Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshBaked 24 7
There are 64 starting guards in the NFL, some good and some bad, and in the last 10 years only 6 guards have been taken in the first round (And off the top of my head Ben Grubbs isn't a starter)
Does that mean that 26 teams have trouble running the ball up this middle for 4 yards and can't protect their quarterbacks from blitzes up the middle? Or does that mean no matter how talented the guard prospect that a guy outside the first round will give you the same amount of production?
Edit: Just because there is a smaller sting financially for taking players in the first round with the new CBA doesn't mean you get to go full retard and take a guy that you could (and should) get in later rounds
|
Grubbs starts for the Saints...he replaced Carl Nicks.
I agree with parts of what you said.
If you go by the very basic premise that of the 1st rounders, 1/3 are absolute studs, 1/3 are adequate players that are one contract guys, and 1/3 are busts...then the concept of taking a guard high makes little sense, even if it is more economically feasible under the new rookie wage scale. In essence, under that premise you are saying that you are most likely not to get good return when drafting a guard top 10.
That being said, Warmack has a high possibility of falling under that 1/3 are studs premise. The problem is we don't definitively know if he'll be a stud or just an adequate to slightly above average player (regardless of all the film/scouting reports).