Commentary: Draft Day…â€ÂBachelor†Style

PhinstiGator

Hungry For A Championship
Joined
May 13, 2002
Messages
1,643
Reaction score
4
Age
55
Location
MD
ArticleNinja said:
Discuss this article or suffer dire consequences: http://www.finheaven.com/cms/128.html.
Well man, it's a well written ...but you completely neglected design. I just don't see a QB making it to the final four of a Saban designed team. From my limited viewage of Saban's strategery...I don't see it encircling the QB position. I see the design being more weighted toward playmakers at WR and RB. Of course there is a difference from the college transition where Saban was not afraid to play multiple QB's during a single game.

Saban has to posture to draft a QB in order to get trade down value. But, I'm sure that it would physically cause him pain to use both 1st and 2nd round (Feeley) draft picks this year on a single position.

The design of this team REQUIRES a multipurpose RB...and playmaker at WR for 3 WR formations, another big body on the defense, and the possibility of addressing the LT position is still real in the first round.

The design of the offense is also QB friendly that would allow even a second tier QB like Frerotte to excel with the right playmakers in place. This team must be designed to function on all cylinders even when the starting QB gets injured.
 

KB21

Finheaven VIP
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
10,049
Reaction score
59
PhinstiGator said:
Well man, it's a well written ...but you completely neglected design. I just don't see a QB making it to the final four of a Saban designed team. From my limited viewage of Saban's strategery...I don't see it encircling the QB position. I see the design being more weighted toward playmakers at WR and RB. Of course there is a difference from the college transition where Saban was not afraid to play multiple QB's during a single game.

Saban has to posture to draft a QB in order to get trade down value. But, I'm sure that it would physically cause him pain to use both 1st and 2nd round (Feeley) draft picks this year on a single position.

The design of this team REQUIRES a multipurpose RB...and playmaker at WR for 3 WR formations, another big body on the defense, and the possibility of addressing the LT position is still real in the first round.

The design of the offense is also QB friendly that would allow even a second tier QB like Frerotte to excel with the right playmakers in place. This team must be designed to function on all cylinders even when the starting QB gets injured.
I don't know where you get that idea, since Saban has repeatedly stated that you have to have playmaking ability at the quarterback position.
 

PhinstiGator

Hungry For A Championship
Joined
May 13, 2002
Messages
1,643
Reaction score
4
Age
55
Location
MD
KB21 said:
I don't know where you get that idea, since Saban has repeatedly stated that you have to have playmaking ability at the quarterback position.
I'm not an expert on Saban...but, from what I know up this point...Saban does not design an offense around the QB position. He wants the offense to still be able to function properly even if the starting QB sucombs to injury.

"I can tell you this: that it has worked for me, every place I have been. Quarterbacks have to split snaps in some kind of way. Because more than one guy has to be ready to play the game." (Saban comments on QB practice reps.)

He brought in an offensive coordinator that has a QB friendly system as long as he has all the right parts: depth at receiver and a protective, effective offensive line.

Adding a rookie QB is not going to automatically give us playmaking ability at the QB position. We already have ability and leadership there. We need an offense that can still function properly if one player goes down. I doubt very seriously that a "savior" at QB fits Sabans design. This defensive minded coach still wants to run the ball effectively in order to move the chains and control the clock.
 

phunwin

The name's Bond...James Bond.
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
8,474
Reaction score
1
Age
42
Location
Rochester, NY
PhinstiGator said:
Well man, it's a well written ...but you completely neglected design. I just don't see a QB making it to the final four of a Saban designed team. From my limited viewage of Saban's strategery...I don't see it encircling the QB position. I see the design being more weighted toward playmakers at WR and RB. Of course there is a difference from the college transition where Saban was not afraid to play multiple QB's during a single game.

Saban has to posture to draft a QB in order to get trade down value. But, I'm sure that it would physically cause him pain to use both 1st and 2nd round (Feeley) draft picks this year on a single position.

The design of this team REQUIRES a multipurpose RB...and playmaker at WR for 3 WR formations, another big body on the defense, and the possibility of addressing the LT position is still real in the first round.

The design of the offense is also QB friendly that would allow even a second tier QB like Frerotte to excel with the right playmakers in place. This team must be designed to function on all cylinders even when the starting QB gets injured.
I guess it comes down to this: do you think that picking Braylon Edwards or Mike Williams makes more sense than picking Aaron Rodgers or Alex Smith? I don't. That's why I narrowed them out first.

I thought about including Alex Barron in the article, but there's just no way we're taking him at 2. He's not even a consideration, even if LT is a need.
 

cnc66

wiley veteran bad spelur
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
19,551
Reaction score
0
Location
indian river country
islandah said:
What's to discuss? It's a list of players we aren't going to take. I could add hundreds more.
really ? but have you taken the time to think it through, write it up and present it to us in a commentary? thus exposing yourself to people .. well, like you ? I could be mistaken maybe you have, and I just don't recall. For me, I appreciate it when these guys, columnists and guru's offer their insight and thought's... that's one of the ways that I learn. Thank's !
 

jbond

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
2,072
Reaction score
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, FL
To a large degree....yes....as a solid WR is more of a secure bet then a "good in college" QB.

All in all a good article though. The link to the article debunking the SanFran / SD trade for Rivers goes to an article talking about Denver's D-line however.
 

phunwin

The name's Bond...James Bond.
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
8,474
Reaction score
1
Age
42
Location
Rochester, NY
jbond said:
To a large degree....yes....as a solid WR is more of a secure bet then a "good in college" QB.

All in all a good article though. The link to the article debunking the SanFran / SD trade for Rivers goes to an article talking about Denver's D-line however.
Thanks.

You have to scroll down to where the "Around the League" section begins. It's Pastabelly's weekly Tip Sheet, it just happens to begin with the Denver/Cleveland stuff.
 

phunwin

The name's Bond...James Bond.
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
8,474
Reaction score
1
Age
42
Location
Rochester, NY
cnc66 said:
really ? but have you taken the time to think it through, write it up and present it to us in a commentary? thus exposing yourself to people .. well, like you ? I could be mistaken maybe you have, and I just don't recall. For me, I appreciate it when these guys, columnists and guru's offer their insight and thought's... that's one of the ways that I learn. Thank's !
Thanks!

I can see islandah's point, though. How useful is it to spend a bunch of time talking down guys that I don't think we should draft? There's something to that. Realistically, I chose to format it that way so that there would be some more material for the site. I could write one article endorsing Ronnie Brown, or Alex Smith, or Aaron Rodgers or Carnell Williams, or I could write four articles, breaking up the process, and give people some more material to take your minds off work. :)
 

DrAstroZoom

Bon vivant
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
10,107
Reaction score
2
Age
50
Location
Illinois
Good read, Phil. I like the format, even though I hate the show you're alluding to.
 

NaboCane

I'm on my comma
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
24,268
Reaction score
10
Location
Seattle, WA
phunwin said:
Thanks!

I can see islandah's point, though. How useful is it to spend a bunch of time talking down guys that I don't think we should draft? There's something to that. Realistically, I chose to format it that way so that there would be some more material for the site. I could write one article endorsing Ronnie Brown, or Alex Smith, or Aaron Rodgers or Carnell Williams, or I could write four articles, breaking up the process, and give people some more material to take your minds off work. :)

Oh, horses**t.

People like Islandah, who criticize without doing, who continually offer only their detrimental comments rather than contribute significantly, should be roundly ignored.

Good read, Phil. Thanks for takling the time to think this out and write the article for our benefit. While I don't agree with 100% of what you wrote, I enjoyed the article and if I learned one little thing from it, I'm grateful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlueFin

Seer of Visions
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
18,239
Reaction score
2,705
Location
Weeki Wachee, Florida
Good article, I also agree with your point about wear and tear on Benson and the fact that his running style takes a lot of hits. I happen to think very few runners ever would be worth the #2 pick, and none of these runners in this draft are IMO special enough to warrant that pick.

Regarding Edwards being better in every way than Williams, I have to disagree, Williams I think has better hands and will be a bigger red zone threat. Edwards will be more explosive.

I think if you pick at #2 you go QB or WR in this draft, or you trade down.

Can't wait to see part two of your commentary.
 
Top Bottom