I was just looking at all the recent NFL Drafts and noticed that only three positions were taken with the Number one Overall Pick. Quarterback Offensive Tackle Defensive End. Not since Keyshawn Johnson was selected with the 1st Overall Pick in the 1996 NFL Draft. Do you believe these are the most important position when you have the number one pick and you're trying to rebuild? Obviously the Quarterback position is arguably the most important position to rebuild a team, but how about a Defensive End and a Offensive Tackle?
I guess it sort of makes sense. A good offensive tackle (offensive line, overall) is the foundation for a good offense if that's what you'r trying to rebuild. No one can use enough defense. Even if you were stacked on D, a good defensive player can be good trade bait too and whatnot.
I believe if you're trying to rebuild, you need to start with the offensive line and then go quarterback. You need protection there first because you want your "Quarterback of the Future" to be safe when he first gets there. Do I believe with the #1 pick, those are the only positions worth taking? No. The other types of players just seem to fall for one reason or another (injury during college, attitude, etc)
It seems to me like OT and DE are the most likely positions to succeed after being drafted that high. Way too many QBs have failed for me to think that a 1st overall pick should be a QB that isnt' the second coming of Christ.
They are very important positions, but I think the reason you don't see other positions drafted #1 very often is because it's easier to draft quality players at those positions later on in the draft.
I'm with Bob on Building from the Line out. So I can definitely understand why Drafting O-Line in the first Round is not uncommon at all. I think alot of people tend to forget exactly how important those Brutes on the Line truly are to the game. Its really easy to get overshadowed by RB's and QB's scoring touchdowns when there basically isnt much of a Stat Column for their Position. I also agree with Steve, QB's going first always crack me up because I dont think thats a position that should ever be drafted #1. Seems like the last few years every QB thats gone high in the draft has ended up an epic flop or at least a major disappointment. (think David Carr (1st-'02), Jamarcus Russel (1st-'07), Alex Smith (1st-'05), Vince Young (3rd-'06), hell even Michael Vick (1st-'01) etc). One thing I do always seem to notice about QB's being drafted though is if they are worth it, they come in huge waves. For instance the 2004 draft - Phillip Rivers, Ben Roethlisburger, Eli Manning, and Matt Schaub... between those 4 players theres 3 Super Bowl Rings, almost 64,000 Passing Yards, and an Average QB rating of 89.5 (Eli Kinda hurts that stat, everyone else is over 90 and he's below 80 :hah. So I think with QB's... its really not a matter of where they are drafted... just on whether or not its going to be a Good QB year.
This. I think the reason we see this is because the difference in quality of a 1st round TE and a 2nd round TE is much smaller than a 1st round QB and a 2nd round QB. You can get value with the other positions later in the draft, it's more difficult with QB, LT and DE. So you draft them higher.
@CO and Echoes You never really know though.. like it has been said by Ice in his examples, just because you draft them high doesn't mean they're going to be studs. I feel like you can find a Diamond in the Rough more then you can find a stud QB at #1.
You're right Bob, it's all a crapshoot. You never know who is going to pan out and who is not. But the difference between the top ranked center and the next centers is smaller than the difference between the top ranked QB and the lower ranked QB's. So it all comes down to value. Is it worth taking a C or G #1 overall when you can get a pretty good one in the 3rd? But the chances of hitting on a stud LT or QB #1 is so much higher than in the 3rd? Does that make sense? That's just my .02 cents.
