line through the draft and FA.

You also mention the Steelers who got the QB first before the O-line and it worked out pretty well for them, as well.

I'm OK with what the Jets are doing.

I just don't believe that is the only way to do it.

[stormshadow19]

The early 90's Cowboys had pieces in place befoer they got Aikman. That and they had the Walker trade, which gave them a thousand draft picks over the next few years.

Take this... the Lions tried building with playmakers. Where are they now?

[JoeWillie]

The early 90's Cowboys had pieces in place befoer they got Aikman. That and they had the Walker trade, which gave them a thousand draft picks over the next few years.

Take this... the Lions tried building with playmakers. Where are they now?

OK, so I guess there is only one absolute way to build a team and no one on this board will allow for even the possibility that it can be done differently.

Unbelievable.

Sorry I brought it up.

[RSJ]

You're inferring that I'm saying the O-line is not important which I'm not doing. I believe the trenches is where you win football games.

The question is where do you start considering time to develop, financial considerations, etc...?

All the teams you mention had good O-lines (eventually) but not all started their rebuilding that way.

Dallas of the early 90's was built around the QB. Aikman took a beating his first year when they went 1-15. The offensive line was horrible. The spent most of their subsequent years after Aikman's first improving the line through the draft and FA.

You also mention the Steelers who got the QB first before the O-line and it worked out pretty well for them, as well.

I'm OK with what the Jets are doing.

I just don't believe that is the only way to do it.

It takes longer to develop OL and DL. So while you could grab the QB first - he will get the crap kicked out of him while you are developing the OL. Because you need to be tops in the league in OL and DL play to win it all it makes more sense to build that first. Atleast if you get it wrong with your higher selections you can try again with lower round guys. Most OL even the great ones were built with atleast some lower round picks. The most important parts to have in place on the OL are LT and Center.

Also I forgot the Broncos who also had a great OL.

[RSJ]

OK, so I guess there is only one absolute way to build a team and no one on this board will allow for even the possibility that it can be done differently.

Unbelievable.

Sorry I brought it up.

Well give us an example. Like SS said the cowboys did not use that high of picks on OL but did use a ton of lower round ones on the OL. They could do that because they had a ton of picks from the Walker trade.

[JoeWillie]

Well give us an example. Like SS said the cowboys did not use that high of picks on OL but did use a ton of lower round ones on the OL. They could do that because they had a ton of picks from the Walker trade.

This, off the Cowboy website ...

"With the first overall draft pick in 1989, the Cowboys took quarterback Troy Aikman. Once the 1989 season got underway, they traded Herschel Walker, who gained 1,514 yards for Dallas in 1988, to Minnesota. In 1990, the Cowboys then (The key word is "then") acquired five veteran players and eight draft choices. They finished the season 1-15, but those acquisitions proved to be the foundation for Dallas's brilliant 1992 season, which ended with a 52-17 victory over Buffalo in Super Bowl XXVII In Super Bowl XXVIII, the Cowboys again defeated Buffalo 30-13 behind MVP Emmitt Smith".

Aikman was selected first, then the rest of the pieces were put in place around him through free agent signings and draft picks.

There's your example.

[NIGHT STALKER]

This, off the Cowboy website ...

"With the first overall draft pick in 1989, the Cowboys took quarterback Troy Aikman. Once the 1989 season got underway, they traded Herschel Walker, who gained 1,514 yards for Dallas in 1988, to Minnesota. In 1990, the Cowboys then (The key word is "then") acquired five veteran players and eight draft choices. They finished the season 1-15, but those acquisitions proved to be the foundation for Dallas's brilliant 1992 season, which ended with a 52-17 victory over Buffalo in Super Bowl XXVII In Super Bowl XXVIII, the Cowboys again defeated Buffalo 30-13 behind MVP Emmitt Smith".

Aikman was selected first, then the rest of the pieces were put in place around him through free agent signings and draft picks.

There's your example.

JW, that's not the norm...I brought up an example the other day concerning purchasing a house. You don't usually purchase furniture before you purchase your house. Same way in building your team...build the line (house) and then concentrate on the backfield (furniture)...

[RSJ]

This, off the Cowboy website ...

"With the first overall draft pick in 1989, the Cowboys took quarterback Troy Aikman. Once the 1989 season got underway, they traded Herschel Walker, who gained 1,514 yards for Dallas in 1988, to Minnesota. In 1990, the Cowboys then (The key word is "then") acquired five veteran players and eight draft choices. They finished the season 1-15, but those acquisitions proved to be the foundation for Dallas's brilliant 1992 season, which ended with a 52-17 victory over Buffalo in Super Bowl XXVII In Super Bowl XXVIII, the Cowboys again defeated Buffalo 30-13 behind MVP Emmitt Smith".

Aikman was selected first, then the rest of the pieces were put in place around him through free agent signings and draft picks.

There's your example.

I hear you now. At first I guess I just did not understand your question. So I guess my opinion is it does not matter which comes first but the OL is essential in winning. All I know is that LT and C are two of the most important positions in football and we got the two best. Heck we may have gotten the two best OL in a strong strong draft.

I will say though that the Cowboys are the exception and not the rule.

[JoeWillie]

JW, that's not the norm...I brought up an example the other day concerning purchasing a house. You don't usually purchase furniture before you purchase your house. Same way in building your team...build the line (house) and then concentrate on the backfield (furniture)...

Believe it or not, I generally agree with building the foundation first, so I'm not arguing against that approach.

I'm a high school football coach, so I do understand that nothing on a football team works unless you control the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.

Run the ball.

Stop the run.

Force Turnovers and don't turn the ball over yourself.

Those are the 3 quintessential things in consistently winning football games.

The only exception I might make over the "foundation first" methodology is when you have a chance to get a franchise QB, ala, Manning, Elway, Aikman, etc... because those guys don't come along too often and even when you get one, they can take awhile to develop, even the great ones.

Now if you don't believe that any of the guys in this draft are those type of QB's, fine. Obviously, the Jets didn't. So they went the "safe" route and did what they had to do to build the trenches, which is certainly a good way to go.

I, myself, think Leinart is going to be very, very good. But like many NFL GM's who get paid to get it right, I might be wrong.

But I think there are more teams that have gone with the QB first approach then you think.

Denver with Elway is probably another example.

And it can work if you get the right player at that position and then fill in around him. The problem is accurately forecasting the "franchise QB". It's a losing proposition more often then not (i.e. Harrington, Smith, Leaf, etc...).

I agree that the rest of the offensive backfield should come later. RB's should be last when all the pieces are in place and to both your points, a great O-line can make even a mediocre RB look good.

Of course, in high school football, I don't have the luxury of 4 or 5 years to develop players.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Believe it or not, I generally agree with building the foundation first, so I'm not arguing against that approach.

I'm a high school football coach, so I do understand that nothing on a football team works unless you control the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.

Run the ball.

Stop the run.

Force Turnovers and don't turn the ball over yourself.

Those are the 3 quintessential things in consistently winning football games.

The only exception I might make over the "foundation first" methodology is when you have a chance to get a franchise QB, ala, Manning, Elway, Aikman, etc... because those guys don't come along too often and even when you get one, they can take awhile to develop, even the great ones.

Now if you don't believe that any of the guys in this draft are those type of QB's, fine. Obviously, the Jets didn't. So they went the "safe" route and did what they had to do to build the trenches, which is certainly a good way to go.

I, myself, think Leinart is going to be very, very good. But like many NFL GM's who get paid to get it right, I might be wrong.

But I think there are more teams that have gone with the QB first approach then you think.

Denver with Elway is probably another example.

And it can work if you get the right player at that position and then fill in around him. The problem is accurately forecasting the "franchise QB". It's a losing proposition more often then not (i.e. Harrington, Smith, Leaf, etc...).

I agree that the rest of the offensive backfield should come later. RB's should be last when all the pieces are in place and to both your points, a great O-line can make even a mediocre RB look good.

Of course, in high school football, I don't have the luxury of 4 or 5 years to develop players.

I give you HS coaches a lot of credit...so, I know where you're coming from with your opinion. Having played high school ball many, many years ago, it wasn't about building foundations, but putting the best players on the field.

[Boozer76]

The Cowboys are not the greate3st example, simply because it is very rare to get a Hershel Walker type trade to put all your pieces in at once. But you do notice that They were able to solidify their foundation at the same time they drafted Aikman. We on the other hand woul;d have to wait at least a year.

The main issue with drafting the flash before the foundation is the fact that you are creating a situation where an otherwise good player becomes an absolute bust. If Reggie Bush had our decimated line even he would stink. You'd then have that huge contingent calling him a disappointment or a bust. Vinny Testaverde was by all accounts a bust in TB. Let's say hypothetically that he started his career with DAL in stead, and T Aikman started with TB. Chances are we'd be annointing Vinny in the HOF hands down and Aikman would barely be a thoguth today. That's the difference in plugging superstar flash amongt a team with absolutely no foundation. There is only one player in history that continued to be a star despite his horrific surroundings, and that's Barry Sanders. Many HOF class athleytes have busted right out of the NFL because their team never gave them the foundation for success.

[JoeWillie]

The Cowboys are not the greate3st example, simply because it is very rare to get a Hershel Walker type trade to put all your pieces in at once. But you do notice that They were able to solidify their foundation at the same time they drafted Aikman. We on the other hand woul;d have to wait at least a year.

The main issue with drafting the flash before the foundation is the fact that you are creating a situation where an otherwise good player becomes an absolute bust. If Reggie Bush had our decimated line even he would stink. You'd then have that huge contingent calling him a disappointment or a bust. Vinny Testaverde was by all accounts a bust in TB. Let's say hypothetically that he started his career with DAL in stead, and T Aikman started with TB. Chances are we'd be annointing Vinny in the HOF hands down and Aikman would barely be a thoguth today. That's the difference in plugging superstar flash amongt a team with absolutely no foundation. There is only one player in history that continued to be a star despite his horrific surroundings, and that's Barry Sanders. Many HOF class athleytes have busted right out of the NFL because their team never gave them the foundation for success.

As I said, I think the Jets did the right thing considering their situation and the talent available in this year's draft.

Only allowing for the possibility that it can and has worked with the other approach as well.

[PeterNorth09]

Robert Gallery is a solid starter.

Generally i agree with your post - there's no sense in drafting a top 5 QB or RB and when they get here they get killed.

Gallery is a solid starter? Are you on crack? The Raiders spent the #2 pick overall on that bum and passed up on Larry Fitzgerald and Ben Roethlisberger for him.

I'm not saying Ferguson will be as bad as Gallery, he won't be, but we will have passed up two franchise players for him, Vernon Davis and Matt Leinart.

The funny thing about this draft is, the Jets could have built "infrastructure" players while taking playmakers as well. There were a ton of good offensive linemen in Rounds 2-5. Just ask Eagles, Chargers, Pats who they got and they'll tell you how happy they are.