LT's are not important until you have a lousy one.
Jake Long is a bad example to use. The guy has been injured the past 3 or 4 years. He only started missing games this year because he's a tough guy, but he's definately on the decline. You don't pay injury prone players on the downsides of their careers. At 27 he should be entering his prime, but it's just not the case. He's had back issues, torn biceps, Foot issues, hamstrings, and I'm sure I'm missing a few.
2 years ago Jake Long had a down year, but could still be considered a top 10 tackle. Last year Jake Long was no more than average, and probably worse. I still think if you have an elite left tackle, most teams will pay him. And the fact that 3 are likely going in the top 10 this year shows how much the nfl does value them. Dumb article.
LT's are not important until you have a lousy one.
This is a joke. LT is still a premium position and highly sought-after skill set. Just look at this draft, 3 LT's could be taken in the top 20...and that includes Joeckel as # 1 overall.
The writer pointed out some interesting facts. How $500 million was spent collectively for "elite" LT's and the return was minimal. How many teams have won SB's WITHOUT having or paying an "elite" LT.
It's kind of like how some teams still swear that they MUST have an "elite" CB, even though you can't name a SB winning team in the last 10 years that actually had one at the time.
Will some teams continue to go after LTs in the first? Sure. Then again, some teams do silly stuff rather routinely.
You are going to be paying some players $500 million and not getting value no matter what position was chosen for one to look at. Take a gander at how much has been paid to stiff QB's the last few years (Sanchez is one). does that mean you don't draft them high?
As for teams that get by without a strong LT one would have to look at whether they have to do anything special to get by such as adjust their game plan, keep TE in, chip with RB, play more screens and draws. etc.
Sanchez is getting into slightly different territory. No one is questioning that a great QB is a requirement for having a successful team. Can that be said about LT ?
I'll readily admit that a lousy LT is a problem. BUT, that doesn't mean that an "elite" LT is a requirement. A "good" LT will suffice. Then you can spend resources on all the other positions on the line.
I'm bracing myself for the day when a savvy GM spuffs 100% of his cap on the best QB in the game and simply does away with all these overrated additional positions on the field like LT and CB that just don't matter when it comes to winning a championship...never mind just filling them with able-bodied fans plucked from the stands or cheerleaders but just line up with an unbeatable QB all alone in the backfield(except I guess the backfield will no longer exist without any Linemen)....the Super Bowls will come in bunches.
110% correct. You can miss with tons of draft picks, but all you need to do is hit once on a franchise QB and then you get 10-15 years to just play with the parts around him (WR, OL, RB, Def). Brady, Manning, Rogers, et al are perfect examples of this. You should almost consider taking a QB every year with at least one pick in the first 3 rounds...it's like a lottery ticket."But you always wonder if you should have taken a quarterback."
So now it is silly to draft a LT in the first round? I guess maybe everyone should trade out of the first round once they get a stable starting QB since there is nobody worth a first round pick other than QBs. Thats just nonsense.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes9;4853037]NO one is saying that. Just out of curiousity, name the last 5 teams that won a SB with either an elite CB or an elite LT.[
We are reaching the point where people can't see the wood for the trees.Great TEAMS are winning championships and great teams will get a combination of great coaching,great play calling,luck and great play in clutch situations across the board....not just at QB
I realise my previous post was facetious but the broader point is that the overrating of the QB position is getting out of hand.Why bother drafting any position high other than QB?
Don't get me wrong it's a QB driven league and you need your signal caller to lead you and as we all saw this past season a bad one can ruin everything BUT...
...it seems to me a QB automatically becomes elite if they win a championship but that same courtesy doesn't get extended to other positions...why not?
Does Flacco become elite without the Ravens Defense?Is Eli elite without Tyree?Is Kaepernick elite full stop?
What defines elite?...who studies OL play closely enough to see who is performing at an elite level?
On the basis that QB's only become elite when their team actually wins the SB(hello Flacco)then maybe the last 5 staring OT's on the SB winning team are now elite.
As long as you have a running back who can chip block and a capable blocking TE you don't need a great LT.
Ofcourse Jets had neither last season. Tanny was too preoccupied with trading for Tebow.
What an embarrassing article. Long isn't great at pass blocking to begin with and the injuries have hurt him further.
He's not that good and that's why teams weren't knocking down the door to sign him. He's a RT at best. If he's extremely protected in a system, he could survive on the left side but it's not ideal.
So 4 out of 16 (25%) have had any post season success ... while 3 out of 12 (25%) LT's have had that same level of success.
So why all the fuss about LT not being worth drafting high, based on post season success? By that same supposition you shouldn't draft a QB Top 10 either.
And I'm sure all the QB's drafted Top 10 have costed a LOT more than $500m combined.