Building a team

[drago]

If you are building a team from scratch, you are drafting basing on what positions need to be looked at early in the draft as apposed to later on. These are the positions that need to be filled first, and ones that need to be addressed later.

LT 1 - Helps the passing game and the running game like no other position on the field. All super bowl teams have had a good to great LT in recent memory.

C 2 - Should make all the calls at the line, is the leader of the line.

RG 3 - Preferably a mauler, someone that can not only move, but put DT's on their backs, and be agile enough to get into space when called on to pull.

QB 4 - Obvious, needs to make all the throws, limit mistakes. You can win with a lesser QB, although it is clear you'd rather have a great one, they don't come along very often, so stacking the rest of your team is much more valuable than hoping a top 5 QB pans out.

WR 5 - It would be nice to have a stud, but it is not necessary. So many WR's can get the job done with decent speed and good hands, and there are plenty of them out there.

WR 6 - same

RB 7 - Give me a bruiser with decent speed for 3 seasons then draft a new one. If he can hold on to the ball and hit the wholes when they are there with a good O-line in front of him, there is no reason to waste high draft picks on the Cedric Benson's of the world.

LG 8 - Have one specalty, pass blocking, run blocking, and work with it.

RT 9 - Dime a dozen. Get a tough run blocker, with reasonably good feet, and you have yourself a decent RT

TE 10 - Shut up and block

FB 11 - Shut up and block

CB 1 - Toughest position on the field to fill (defensively), needs to be fast and strong in run support, can cut a field in half if you have a pure CB, which is invaluable

RE 2 - A team that can get pressure from it's front four doesn't need to blitz and doesn't give up big plays, i.e. Chicago Bears. I know Peppers plays on the ther side, but he creates more havic than most any other defensive player in the league. Taylor and Seymore are perfect examples of a franchise player, they put your defense at a different level when they step on the field.

DT 3 - Run stopper. Takes on double teams and collapses the pocket, I'd consider sayig the DT needs to be your best player, but having two solid ones keeps you near the playoffs every year.

MLB 4 - Fast, smart and strong. Not too hard to come by, can be had in late rounds, but needs to have all three attributes.

DT 5 - A pair of quality tackles is hard to game plan against, especially when you can't move them.

CB 6 - Cover any inabilities with shading a safety, would be great to have two, but if there is no pressure even a great CB can't cover all day.

OLB 7 - Fast, strong on a blitz, get to the QB.

OLB 8 - Same, needs to be good in coverage, dime a dozen.

LE 9 - Another run stuffer with good ability to bull rush, hell, find another DT and play him at LE, as long as no one can run on you.

FS 10 - Dime a dozen

SS 11 - Dime a dozen, so many great athletes, no need to hope you have the next Ed Reed, although it would be nice.

I was bored, so there it is.

:character0050:

[gangreenman]

If you are building a team from scratch, you are drafting basing on what positions need to be looked at early in the draft as apposed to later on. These are the positions that need to be filled first, and ones that need to be addressed later.

LT 1 - Helps the passing game and the running game like no other position on the field. All super bowl teams have had a good to great LT in recent memory.

C 2 - Should make all the calls at the line, is the leader of the line.

RG 3 - Preferably a mauler, someone that can not only move, but put DT's on their backs, and be agile enough to get into space when called on to pull.

QB 4 - Obvious, needs to make all the throws, limit mistakes. You can win with a lesser QB, although it is clear you'd rather have a great one, they don't come along very often, so stacking the rest of your team is much more valuable than hoping a top 5 QB pans out.

WR 5 - It would be nice to have a stud, but it is not necessary. So many WR's can get the job done with decent speed and good hands, and there are plenty of them out there.

WR 6 - same

RB 7 - Give me a bruiser with decent speed for 3 seasons then draft a new one. If he can hold on to the ball and hit the wholes when they are there with a good O-line in front of him, there is no reason to waste high draft picks on the Cedric Benson's of the world.

LG 8 - Have one specalty, pass blocking, run blocking, and work with it.

RT 9 - Dime a dozen. Get a tough run blocker, with reasonably good feet, and you have yourself a decent RT

TE 10 - Shut up and block

FB 11 - Shut up and block

CB 1 - Toughest position on the field to fill (defensively), needs to be fast and strong in run support, can cut a field in half if you have a pure CB, which is invaluable

RE 2 - A team that can get pressure from it's front four doesn't need to blitz and doesn't give up big plays, i.e. Chicago Bears. I know Peppers plays on the ther side, but he creates more havic than most any other defensive player in the league. Taylor and Seymore are perfect examples of a franchise player, they put your defense at a different level when they step on the field.

DT 3 - Run stopper. Takes on double teams and collapses the pocket, I'd consider sayig the DT needs to be your best player, but having two solid ones keeps you near the playoffs every year.

MLB 4 - Fast, smart and strong. Not too hard to come by, can be had in late rounds, but needs to have all three attributes.

DT 5 - A pair of quality tackles is hard to game plan against, especially when you can't move them.

CB 6 - Cover any inabilities with shading a safety, would be great to have two, but if there is no pressure even a great CB can't cover all day.

OLB 7 - Fast, strong on a blitz, get to the QB.

OLB 8 - Same, needs to be good in coverage, dime a dozen.

LE 9 - Another run stuffer with good ability to bull rush, hell, find another DT and play him at LE, as long as no one can run on you.

FS 10 - Dime a dozen

SS 11 - Dime a dozen, so many great athletes, no need to hope you have the next Ed Reed, although it would be nice.

I was bored, so there it is.

:character0050::character0050:

Too much madden for drago...

If you're bored maybe you should try doing a franchise without the fantasy draft.

[drago]

Too much madden for drago...

If you're bored maybe you should try doing a franchise without the fantasy draft.

well this is at work and all.

Either way, i just want to debate positions. All the glamer boys, QB's, WR's, RB's get all the glory when it is clear to me that winning teams have great lines FIRST, then they get the skill positions. Too many teams (detroit) go for the glamor boys first, and try to fill in around them.

I just wish the jets had continued to re-vamp the o-line in the 07 draft. It kills me that we didn't grab a quality guard, OR tackle. It's aggrevating.

[gangreenman]

well this is at work and all.

Either way, i just want to debate positions. All the glamer boys, QB's, WR's, RB's get all the glory when it is clear to me that winning teams have great lines FIRST, then they get the skill positions. Too many teams (detroit) go for the glamor boys first, and try to fill in around them.

I just wish the jets had continued to re-vamp the o-line in the 07 draft. It kills me that we didn't grab a quality guard, OR tackle. It's aggrevating.

We got a shutdown corner in Revis, a solid LB in Harris and a 7th round steal in Chansi Stuckey, relax a little, we're doin fine.

[#27TheDominator]

Nice list. You did a 4-3, or maybe the NT would have crept up. They are apparently very rare since we haven't found so much as a decent back up in 2 years.

If you feel a #1 cb is your top priority I question having #2 be so low on the totem pole. One great cb and a lousy one will just lead to the other team picking on David Barrett all day long.

I'd go with the pass rusher as the guy who needs to be a top pick-RDE in the 4-3, OLB in the 3-4. Those are the guys who must be physically superior, so they will have to be top picks.

I agree you want to be secure with your LT and C first, but I don't think they have to be the top picks. I'd always rather have a 15th pick of the first round talent at LT and a #4 overall at qb than vice versa.

I'm also not a fan of the new any RB can cut it theory. It works for Denver, but most teams don't have their line. The short career makes it a good idea not to blow a top pick, but I love a talented RB and would much rather have a super talented RB than WR. I feel a WR only needs one talent (super speed, great moves/route running, great size or hands) to succeed, while a back should be the total package talent wise.

The problem with these theories is that what is important is to get special players where you can find them. IMO, at the present time the Jets have a lot of nice players, but I don't think there are ANY verifiable special players out there. Guys that the other team thinks how can we deal with this guy? Maybe Clemens can be one, maybe Revis and/or Rhodes. For instance, you are right about TE and FB being low on the totem pole, but if you have a choice between Gates and D'Brick I'd obviously go for Gates.

[drago]

Nice list. You did a 4-3, or maybe the NT would have crept up. They are apparently very rare since we haven't found so much as a decent back up in 2 years.

If you feel a #1 cb is your top priority I question having #2 be so low on the totem pole. One great cb and a lousy one will just lead to the other team picking on David Barrett all day long.

I'd go with the pass rusher as the guy who needs to be a top pick-RDE in the 4-3, OLB in the 3-4. Those are the guys who must be physically superior, so they will have to be top picks.

I agree you want to be secure with your LT and C first, but I don't think they have to be the top picks. I'd always rather have a 15th pick of the first round talent at LT and a #4 overall at qb than vice versa.

I'm also not a fan of the new any RB can cut it theory. It works for Denver, but most teams don't have their line. The short career makes it a good idea not to blow a top pick, but I love a talented RB and would much rather have a super talented RB than WR. I feel a WR only needs one talent (super speed, great moves/route running, great size or hands) to succeed, while a back should be the total package talent wise.

The problem with these theories is that what is important is to get special players where you can find them. IMO, at the present time the Jets have a lot of nice players, but I don't think there are ANY verifiable special players out there. Guys that the other team thinks how can we deal with this guy? Maybe Clemens can be one, maybe Revis and/or Rhodes. For instance, you are right about TE and FB being low on the totem pole, but if you have a choice between Gates and D'Brick I'd obviously go for Gates.

You have a valid point between the two CB's. I think we have all seen instances of having a good CB then a chitty one right next to him. I have always thought you can use more double teams on the weaker corner's side.

One thing i never see in the NFL is taking your better corner and putting him on the number 2 receiver in single coverage. Then use double teams with your lesser corner on the better receiver. I assume it has been done, but i haven't seen it.

You're right about finding value in the draft, but what i'm getting at is this is how i want the talent to be distriputed to have a contender. So many teams have great WR's, and a good RB, and are then surprised they are fighting for last place in the division. You'd think they would catch the hint from the teams that are winning.

[will]

An excellent D-lineman is more important than a DB. The point made above can be carried even further: If you get a good pass rush than even the best QB has ltd options but if you give him time to throw then he will find someone, great DB or not.

[Alk]

We got a shutdown corner in Revis.

[CoachTsurfing]

Drago, nice post. I agree with most of them. But, I think the QB needs to be a little closer or at least even with the left tackle. That's one of the reasons I am so wanting to see if Clemens can play. This year is looking like a top 10 draft pick. I hope it isn't, but we'll see. If we do, I want to know whether we need a QB or not. If not I agree db, o line, or d line.

[Sperm Edwards]

Nice list. You did a 4-3, or maybe the NT would have crept up. They are apparently very rare since we haven't found so much as a decent back up in 2 years.

If you feel a #1 cb is your top priority I question having #2 be so low on the totem pole. One great cb and a lousy one will just lead to the other team picking on David Barrett all day long.

I'd go with the pass rusher as the guy who needs to be a top pick-RDE in the 4-3, OLB in the 3-4. Those are the guys who must be physically superior, so they will have to be top picks.

I agree you want to be secure with your LT and C first, but I don't think they have to be the top picks. I'd always rather have a 15th pick of the first round talent at LT and a #4 overall at qb than vice versa.

I'm also not a fan of the new any RB can cut it theory. It works for Denver, but most teams don't have their line. The short career makes it a good idea not to blow a top pick, but I love a talented RB and would much rather have a super talented RB than WR. I feel a WR only needs one talent (super speed, great moves/route running, great size or hands) to succeed, while a back should be the total package talent wise.

The problem with these theories is that what is important is to get special players where you can find them. IMO, at the present time the Jets have a lot of nice players, but I don't think there are ANY verifiable special players out there. Guys that the other team thinks how can we deal with this guy? Maybe Clemens can be one, maybe Revis and/or Rhodes. For instance, you are right about TE and FB being low on the totem pole, but if you have a choice between Gates and D'Brick I'd obviously go for Gates.

Yeah, this is drafting for a 4-3. If you're in a 3-4, NT becomes #1 & any other position is way down there. They are nearly impossible to find.

Disagree on the WR thing. If you only need one talent, then would we be fine with a bunch of JMac's? He's got TWO of those criteria in ONE player: size & speed. You need a little more than combine measurables. Otherwise Charles Rogers, Michael Clayton, & several others would be tearing up the league.

I don't think RB is as hard to fill as many make it out to be. Is Derrick Ward some rare gem found under a rock that no one on two teams noticed? Or is he just reasonably fast, with good size, with at least minimal moves & then just ran through good-sized holes? I'll take the dominant lineman and so-so RB talent over dominant RB talent and Adrian Clarke any day. Even a talent like Tomlinson simply isn't going to run through a Wilfat-sized lineman. You can't simply go in with a sloth like Barlow, but giving $20M contracts to nothing-special RB's like TJ instead of (even overpaying a little) a good, young lineman is dumb.

[Pere d'Avion]

I have reviewed my tapes of the Patriots* sideline for the last 7 years. My conclusion consists of but two words in regards to our greatest need:

Richard

Seymour

(or equivalent)

[drago]

I have reviewed my tapes of the Patriots* sideline for the last 7 years. My conclusion consists of but two words in regards to our greatest need:

Richard

Seymour

(or equivalent)

I actually agree with you. If you could take two players from the pats that would even the score between the two teams, it would be wilfork and seymore. If we had those two, it would make our entire defense better, and it would make them better by a lot. We have to address NT, and RT/RG/LG in this next offseason, its so hard to see us flounder at these spots for so long.

[D_Eps]

FS and SS are not a dime a dozen.

[drago]

FS and SS are not a dime a dozen.

yes they are. you need a relatively large super athlete that is coachable. Tons of teams have good to great safeties.

[Damaged89]

I agree that you can find a great runner in the latter rounds (Rudy Johnson, Priest Holmes etc..) But sometimes its worth it to draft one in the early first IF they have absurd talent. Guys like LT or Adrian Peterson are nothing to sneeze at.

[#27TheDominator]

You have a valid point between the two CB's. I think we have all seen instances of having a good CB then a chitty one right next to him. I have always thought you can use more double teams on the weaker corner's side.

One thing i never see in the NFL is taking your better corner and putting him on the number 2 receiver in single coverage. Then use double teams with your lesser corner on the better receiver. I assume it has been done, but i haven't seen it.

You're right about finding value in the draft, but what i'm getting at is this is how i want the talent to be distriputed to have a contender. So many teams have great WR's, and a good RB, and are then surprised they are fighting for last place in the division. You'd think they would catch the hint from the teams that are winning.

I think that teams often roll coverage to help the weaker cb. It's not the kind of thing that is easy to pick up on tv. Also, the way the league is now I don't think teams can just man up all day. You have to add confusion to the mix, so that if the offense guesses wrong they will throw a pick. If the O knows it's straight man the play calls will kill it, but dropping into disguised zones will scare them into at least being careful that somebody may be dropping into that lane.

I agree with your general distrubution theory, it's just that while it may be most important to fill a certain spot, a position of lesser importance may still be more important to draft first because of the athleticism of the position or premium by other teams or even strength of a particular draft.

Yeah, this is drafting for a 4-3. If you're in a 3-4, NT becomes #1 & any other position is way down there. They are nearly impossible to find.

Disagree on the WR thing. If you only need one talent, then would we be fine with a bunch of JMac's? He's got TWO of those criteria in ONE player: size & speed. You need a little more than combine measurables. Otherwise Charles Rogers, Michael Clayton, & several others would be tearing up the league.

I don't think RB is as hard to fill as many make it out to be. Is Derrick Ward some rare gem found under a rock that no one on two teams noticed? Or is he just reasonably fast, with good size, with at least minimal moves & then just ran through good-sized holes? I'll take the dominant lineman and so-so RB talent over dominant RB talent and Adrian Clarke any day. Even a talent like Tomlinson simply isn't going to run through a Wilfat-sized lineman. You can't simply go in with a sloth like Barlow, but giving $20M contracts to nothing-special RB's like TJ instead of (even overpaying a little) a good, young lineman is dumb.

I know the new philosophy regarding running backs, but I don't agree with it. Even to the extent I admit the theory has value, I don't like it. Sperm, I appreciate your giving players as examples, but I don't think Derrick Ward has proven anything to decide somebody got a legit back. The guy has only had a handful of carries. You can get a decent back in the later rounds, but I'd like a beast whether it turns out to be a small college guy that had troubles that made him drop like Ward or the next Earl Campbell going first overall. IMO it is much easier to tell how an RB will be as a pro than a qb. It's not fair to say that you'd rather have a dominant lineman and a so-so RB v. Clarke and a dominant RB. I submit that is because Clarke is WORSE than so-so. I'd rather have a solid starting OG and a top flight back than vice versa. I understand scrap heap RBs are trend, but I think a large portion of that has to do with the fact that backs get hurt so quickly and have short careers, so why burn the high pick? Many of the backs out there simply dropped because of injuries and circumstance in college.

I couldn't agree more that WR success requires more than just combine numbers. My point was that it is possible to succeed in the NFL as a WR with only one stand out talent (plus the simple ability to catch). You only need one thing to seperate you from the DB, the ability to catch the damn ball and an OC that will put you in position to use that ability. There are successful WR that are tiny, that are slow, while at RB you need to be fast elusive and powerful. Many WR will have great careers without being anything like Calvin Johnson. At the combine they look for guys like Rogers or Clayton that seem to be able to do it all, but a WR just has to is get open and catch. Doesn't matter how.

[drago]

I agree that you can find a great runner in the latter rounds (Rudy Johnson, Priest Holmes etc..) But sometimes its worth it to draft one in the early first IF they have absurd talent. Guys like LT or Adrian Peterson are nothing to sneeze at.

Talent at RB is a ridiculous measure. For as many LT's as you can name, i can name more top 10 talents that are average to above average.

You can definatly live with an average Running back, but you can get the more talented players at those same spots, ie julius peppers, aj hawk, champ baily, deangelo hall, hell i'd even take Will Smith over cedric benson, cadillac williams, or any of the other pre-madona RBs that have been selected recently.

RB is so overrated its not even funny. Look at any number of big name RBs that go to chit teams, did e. james get worse the year he went to AZ, or did he just no longer have Manning behind him?

It would be nice to have barry sanders, LT, gale sayers, jim brown, but there aren't that many of them, so why try? YOu can build a teams future (like the steelers, or broncos) with great O and D line play.

[Sperm Edwards]

I know the new philosophy regarding running backs, but I don't agree with it. Even to the extent I admit the theory has value, I don't like it. Sperm, I appreciate your giving players as examples, but I don't think Derrick Ward has proven anything to decide somebody got a legit back. The guy has only had a handful of carries. You can get a decent back in the later rounds, but I'd like a beast whether it turns out to be a small college guy that had troubles that made him drop like Ward or the next Earl Campbell going first overall. IMO it is much easier to tell how an RB will be as a pro than a qb. It's not fair to say that you'd rather have a dominant lineman and a so-so RB v. Clarke and a dominant RB. I submit that is because Clarke is WORSE than so-so. I'd rather have a solid starting OG and a top flight back than vice versa. I understand scrap heap RBs are trend, but I think a large portion of that has to do with the fact that backs get hurt so quickly and have short careers, so why burn the high pick? Many of the backs out there simply dropped because of injuries and circumstance in college.

I was only using Derrick Ward as an example b/c he was considered a below-starter-level talent & has looked pretty damn good so far. Will it continue? Who knows. If he stays healthy & is given carries I don't see why not.

These players have all been successful starters within the past 3 years playing on lines that can open up holes. Not a first (or even a second) rounder in the bunch.

Rudi Johnson

Willie Parker

Frank Gore

Brian Westbrook

Chester Taylor

Mike Anderson

Reuben Droughns

Curtis Martin

Domanick Davis/Williams

What do they have in common? All of them were lousy behind sub-par OL's.

You may say this is a short list, but it's a short list of teams with really good OL's. I'm not even going even further back but I'm sure I'd find no shortage of additional names over the past 5-10 years of thought-to-be low-to-mid-talent HB's who looked like superstars as the primary back with good OL's.

I'm not saying just find anyone with a pulse who's over 200 lbs & can run the 40 in under 4.7 seconds & stick him at HB. But it's not like finding a needle in a haystack. And it certainly doesn't require $20M contracts to almost 30 year-old players.

[PeterNorth09]

well this is at work and all.

Either way, i just want to debate positions. All the glamer boys, QB's, WR's, RB's get all the glory when it is clear to me that winning teams have great lines FIRST, then they get the skill positions. Too many teams (detroit) go for the glamor boys first, and try to fill in around them.

I just wish the jets had continued to re-vamp the o-line in the 07 draft. It kills me that we didn't grab a quality guard, OR tackle. It's aggrevating.

Too bad the Jets didn't get a quality OT in 2006 either.

[Damaged89]

Talent at RB is a ridiculous measure. For as many LT's as you can name, i can name more top 10 talents that are average to above average.

You can definatly live with an average Running back, but you can get the more talented players at those same spots, ie julius peppers, aj hawk, champ baily, deangelo hall, hell i'd even take Will Smith over cedric benson, cadillac williams, or any of the other pre-madona RBs that have been selected recently.

RB is so overrated its not even funny. Look at any number of big name RBs that go to chit teams, did e. james get worse the year he went to AZ, or did he just no longer have Manning behind him?

It would be nice to have barry sanders, LT, gale sayers, jim brown, but there aren't that many of them, so why try? YOu can build a teams future (like the steelers, or broncos) with great O and D line play.

I agree that the lines should be a priority over running backs. However if the opportunity arises to take say, Darren Mcfadden its not a bad move to take him with an early pick IMO.

[#27TheDominator]

I was only using Derrick Ward as an example b/c he was considered a below-starter-level talent & has looked pretty damn good so far. Will it continue? Who knows. If he stays healthy & is given carries I don't see why not.

These players have all been successful starters within the past 3 years playing on lines that can open up holes. Not a first (or even a second) rounder in the bunch.

Rudi Johnson

Willie Parker

Frank Gore

Brian Westbrook

Chester Taylor

Mike Anderson

Reuben Droughns

Curtis Martin

Domanick Davis/Williams

What do they have in common? All of them were lousy behind sub-par OL's.

You may say this is a short list, but it's a short list of teams with really good OL's. I'm not even going even further back but I'm sure I'd find no shortage of additional names over the past 5-10 years of thought-to-be low-to-mid-talent HB's who looked like superstars as the primary back with good OL's.

I'm not saying just find anyone with a pulse who's over 200 lbs & can run the 40 in under 4.7 seconds & stick him at HB. But it's not like finding a needle in a haystack. And it certainly doesn't require $20M contracts to almost 30 year-old players.

I think the difference is that I was primarily looking at it as a draft issue and you, correctly, are looking at team building. I like top RBs, but only very specific ones. I agree it might not be the way to build a team these days, but I feel you can get a better feel for an RB in college than many other positions. I think with FAs and 2-4 round draft picks you can quickly build yourself a nice line. It may be possible to get a nice RB from nowhere, but even the guys you posted were primarily 3rd and 4th round backs. I'm not in favor of paying big bucks for guys like Martin at the end or Jones. I think Jones is a nice pickup, but no big deal and they should have shaved a mill off and invested it in a G. It they weren't going to sign Kendall they should have been more active in the market.

I admit it's not the way things are done today, but I just like the old days better-guys like Earl Campbell, Billy Simms, George Rogers. I don't think you have to burn a first round pick on a back, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable picking a special RB than a special QB or WR. I think there are more outright, blatant busts at those positions.

I'm sleepy and rambling, but basically, I agree with you except that I don't think quality successful players at any position are needles in a haystack. Guys that are a needle in a haystack are "special" players, that raise the level of play of everyone around them. I'd rather have a special back than any other position on O, except for QB. Guys like Brady, Peyton, Tomlinson on O, LT, Merriman, the murderer on D. The Jets have a lot of decent players, but IMO no special ones.

[drago]

I agree that the lines should be a priority over running backs. However if the opportunity arises to take say, Darren Mcfadden its not a bad move to take him with an early pick IMO.

That's just my point. He might be a good to great running back, but the gamble of a high draft pick isn't worth it. What if he is the next cedric benson, or some other average player that got a very high draft slot.

I'm not trying to debate weather someone is going to be a bust or not, my only point is...Having a good to great DE/OT will serve you far better than having a good to great RB.

[Damaged89]

That's just my point. He might be a good to great running back, but the gamble of a high draft pick isn't worth it. What if he is the next cedric benson, or some other average player that got a very high draft slot.

Right, but with a guy like Mcfadden your pretty much guaranteed a pro bowl caliber player. Reaching for Benson or Thomas Jones (No way is he worth 7th overall) or another back of that ilk is dumb. But if you have a need at running back and an elite, sure fire prospect is available I think you have to take him.

[CoachTsurfing]

I was only using Derrick Ward as an example b/c he was considered a below-starter-level talent & has looked pretty damn good so far. Will it continue? Who knows. If he stays healthy & is given carries I don't see why not.

These players have all been successful starters within the past 3 years playing on lines that can open up holes. Not a first (or even a second) rounder in the bunch.

Rudi Johnson

Willie Parker

Frank Gore

Brian Westbrook

Chester Taylor

Mike Anderson

Reuben Droughns

Curtis Martin

Domanick Davis/Williams

What do they have in common? All of them were lousy behind sub-par OL's.

You may say this is a short list, but it's a short list of teams with really good OL's. I'm not even going even further back but I'm sure I'd find no shortage of additional names over the past 5-10 years of thought-to-be low-to-mid-talent HB's who looked like superstars as the primary back with good OL's.

I'm not saying just find anyone with a pulse who's over 200 lbs & can run the 40 in under 4.7 seconds & stick him at HB. But it's not like finding a needle in a haystack. And it certainly doesn't require $20M contracts to almost 30 year-old players.

So I'm hoping that is what tj is going through. Good running back, really bad o line. Because otherwise, we paid way too much for him.

[lancemehl]

If you are building a team from scratch, you are drafting basing on what positions need to be looked at early in the draft as apposed to later on. These are the positions that need to be filled first, and ones that need to be addressed later.

LT 1 - Helps the passing game and the running game like no other position on the field. All super bowl teams have had a good to great LT in recent memory.

C 2 - Should make all the calls at the line, is the leader of the line.

RG 3 - Preferably a mauler, someone that can not only move, but put DT's on their backs, and be agile enough to get into space when called on to pull.

QB 4 - Obvious, needs to make all the throws, limit mistakes. You can win with a lesser QB, although it is clear you'd rather have a great one, they don't come along very often, so stacking the rest of your team is much more valuable than hoping a top 5 QB pans out.

WR 5 - It would be nice to have a stud, but it is not necessary. So many WR's can get the job done with decent speed and good hands, and there are plenty of them out there.

WR 6 - same

RB 7 - Give me a bruiser with decent speed for 3 seasons then draft a new one. If he can hold on to the ball and hit the wholes when they are there with a good O-line in front of him, there is no reason to waste high draft picks on the Cedric Benson's of the world.

LG 8 - Have one specalty, pass blocking, run blocking, and work with it.

RT 9 - Dime a dozen. Get a tough run blocker, with reasonably good feet, and you have yourself a decent RT

TE 10 - Shut up and block

FB 11 - Shut up and block

CB 1 - Toughest position on the field to fill (defensively), needs to be fast and strong in run support, can cut a field in half if you have a pure CB, which is invaluable

RE 2 - A team that can get pressure from it's front four doesn't need to blitz and doesn't give up big plays, i.e. Chicago Bears. I know Peppers plays on the ther side, but he creates more havic than most any other defensive player in the league. Taylor and Seymore are perfect examples of a franchise player, they put your defense at a different level when they step on the field.

DT 3 - Run stopper. Takes on double teams and collapses the pocket, I'd consider sayig the DT needs to be your best player, but having two solid ones keeps you near the playoffs every year.

MLB 4 - Fast, smart and strong. Not too hard to come by, can be had in late rounds, but needs to have all three attributes.

DT 5 - A pair of quality tackles is hard to game plan against, especially when you can't move them.

CB 6 - Cover any inabilities with shading a safety, would be great to have two, but if there is no pressure even a great CB can't cover all day.

OLB 7 - Fast, strong on a blitz, get to the QB.

OLB 8 - Same, needs to be good in coverage, dime a dozen.

LE 9 - Another run stuffer with good ability to bull rush, hell, find another DT and play him at LE, as long as no one can run on you.

FS 10 - Dime a dozen

SS 11 - Dime a dozen, so many great athletes, no need to hope you have the next Ed Reed, although it would be nice.

I was bored, so there it is.

:character0050:

I love the time and effort. Those types of posts are also fun when you're bored and interesting.

My thing is how can you say one position is more important than another when you speak of RT RG LT LG

Ok the left side protects the qb's blindside so they have to be more pass protection-oriented.

But the most important thing is that they PLAY TOGETHER!!. You need 5 guys + TE's who ar in perfect sync and they must ALL be NFL calibe, try to keep a 6th round guy from Nichols state joined at the hip with two first round studs.

If it's 4th down on the goaline with one play left down by 6 and the play is going to the 4-hole between the RG and RT, who's more important? The left Tackle?

The line must be ONE UNIT! They must be 5 siamese twins (actually 6 with your blocking TE. I think we have our own poor man's Gates and Heap with Baker....but...anyway.

We do have two shutdown guys. Well, one shut down guy and Dyson. That's good enough, you can't have everything.

[drago]

I love the time and effort. Those types of posts are also fun when you're bored and interesting.

My thing is how can you say one position is more important than another when you speak of RT RG LT LG

Ok the left side protects the qb's blindside so they have to be more pass protection-oriented.

But the most important thing is that they PLAY TOGETHER!!. You need 5 guys + TE's who ar in perfect sync and they must ALL be NFL calibe, try to keep a 6th round guy from Nichols state joined at the hip with two first round studs.

If it's 4th down on the goaline with one play left down by 6 and the play is going to the 4-hole between the RG and RT, who's more important? The left Tackle?

The line must be ONE UNIT! They must be 5 siamese twins (actually 6 with your blocking TE. I think we have our own poor man's Gates and Heap with Baker....but...anyway.

We do have two shutdown guys. Well, one shut down guy and Dyson. That's good enough, you can't have everything.

First off, Dyson is not a shut down corner, he's a good corner. There is a huge difference.

Secondly, you can distinguish between the 4 positions you mentioned. I look at the old Chiefs teams as the mold. All pro LT, all pro RG, all pro LG, and a very good center. To me the LT has to be the best player on the line, followed by the center, and yes that is to protect the QB's blind side. Not sure if you have ever seen highlights of their line in action, but when Shields gets into the open field, the man runs like a deer. 300 pound men should not be able to run like that, and then be able to crush a CB into the ground. Those guys were amazing, and the Jets could only be so lucky to grab one player of that caliber, let alone 3.

If i were going to have 3 pro bowl, or near pro bowl linemen, i would want them spread out on the line to better hide any deficencies.

To me, there is no better mold on offense to follow then that Chiefs team. You can say Manning's Colts are more powerful, but that implies you need to find a Peyton Manning. As the Chiefs go, they found 3 very good linemen, but there are more very good linemen than one very very very good QB.