2016 NFL Draft Early Entries

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I started the talk on DT and it was just an example. Instead of DT what about Treadwell instead? Jack? I think either one would improve the team as a whole over another OL and wouldn't be so much of a reach if at all.
All of those are interesting picks my only point was this idea of diminishing returns, it's like all of a sudden we are stacked at RT for the foreseeable future or we can just plug in anybody over there.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,457
You can never have diminishing returns when you are adding an above average starter cheaply to a position that has to be addressed moving forward.
For the same reason you don't draft a second TE who starts when you already have an all-pro TE. Sure you have to address that second TE position but you shouldn't be addressing it with an elite talent. Just like when you have 4 superstuds on the O-line, you shouldn't be using a top 5 pick on a RT who you don't even need to start for a year. Your team just won't get bang for it's buck.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,457
All of those are interesting picks my only point was this idea of diminishing returns
Do you understand what the term diminishing returns means? It doesn't mean the offensive line wouldn't get better by adding Tunsil. It simply means that the fifth all pro offensive lineman that you bring in will have less of an impact then the first 4 you brought in. This isn't a question of "can you make RT better," it's a question of who will make the overall team better.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
For the same reason you don't draft a second TE who starts when you already have an all-pro TE. Sure you have to address that second TE position but you shouldn't be addressing it with an elite talent. Just like when you have 4 superstuds on the O-line, you shouldn't be using a top 5 pick on a RT who you don't even need to start for a year. Your team just won't get bang for it's buck.
This is nothing like a 2nd TE because this guy will play every offensive snap.

If that RT is rated higher than everybody else on your draft board then you are ok going with the lesser talent out of principal?

The fact that you view the RT like a 2nd TE shows a flaw in logic right off the bat.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Do you understand what the term diminishing returns means? It doesn't mean the offensive line wouldn't get better by adding Tunsil. It simply means that the fifth all pro offensive lineman that you bring in will have less of an impact then the first 4 you brought in. This isn't a question of "can you make RT better," it's a question of who will make the overall team better.
We disagree that that offensive line would not get better and I already stated how I feel about the pick looking at the future.

Yes it's a question of who will make the overall team better and looking at the available talent in this draft Tunsil is right in the mix.

It's not about the concept of a RT vs another position it's about which guy can play a vital role on your team next year and for the future, yes some other players could add more of an impact but there are more question marks with the other guys than Tunsil.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,414
Law of diminishing returns:

In economics, diminishing returns is the decrease in the marginal (incremental) output of a production process as the amount of a single factor of production is incrementally increased, while the amounts of all other factors of production stay constant.

Basically, our OL is already elite, so while Tunsil is an upgrade at RT, the impact of that upgrade would supposedly not be as great as the impact of an upgrade at DT, LB, WR, etc.

So even if Tunsil is graded as a "guaranteed Pro Bowler" and is your 3rd ranked prospect, taking a DT who is graded as a "borderline Pro Bowler" and your 8th ranked prospect would have more of an impact on the overall team.

This has nothing to do with how many plays Tunsil is going to play, whether or not he is an upgrade over Free (he clearly is), it's about the fact that our OL is already elite and doesn't have as much room to improve as our LB corps, the interior of our DL, etc.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,457
We disagree that that offensive line would not get better and I already stated how I feel about the pick looking at the future.
You're still not understanding at all. We both agree, the offensive line can get better. It's about the margin of improvement of the unit though.

You really haven't taken an economics course before.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Law of diminishing returns:

In economics, diminishing returns is the decrease in the marginal (incremental) output of a production process as the amount of a single factor of production is incrementally increased, while the amounts of all other factors of production stay constant.

Basically, our OL is already elite, so while Tunsil is an upgrade at RT, the impact of that upgrade would supposedly not be as great as the impact of an upgrade at DT, LB, WR, etc.

So even if Tunsil is graded as a "guaranteed Pro Bowler" and is your 3rd ranked prospect, taking a DT who is graded as a "borderline Pro Bowler" and your 8th ranked prospect would have more of an impact on the overall team.

This has nothing to do with how many plays Tunsil is going to play, whether or not he is an upgrade over Free (he clearly is), it's about the fact that our OL is already elite and doesn't have as much room to improve as our LB corps, the interior of our DL, etc.
All of this makes perfect sense but you are making some big assumptions as well.

Does any of these DT's and LB's actually improve the defense that much are they that much better than Crawford (Jack) and Irving who looked pretty good before getting injured. The ratings of these guys seem to be all over the place.

As I said before Jack is most definitley in the discussion and if he is rated as a high impact guy I would take him over Tunsil but his ranking is all over the top 15 and he is coming off a injury.

And Free is a plus 30 guy who is an actual cap savings if cut, yes the o-line is elite now but what happens after Free? I am looking at it as not having to have any dropoff and a possible upgrade.

If there were 3 or 4 prospects rated as highly as Tunsil we would not even be having this discussion but now it seems like everybody is willing to reach for a guy because he fits better somewhere else.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
You're still not understanding at all. We both agree, the offensive line can get better. It's about the margin of improvement of the unit though.

You really haven't taken an economics course before.
Actually I am asking the same question does any of these other guys improve anything that much more. I understand this is debateable but as of now I don't see anybody that does.

And you act like there are no questions with Free heading into next year, what happens if he finally goes over a cliff, what ever happened to planning for the future?

You are talking as if we are set at RT for the next 3 years which is why your economics analogy does not work.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,457
Actually I am asking the same question does any of these other guys improve anything that much more. I understand this is debateable but as of now I don't see anybody that does.

And you act like there are no questions with Free heading into next year, what happens if he finally goes over a cliff, what ever happened to planning for the future?

You are talking as if we are set at RT for the next 3 years which is why your economics analogy does not work.
:picard

Jesus, my point is that Free could roll over and die tomorrow and it will still be a dumbass move to use a top pick on a starting RT. Because when you have 4 absolute studs on the O-line already, spending a shit ton of resources (4th overall draft pick) on the fifth one doesn't yield you the results to justify it. The rate of return on your fifth offensive lineman is diminished.

I can agree to disagree on a player evaluation but the problem is you're just not understanding a very basic concept.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
:picard

Jesus, my point is that Free could roll over and die tomorrow and it will still be a dumbass move to use a top pick on a starting RT. Because when you have 4 absolute studs on the O-line already, spending a shit ton of resources (4th overall draft pick) on the fifth one doesn't yield you the results to justify it. The rate of return on your fifth offensive lineman is diminished.

I can agree to disagree on a player evaluation but the problem is you're just not understanding a very basic concept.
I guess you think the line would be fine with 4 studs and you at RT and that makes no sense whatsoever.

The basic concept is that having a shit RT destroys everything else you do on the line, especially in a zone scheme.

The results I want is to have my entire o-line situation taken care of for the next 4 years while transitioning in a new QB, I think that is enough justification.
 
Last edited:

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,471
For the record, I'm a big BPA guy. If we're sitting at 4 and an o-lineman is clear BPA...if it's me I'm trading down.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
:lol

It's all you can do.
See this what I am talking about.

What did I say here that is so outlandish?

Everything I said makes sense even if you disagree about the players.

Yet for some reason you have have to pile on as if I am saying stupid shit.

I mean isn't that what this forum is about, to debate and discuss, or is it all you can do because of me?
 

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,327
See this what I am talking about.

What did I say here that is so outlandish?

Everything I said makes sense even if you disagree about the players.

Yet for some reason you have have to pile on as if I am saying stupid shit.

I mean isn't that what this forum is about, to debate and discuss, or is it all you can do because of me?
You frustrate enough people that their reactions to you crack me up. Carry on. You said you can understand the opinion earlier in the thread but keep debating like you don't.

It wasn't piling on either. Nobody else said that.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,457
For the record, I'm a big BPA guy. If we're sitting at 4 and an o-lineman is clear BPA...if it's me I'm trading down.
This is what I would do as well. And I'm sure there would be someone willing to trade with us. You might have to take a little less then usual for the trade down but someone will be willing to move up. Someone who really needs an OT or thinks the CB/S from Florida State is really good. There will be an option to trade down.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,471
See this what I am talking about.

What did I say here that is so outlandish?

Everything I said makes sense even if you disagree about the players.

Yet for some reason you have have to pile on as if I am saying stupid shit.

I mean isn't that what this forum is about, to debate and discuss, or is it all you can do because of me?
Not to speak for Rev but I don't think that the problem is that you're disagreeing, it's that you don't seem to be understanding the concept.

Nobody is saying it wouldn't be an upgrade INDIVIDUALLY over Free.

Nobody is saying we don't have to plan for replacing Free relatively soon.

Nobody is saying rely on Green.

Nobody is saying put C-Rock or any other Joe off the street in a RT.

If you want to say maybe take a mid-rounder like Free was, that makes sense. If you want to say maybe sign a Kyle kosier level FA, that makes sense. I'd even be receptive to a 2nd rounder under the right circumstances, though I would rather not.

Drafting a top 5 RT, no matter who it is, won't improve the line enough over say a kosier type to justify the selection. Because of how good the other 4 are.
 
Top Bottom