2nd Most Important Position?

[Furd]

I said offensive tackle.

 

But I don't know much.

[Easy n Dirty]

I remember hearing John Madden talk about this on a broadcast once - he said that when he was with the Raiders, he and Al Davis always had a fundamental disagreement about how to build a football team. They both agreed that you had to first and foremaost secure the QB position, but after that, Madden said he looked to the offensive line, whereas Davis thought cornerback was next most important position.

[Caveman_Nick]

Manning and Brady backers wont like to hear this but if they had to play on a team with a horrible Oline they would not be the QBs they are today.

 

and just because those 2 might be the 1st two picks doesnt make them the most important.

 

 

 

I doubt you will hear anyone dispute that it takes a team effort to be successful in the NFL, but the second part of your statement really makes no sense IMO.

 

If having one of the best QBs was not the most important thing, why would these two be the first 2 picks then? Why would you anyone pick to build their franchise around a player that was not the most important player to have?

[keggerz]

I remember hearing John Madden talk about this on a broadcast once - he said that when he was with the Raiders, he and Al Davis always had a fundamental disagreement about how to build a football team. They both agreed that you had to first and foremaost secure the QB position, but after that, Madden said he looked to the offensive line, whereas Davis thought cornerback was next most important position.

and the SI answer is?

[Caveman_Nick]

I remember hearing John Madden talk about this on a broadcast once - he said that when he was with the Raiders, he and Al Davis always had a fundamental disagreement about how to build a football team. They both agreed that you had to first and foremaost secure the QB position, but after that, Madden said he looked to the offensive line, whereas Davis thought cornerback was next most important position.

 

 

And we all see the terrific job Davis is doing with the Raiders.

 

[keggerz]

 

I doubt you will hear anyone dispute that it takes a team effort to be successful in the NFL, but the second part of your statement really makes no sense IMO.

 

If having one of the best QBs was not the most important thing, why would these two be the first 2 picks then? Why would you anyone pick to build their franchise around a player that was not the most important player to have?

they are stupid? or named Matt Millen

 

and the real answer why they would be the 1st two picks is because they put fannies in the seats

Edited November 15, 2007 by keggerz

[Caveman_Nick]

they are stupid? or named Matt Millen

 

Okay, so for the fantasy scenario I am presenting, let's also assume that the NFL found 32 equally skilled and knowledgeable football people to do the drafting.

 

and the real answer why they would be the 1st two picks is because they put fannies in the seats

 

 

This is a communism. No team executive has economic incentive to be a better team, only competitive incentive and keeping their job incentive.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Caveman_Nick

[Perchoutofwater]

So, spill it what did the SI poll end up saying?

[godtomsatan]

I am incredibly surprised that nobody has picked CB. I don't know that I have ever seen a really good team that didn't have good corners. Indy is the only team I can think of, and even them, their corners were/are good at what they need them to be good at.

 

See your comments regarding RB and LB.

[keggerz]

Okay, so for the fantasy scenario I am presenting, let's also assume that the NFL found 32 equally skilled and knowledgeable football people to do the drafting.

 

This is a communism. No team executive has economic incentive to be a better team, only competitive incentive and keeping their job incentive.

why dont play football in communist countries

[Easy n Dirty]

and the SI answer is?

 

I don't have the magazine with me so I cannot quote what the percentages are - but I do remember that the #1 answer was center, followed by running back and then offensive tackle.

 

I'll post tonight with actual percentages as well as the remaining results.

[Caveman_Nick]

why dont play football in communist countries

 

 

Summing up, you have no real opinion to express and are taunting me. This was my suspicion from the beginning

[URLACHERisGOD]

I am incredibly surprised that nobody has picked CB. I don't know that I have ever seen a really good team that didn't have good corners. Indy is the only team I can think of, and even them, their corners were/are good at what they need them to be good at.

Denver? Excellent corners...crap team.

[bluedog]

From SI Players NFL poll:

 

Center 15%

RB 15%

CB 14%

OT 13%

LB 13%

 

 

WR drew 0.8% of the votes (tied with punter)

Kicker drew 7.9% of the votes

nearly 70% of QBs picked an offensive line position.

 

survey of 278 players.

[Sgt. Ryan]

OL The OL is responsible for the QB's protection, as well, as opening up holes for a teams running back. Even an adequate Rb can be successful behind a stand out OL. But every RB will hit a brick wall, if there is nothing there to run through.

 

Id put DE 3rd, as a strong pass rush limits the amount of time the secondary has to cover WR;s

Corner is 4th

WR is 5th to round out my top 5. Its much harder to find a productive WR, than it is RB, LB or DT.

[NAUgrad]

I was torn between O'tackles and center. I ended up choosing center just because they make all the o'line calls and can really be a major part of the o'line. An argument could be made for tackles though.

[Bill Swerski]

People that picked RB and LB have no clue. Average players at these positions are made to look good by having good players at other positions.

 

Fixed

 

I am incredibly surprised that nobody has picked CB. I don't know that I have ever seen a really good team that didn't have good corners. Indy is the only team I can think of, and even them, their corners were/are good at what they need them to be good at.

 

Speaking of having no clue, the Colts play their corners in a Cover 2 zone, which lowers their importance in coverage. Their defense is predicated on not giving up the big play, with the trade-off of surrendering the shorter-yardage plays. That explains why Jason David was effective on the Colts, but consistently gets burned playing man-to-man in the Saints' scheme.

[Caveman_Nick]

Just a thought on people that picked RB and those thinking they have no clue:

 

It occurs to me that after QB and Center, the person that handles the ball the most on a football team is the RB.

 

It's nice to say that RB doesn't matter and that any old RB can succeed so long as you have a good O-line, but there is some logic to the thought process of it being really important to have a top talent as one of your main ball handlers.

[Randall]

+1. I would think O-line has to be the next most important. I voted for Tackle (O-line).

 

 

I voted for center. Not a high draft pick but keeps the line together.

[Bill Swerski]

The fundamental problem with this question is that it doesn't take scheme into account. For example, 3-4 defensive schemes typically value LB more heavily than DT or DE, while 4-3 schemes tend to be the opposite.

[Savage Beatings]

I'd like to write in: Brenda Warner

[Seahawks21]

Think about all the Super Bowl Winners you can remember. How many of those make you think of their RB first as one of their most important players?? Probably Marshall Faulk. I would contend that both Emmitt and Roger Craig played third fiddle to QB's and WR's. I would contend that Franco played third fiddle to that defense and Bradshaw. Even Walter Payton had the best D in the league.

 

I'm not going to dismiss RB's and say that you can just plug in any scrub off the street, but the difference between the 5th best and 28th best is less at RB than any other offensive position. Teams can be very good with an average RB, which is not something you can say about an offensive line.

[Mojo20]

O-Line, O-Line, O-Line

 

Good teams good lines, Bad Teams bad lines

[Bill Swerski]

Think about all the Super Bowl Winners you can remember. How many of those make you think of their RB first as one of their most important players?? Probably Marshall Faulk.

 

'06 Colts: Joseph Addai/Dominic Rhodes

'05 Steelers: Jerome Bettis/Willie Parker

'04 Pats: Corey Dillon

'00 Ravens: Jamal Lewis

'99 Rams: Faulk

'98 and '97 Broncos: Terrell Davis

'91, '92, and '95 Cowboys: Emmitt

 

Agreed in general and I'll add that a good O-line is much more important than a stud back. But that said, the aforementioned RBs were certainly one of the most important parts of their respective offenses. Some of them (Steelers, Ravens) were far from prolific through the air and leaned very heavily on their ground games.

[keggerz]

The fundamental problem with this question is that it doesn't take scheme into account. For example, 3-4 defensive schemes typically value LB more heavily than DT or DE, while 4-3 schemes tend to be the opposite.

you cant play a 3-4 effectively if your DT sucks and the skill set of a DE in a 3-4 vs a 4-3 is much different too...and with a 4-3 your LBers will almost assuredly be ineffective if your DTs arent keeping blockers off of them.

 

the guys in the trenches(both sides) really get little credit for the success of all the glamor positions on the team