Greg Schiano and Greg Cosell give Mark Barron rave reviews

[BucBalla85]

I suggest a few people go back and see how Schiano like's to run his defense. The key position on his defense is the saftey position.

So then safety is high value for us. May not be for other teams but it is for us. Justifies our picking a safety at 7. I do agree though that he cant flop. Then again you always hope your 1st rounder to be a good player. Its always a disappointment if he doesnt.

[flaitguy]

an interesting quote from this article, though it is 5 years old, it still applies.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2007/09/most_valuable_position.html

With my QB and OL taken care of, I'll go to an underappreciated defensive position: safety. No defender covers as much ground or makes as many impact plays in the backfield and deep downfield. Safeties, especially the new breed who combine linebacker size with cornerback speed (think Adrian Wilson and Sean Taylor) have to be accounted for on every snap and are the defenders most likely to create seismic events, like fumbles and interceptions returned for touchdowns. They are also the ones who, should they slip up mentally, have the highest likelihood of giving up a big play. (Think of all the times you've seen a safety chasing a receiver into the end zone.)

The evolution of the safety is the evolution of the league in microcosm. Once, a guy who was built like Wilson or Troy Polamalu would have been a linebacker. When people say the game is faster and more violent than ever, the safety is the man responsible.

[Feel Real Good]

The problem is, it's just not all that realistic - you don't get to pick players from a variety of drafts. I know that's a simple point, but it matters.  You pick players based on their relative abilities in the draft in which you are picking. So the only comparison that really matters is that of Barron to the next 20+ players. Those are the only players the Bucs missed on by taking Barron.

Yes, if Barron is only as good as Bernard Pollard and somehow the next 20 players drafted after him are complete bums, it will have been a good pick, but I think we all know that's not likely. As for picking players from other drafts, you absolutely do that. It takes 4-5 years to put together a playoff team. There's no rule in team building you have to pick certain positions at certain times. The Colts became the team they became because in 1996 they used their 1st round pick on a WR, in 1997 on a OT, in 1998 a QB, in 1999 a RB, in 2001 a WR, in 2002 a DE, etc. If you switched those picks up they'd be a completely different team. You definitely measure players against prospects from other years. The best player at a position one year is not the same as the best player at a position in another year. That said, by all indications Barron is as good as just about any S in a while so hopefully this will all work out and he'll be a top 3 SS and not Bernard Pollard.

Just as an aside, I suspect the Vikes will have much more trouble justifying the pick of Harrison Smith in the long run.

Agreed.

[Feel Real Good]

I suggest a few people go back and see how Schiano like's to run his defense. The key position on his defense is the saftey position.

So then safety is high value for us. May not be for other teams but it is for us. Justifies our picking a safety at 7. I do agree though that he cant flop. Then again you always hope your 1st rounder to be a good player. Its always a disappointment if he doesnt.

It doesn't matter what kind of value Schiano puts on the position. If Barron is only as good as Bernard Pollard and we make him the featured player on defense, we're going to stink.

[Booker Reese]

The problem is, it's just not all that realistic - you don't get to pick players from a variety of drafts. I know that's a simple point, but it matters.  You pick players based on their relative abilities in the draft in which you are picking. So the only comparison that really matters is that of Barron to the next 20+ players. Those are the only players the Bucs missed on by taking Barron.

Yes, if Barron is only as good as Bernard Pollard and somehow the next 20 players drafted after him are complete bums, it will have been a good pick, but I think we all know that's not likely. As for picking players from other drafts, you absolutely do that. It takes 4-5 years to put together a playoff team. There's no rule in team building you have to pick certain positions at certain times. The Colts became the team they became because in 1996 they used their 1st round pick on a WR, in 1997 on a OT, in 1998 a QB, in 1999 a RB, in 2001 a WR, in 2002 a DE, etc. If you switched those picks up they'd be a completely different team. You definitely measure players against prospects from other years. The best player at a position one year is not the same as the best player at a position in another year. That said, by all indications Barron is as good as just about any S in a while so hopefully this will all work out and he'll be a top 3 SS and not Bernard Pollard.

Just as an aside, I suspect the Vikes will have much more trouble justifying the pick of Harrison Smith in the long run.

Agreed.

I understand that you build teams through an entire series of drafts, and that you have to consider relative weaknesses and strengths of the draft into account - but I don't think that's the effect of what you did here. 

I think we agree with the bottom line though - if he's just the 10th best safety (and assuming any of the players that would have fit the Bucs turn into very good players), then it won't be considered a good pick.

I think the trick with safeties is this - yes, it's true that you can often find them later and survive. However, if you manage to get a special player - and hopefully Barron is in that category - then they can be a real weapon on defense. You can move them all over, and they can become a real problem for opponents to deal with. But like you said, that's why he needs to be much better than average.

[VinBucFan]

Lot of fretting about the Barron selection.  How about this?  Who is the player that the Bucs should have picked at 7 instead of Barron?  Don't say stay at 5 because that move played a role in getting two other players, so who is the player the Bucs should have selected at 7 instead of Barron? How many reasonable alternatives were there?

[Booker Reese]

I'm not opposed to Barron because a) what they did with the extra pick; b) I think he has a very good chance to be one of those special safeties.

However - not knowing I would get David at the time of course - I would have taken Luke Kuechly. In retrospect though, I'd rather have the Barron - David combo then Kuechly + any other S.

I think the most likely comps will be Kuechly and Gilmore. However, if the problems continue with McCoy and Price and guys like Fletcher Cox or Michael Brockers thrive, then fairly or unfairly, they'll be in the mix as well.

[Feel Real Good]

I'm not opposed to Barron because a) what they did with the extra pick; b) I think he has a very good chance to be one of those special safeties.

However - not knowing I would get David at the time of course - I would have taken Luke Kuechly. In retrospect though, I'd rather have the Barron - David combo then Kuechly + any other S.

I think the most likely comps will be Kuechly and Gilmore. However, if the problems continue with McCoy and Price and guys like Fletcher Cox or Michael Brockers thrive, then fairly or unfairly, they'll be in the mix as well.

I'm not really even saying the Bucs shouldn't have picked Barron. I'm just of the opinion in order to make the pick pay off, he needs to be really, really good and not just solid.

[GameTime]

I'm just of the opinion in order to make the pick pay off, he needs to be really, really good and not just solid.

but any pick at #7 needs to be really really good.

[Feel Real Good]

I'm just of the opinion in order to make the pick pay off, he needs to be really, really good and not just solid.

but any pick at #7 needs to be really really good.

That's what you hope, but as I explained earlier, if you don't get a really, really good player and just end up with the #10 player at a position among the 32 teams, you're going to be a lot, lot, lot happier with the #10 QB, WR, OT, DE, or CB than the #10 SS.

[Freddy]

I suggest a few people go back and see how Schiano like's to run his defense. The key position on his defense is the saftey position.

So then safety is high value for us. May not be for other teams but it is for us. Justifies our picking a safety at 7. I do agree though that he cant flop. Then again you always hope your 1st rounder to be a good player. Its always a disappointment if he doesnt.

It doesn't matter what kind of value Schiano puts on the position. If Barron is only as good as Bernard Pollard and we make him the featured player on defense, we're going to stink.

My goodness, once again FRG you are trying again to make a mountain out of a mole hill. As GT said, any player taken at #7 should be a really, really good player. You trying to compare Barron to Pollack is just plain stupid. You are comparing a 2nd round pick to the #7 overall. Of course we all hope he is better than that?

I can't believe that you are already complaining, rather still complaining about the selection of Barron. And guess what, what the head coach thinks does matter. Despite what you may think.

Do you EVER have anything positive to say about this team? Barron wasn't even drafted by Gruden, so you can't use you Bias on him. Just wow.

[Feel Real Good]

That said, by all indications Barron is as good as just about any S in a while so hopefully this will all work out and he'll be a top 3 SS and not Bernard Pollard.

[Bucs N Beers]

A big concern is what happens if you miss. Let's say with the #7 overall pick you eventually end up with a player who would be considered the #10 player at his position over a given time. Using PFF, here's a couple different positions and players:

QB: Tony Romo, Matt Schaub
WR: Hakeem Nicks, Dwayne Bowe
OT: Marcus McNeil (in his prime), Bryant McKinnie (in his prime)
DE: Jason Babin, Robert Mathis
CB: Nate Clements, Brandon Carr
S: Roman Harper, Bernard Pollard

If you have your choice of all of these players with the #7 overall pick, you're picking the two safeties last every time.

If team need is out the window maybe you pick Safety last each time.
But do we need a 1st round:
QB? - No, we have Freeman. We'll see if that changes after this year.
WR? - No, we have VJax, MWill, Benn, Briscoe, Parker, etc
OT? - I'd say no. It would be more of a luxury. Penn is slotted at LT and #7 for a RT is really high.
DE? - No, at the time of draft we had Clayborn, Bowers and Bennett.
CB/S? - Both were definite needs. We dropped back two spots and were basically guaranteed either Barron or Clayborne. Not that the other positions aren't important and are maybe more "valuable" but as far as team needs, I think we did just fine.

Top 10 picks are supposed to be ten year players. Need is irrelevant.

So in your opinion, in 2007 did the Bucs make the right decision selecting Gaines Adams over Adrian Peterson? DE's have lots of "draft value" and RB's have very little.

I agree top 10 picks should be franchise players. But in the same line of thinking, why select a guy who could end up being the backup to Freeman/Clayborn/Penn? I could see the CB argument as Clayborne was there at 5 and it was a definite need. But getting the #1 safety prospect isn't such a bad thing and he very well could end up being a 10 year franchise player.

[Feel Real Good]

So in your opinion, in 2007 did the Bucs make the right decision selecting Gaines Adams over Adrian Peterson? DE's have lots of "draft value" and RB's have very little.

I still like Adams over Peterson because I don't like RB's in the top 10, but hindsight being 20/20 I'd absolutely pick Patrick Willis and put Ruud's butt on the bench or pick Darrelle Revis and tell Barber he's not the #1 CB anymore.

I agree top 10 picks should be franchise players. But in the same line of thinking, why select a guy who could end up being the backup to Freeman/Clayborn/Penn? I could see the CB argument as Clayborne was there at 5 and it was a definite need. But getting the #1 safety prospect isn't such a bad thing and he very well could end up being a 10 year franchise player.

Freeman's lousy play is 50% of the reason this team had a top 5 pick. If somehow the Bucs had a shot at Andrew Luck or a player of that caliber, you absolutely pick him. And OT and DE are 'paired' positions. You have room for two of them. if somehow there was a OT who turned out to be a multi-year first ballot Pro Bowler and not a fringe Pro Bowl alternate like Penn or a 15-sack DE you absolutely pick them, too.

I sincerely hope Barron is a 10-year franchise-defining S, too.

[Booker Reese]

I think that's another reason the Barron decision is defensible -- the shakiness at OT and DE this year. Big drop-off from Kalil to the next best prospect, and as far as DE goes, I didn't trust any of them. CBs were real "eye of the beholder" types as well.