Greg Schiano and Greg Cosell give Mark Barron rave reviews

[blind melon]

FRG - we are talking apples and oranges.....I see where you're going with the $ to support your point, but we are talking about Barron in a post 2011 fiscal arrangement (apple) and his positional value to his defense (orange).

Apple
The cap is on rookies - the beginning of the new model as it were...   your point effectively mixes the two (pre-2011 and post 2011.)

Looking Forward....The next 10 years isn't going to be an" Agents NFL"...   it will be an "Owners NFL" with regards to contracts.

I see an overall leveling off ($ value) after the pre-2011 guys are gone across every position.

 

Orange -

Now if we're talking value ON THE FIELD, then safety is as important (if not more) than most all defensive positions.    Thats the evolving I'm talking about...  which is just beginning to emerge (apple) 

[Feel Real Good]

I don't understand a single word you just typed. My argument is as such: I believe only the top 3, 4, or 5 players at each safety position are true difference makers and the drop off to everyone else is very sharp. I believe when it comes to the so-called premium positions, the difference between the top 3, 4, or 5 and the #10 player is much closer. This is supported by the salaries of numerous players and the franchise fees for each position. For these reasons, if you have a top 5 draft pick, and the reason teams get top 5 draft pick is because they lack difference makers, if you use that top 5 draft pick on a safety, you need to get one of those top 3, 4, or 5 players or else you're going to continue to stink.

Maybe the position is evolving. Maybe in a few years Jairus Byrd, William Moore, Louis Delmas, and others will be signing $50 million contracts. But it hasn't happened yet so any discussion of this evolution is just a theory and not reality.

[blind melon]

Nevermind.

[caradoc]

The argument that there are only a few great safeties so you shouldn't draft on high makes no logical sense.  The argument would actually encourage you to grab one high if you thought you had an elite talent there.  Positional value as a whole is pretty much a thing of the past with only a couple of positions really remaining more "valuable" than others.  If you have a safety rated at the top of your board, and expect him to be elite you grab him instead of thinking that that mediocre LT because of some predefined notion of value.

And you also don't pass on a guy because of fear, that you are worried he might bust -- you draft with the assumption you are correct in your grades otherwise you handcuff yourself with your choices. 

I would have picked Kuechly, straight up no question.  But that's how I would build a defense Keuchly foster and David would look a hell of a lot better than David foster and black.  But  like it or not that's not how Schiano wants to build a defense.  Much like we did with Brooks, it's obvious Greg is going to try and funnel the plays to Barron, so he is a key player in Schiano's vision of the team, so he is absolutely appropriately picked.  If that is what you are designing, you don't wait until day two to grab the player for that position.

And the arbitrary assignation of "top two or three" Because of his positionis patently absurd.  Any pick in the top tennis expected to do something along those lines, his position is utterly irrelevant.  You expect him to be a very good player and a key contributor in winning, that's the only bar to pass.

[Feel Real Good]

The argument that there are only a few great safeties so you shouldn't draft on high makes no logical sense.

Nobody said that. The argument is that if you're going to take one high, you better be right that he's the next great safety and not just a pretty good safety.

[captainjimbo]

Draft = Best available + Need = Mark Barron.  Great pick in my eyes.  Just hope he lives up to the hype.  A team is only as good as it's weakest link so the safety position is as important as any other position if you follow that logic.

[Feel Real Good]

A team is only as good as it's weakest link so the safety position is as important as any other position if you follow that logic.

Not really every team has weak positions. The Bucs won the Super Bowl with Kenyatta Walker, Cosey Coleman, and Ryan Nece as regular starters. Most teams are good because they have a few exceptional players who compensate for all the other players.

[captainjimbo]

LOL!  That kinda proves my point though.  We should have won multiple SBs with that team and with a couple of upgrades I believe we would have.

[dalbuc]

The argument that there are only a few great safeties so you shouldn't draft on high makes no logical sense.  The argument would actually encourage you to grab one high if you thought you had an elite talent there.  Positional value as a whole is pretty much a thing of the past with only a couple of positions really remaining more "valuable" than others.  If you have a safety rated at the top of your board, and expect him to be elite you grab him instead of thinking that that mediocre LT because of some predefined notion of value.

No, the logic is that for S 3-26 there is not much difference. If you think you can pick not just a good player but a great player you are delusional. The draft is about a raft of overconfidence and that shows in so many picks but you want to maximize value. The only way to do that is if the S becomes a top 2 player (FRG is being generous with guys like Adrian Wilson who are basically overhyped bags of rocks) at his spot. Maybe you think he will be top 2 but that is sort of like thinking you'll draw to an inside straight. Long, long odds. You might win but the odds you do are so slim you might as well buy at lottery ticket. 

[Feel Real Good]

LOL!  That kinda proves my point though.  We should have won multiple SBs with that team and with a couple of upgrades I believe we would have.

Of course everyone wants 22 stud players as your starters, but that just doesn't happen. So knowing you're going to have some lesser players, most teams prefer a couple great players pull extra than to have an entire roster of average players. You could upgrade bottom 5 players in Walker, Coleman, and Nece to mid level players but if you lost any top 5 players like Sapp, Brooks, Rice, Barber, or Lynch, you're not winning the Super Bowl.

[captainjimbo]

LOL!  That kinda proves my point though.  We should have won multiple SBs with that team and with a couple of upgrades I believe we would have.

Of course everyone wants 22 stud players as your starters, but that just doesn't happen. So knowing you're going to have some lesser players, most teams prefer a couple great players pull extra than to have an entire roster of average players. You could upgrade bottom 5 players in Walker, Coleman, and Nece to mid level players but if you lost any top 5 players like Sapp, Brooks, Rice, Barber, or Lynch, you're not winning the Super Bowl.

I've played enough organized ball to realize you don't have to have 22 all pro players on the field to win championships but your lesser players can't be so bad the they can be ignored or else the other team will quadruple team the playmakers.   Also when the so called lesser players step up and make a play it takes the pressure off the "studs" to play their game and it's also extremely motivational.  You can field a couple of stars a few average players and maybe a couple of scrubs and still win but if you put enough scrubs on the field the other team will game plan around your weaknesses.

[dbucfan]

Interesting - but - the buccaneers won a SB with an oline the has its' picture next to the word nondescript in the dictionary.  I have never thought of the Keys as HOF receivers - solid but not great.  Less than average Oline, average at WR, average at QB - geez I better stop before I get to Dexter.

[JDouble]

I don't think we want to model ourselves after the 2002 Bucs. That defense was top 5 all time. Chances of having that again anytime soon is not likely. I still think focusing on the O-line, D-line, and an overall balanced team is the way to go.