The argument always become what you didn’t get rather than what you did.

Oddly, I see ILB as less of a need now. We’re not in the same position that we were in before. A MLB was a dire need in the 4-3 but it’s a different story now. I could see them using only Davis, Williams and Larsen, (plus Haggan), if they had to.

I think they’ll be looking for an ILB but it’s a position that isn’t in demand — apparently. And the later ILBs; Beckwith, Ellerbe (both yet to be picked here) and Brinkley, Phillips, McKillop, etc., allow us to find backups at the appropriate range. I think the 3-4 ILBs are out there this year, although the top of the crop isn’t that good. I see as many ILB types as MLB types this year.

I like Sean Smith and Malcolm Jenkins so i would be good with either one.
Nice post and draft my friend!

Smith had some momentum coming out of Utah’s bowl victory but he’s settled into a 2nd round slot (early or late, depending on who’s doing the ranking), which is not too bad considering it seems to have pushed some of the others, such as Johnson and Chung, down to where we could pick them in the 3rd.

Rankings vary somewhat regarding the ordering at Safety, but Delmas, Moore and Smith tend to go in the 2nd. Johnson usually goes in this group, and occasionally Chung, but there’s more of them than teams looking in this range. From my recent observations, teams looking for Safeties can still find one of the top group if they pick by ‘earlier’ in the 3rd. And I would assume that is partly because Jenkins, Byrd and Martin are projected as Safeties by many teams. There’s some reasonably good prospects after this point, such as Vaughn and McBath, as the higher rounds have gained prospects though evaluations. Some prospects have risen into the upper echelon while some CBs have run themselves (or not run) into the Safety rankings.

There’s some risk of crowding at Safety if he winds up there, but he’s a talented CB who’s yet to show on-the-field problems in coverage.

One of the issues with CBs is size, and the big CBs often show some deficit speed-wise but they’re liked because of their ability to cover the new breed of large WRs.

Jenkins’ speed deficit has been exaggerated somewhat in the telling. He fails the speed cutoff for the prototype of “elite” CB but he’s still he’s still highly accomplished in coverage, a better way of looking at the situation is that he’s in a slightly different category.

I’d prefer seeing him at CB first before relegating him to Safety. At worst, we move him to Safety in the end. Using a #18 pick on a very talented cover guy who might become All-Pro at Safety isn’t hard to justify. It would instantly boost our coverage ability and have someone in place to take over at Safety in a few years. Positional thinking can become a little too rigid at times. Jenkins could be an instant terror as a nickel back (acting more in a CB-like role), while also providing help at Safety to compensate for any pass deficiencies that Dawkin has due to age. I see picking Jenkins as a half-and-half solution. He could help both the Safety and CB positions immediately.

I like Moreno but I’ve been reminded again recently by others that there’s lots of value for the RB crop as you go down a little. Last year’s crop satiated the need for RBs, and that’s over and above McGuire’s argument — which you may not accept.

I just looks like a good year to wait a while if you don’t have a compelling reason for taking a RB. There may still be good reasons for taking a RB like Moreno but I tend to view his pick as a luxury. I’d still like to see a RB in this class but it’s not a choice I would want to force. On the contrary, it’s the type of choice I would make when we’re unable to fill any of the high need areas on defense. Since we rely on a Running Back by Committee attack and already have as many backs (or near that) as we can carry, it’s hard to justify a high RB pick on a need basis. However, it’s still justifiable on an impact basis, and I think the Broncos are still strongly considering Moreno. I think McDaniels tipped his hand though when he said we’d take the BPA on defense.

I tried to find it.

I agree with some of his arguments in his draftology section at WF.

The argument is not against drafting RBs but when. I’m reminded of my position last year, in which I was for picking Forte’ (with a yet to be obtained 3rd). I saw some value in possible Stewart or Mendenhall picks but Clady (or Willams, Albert, etc.) was still the preemptive choice. My feeling was that a choice like Forte’ could turn out as well and still allow us to address LT.

I shouldn’t have used that quote because it creates a false impression.

McGuire’s comment was taken from his positional impact section. What he was arguing against was the idea that the Texans should take — as some argued at that time — Reggie Bush rather than Mario Williams. Bush was a poor fit for the ZB system Houston uses and he came with a very high price tag, so the appropriateness of that pick was being questioned.

McGuire isn’t saying that a ZB team should never use a 1st round pick on a RB, it was both the cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of using the #1 overall on a RB who had limited use that MM was questioning. Moreover, the example we’re usually talking about here — Knowshon Moreno — is actually a very good fit for our ZB system, and both in his running style and draft placement. And there’s no reason that we shouldn’t improve our running attack and make it one of the best in the NFL, and the RBC and ZB systems also allow us to achieve a level of proficiency without spending as much, but this also means we don’t have to spend as much to reach proficiency and could re-delegate resources if we had greater needs elsewhere on the team.

My argument was regarding this MOCK was that choosing an OL made sense, and I still believe that. ZB teams have an investment in their O Line that pays dividends for both the running and passing games and they have to maintain that investment if they want to experience continued success.

I think the only area where we might disagree, Steve O, is on the desirability of using a higher pick at RB. The message that’s been delivered in the last few years is that teams can find great value at RB after the 1st round. And DrafTek’s simulations strongly suggest, as does McGuire, that the demand for RBs is satiated, which means that we can expect RBs to go at a lower spot than we would expect on a BPA basis. I see some virtue in waiting on a RB and taking advantage of the deals the market offers. This could merely mean waiting until the 3rd and drafting someone like Jennings, etc., so we’re not talking about garage sale types of bargains.

I’m not opposed to the idea of drafting Moreno but I’m not as excited about the prospect of taking another RB high in the draft. There’s value throughout the crop at RB so I wouldn’t necessarily oppose the pick but it’s not a pick they need to force.

Having a large amount of picks allows us the leeway to chose a RB fairly early without sacrificing unduly on defense, but the logic of addressing higher priorities remains the same. However, despite our desires to fill certain positions on defense we may find that the draft occasionally offers bargains. By definition, “higher utility” means that we can’t predetermine who we will draft. Our definition of BPA is partly derived from our needs but “bargains” will occur at times. The value of a bargain is also influenced by the presence of bargains later in the draft. Moreover, the round in which we choose a player at a position is an important consideration, since higher picks can be expected to contribute quickly, thus the “starter quality” draft criterion can apply for some positions and not others.

We’re not going to be able to address all the areas we’ve targeted in this draft. I see 6 areas on defense and 3+ on offense, and even if we were able to spread our picks around to each area we wouldn’t be using a high enough pick to adequately address some areas. That leaves out some areas.

Re: the past use of picks. We clearly drafted poorly in a number of areas, and I wouldn’t agree that RB was neglected, despite the prevalence of this belief. Moreover, we were successful drafting ‘later’ round RBs, so there’s some validation of this strategy, although I agree it can be shortsighted.

PAST DRAFTS (going back to 1990)

1990 – none -————— [NOTE: positions aren’t listed for picks who didn’t make the team in these years]
1991 – Greg Lewis (5th)
1992 – none
1993 – Glyn Milburn (2nd), Kevin Williams (5th)
1994 – none
1995 – Terrell Davis (6th)
1996 – Detron Smith (3rd)
1997 – none
1998 – Chris Howard (5th)
1999 – Olandis Gary (4th)
2000 – Mike Anderson (6th)
2001 – none
2002 – Clinton Portis (2nd)
2003 – Quentin Griffin (4th), Amaad Galloway (7th)
2004 – Tatum Bell (2nd), Brandon Miree (7th)
2005 – Maurice Clarett (3rd, was cut)
2006 – none
2007 – none
2008 – Ryan Torrain (5th), Peyton Hillis (7th)

My reading of this is that we were relatively successful finding RBs later in the draft, but the real story might be how many picks have washed out in the early part of this decade, both at RB and elsewhere.

Our success with T. Davis, Gary and Anderson also occurred at a time when we were strong in the OL, which may be the real story, not that Davis doesn’t deserve some credit.

Another thing that strikes me is the amount of times we traded our RBs away for other resources. Our success at developing RBs (or enhancing their stats) was converted into players that we weren’t developing. This is part of Shanahan’s legacy, and we don’t talk about it enough. As others have said, Shanahan may have believed too strongly in his ability to develop RBs, or at least he was successful at this and not at developing other areas. His solution was to trade the RBs for players at other positions. Our failure to draft RBs recently (so to speak, w/ the exception of 2 current players) is more the product of drafts that didn’t happen to include RBs (i.e., 2006), and this is partly a statement of our needs at the time.