Drafting in pairs at positions of need makes sense

[oasis]

There are now five notable examples of this front office drafting in pairs at positions of need.

2008:

DE - Merling at #32, Langford at #66 (a third DE, Dotson, was taken in the 7th round, #245)
G - Murphy at #110, Thomas at #195
HB - Parmele at #176, Hilliard at #204

2009:

CB - Davis at #25, Smith at #61
WR - Turner at #87, Hartline at #108

Does something stand out there? In four cases (possibly all five, but hard to say about the HBs), at this point in time, the second player of the pair is looking like the more effective NFL player. It seems obvious in hindsight, but wouldn't we be so much worse off without Langford, Thomas, Smith, and Hartline at those respective positions? Perhaps this highlights the fact that despite how good your scouts are at talent evaluation, you cannot afford to miss at positions of need when you are rebuilding a team.

I appreciated it before, but now I am even more thankful for the wisdom of this draft strategy. It seems like it will pay dividends both immediately and in the long run. Even though it's the second guy in all cases who's performing right now, theoretically the higher pick has more upside and therefore should be able to be developed as well.

We say it over and over around here, but IMO it's the one thing we can't really say enough of....I frickin' love this FO.

 

[MDFinFan06]

does seem like a good idea to me and it is funny that the second one in each case is looking better than the first. im loving it building depth at needed positions

 

[Dogbone34]

We're building better depth, maybe next season will be a LB and DT rookie competition.

 

[tcdrover]

I think they drafted players that they liked, that met their 'criteria'. I'm not so sure that they deliberately tried to draft in pairs in any of those cases.

The players that they liked were in slots where their value met where they had them ranked.

JJ had similar drafts as did his buddy after him...

 

[So Be]

There are now five notable examples of this front office drafting in pairs at positions of need.

2008:

DE - Merling at #32, Langford at #66 (a third DE, Dotson, was taken in the 7th round, #245)
G - Murphy at #110, Thomas at #195
HB - Parmele at #176, Hilliard at #204

2009:

CB - Davis at #25, Smith at #61
WR - Turner at #87, Hartline at #108

Does something stand out there? In four cases (possibly all five, but hard to say about the HBs), at this point in time, the second player of the pair is looking like the more effective NFL player. It seems obvious in hindsight, but wouldn't we be so much worse off without Langford, Thomas, Smith, and Hartline at those respective positions? Perhaps this highlights the fact that despite how good your scouts are at talent evaluation, you cannot afford to miss at positions of need when you are rebuilding a team.

I appreciated it before, but now I am even more thankful for the wisdom of this draft strategy. It seems like it will pay dividends both immediately and in the long run. Even though it's the second guy in all cases who's performing right now, theoretically the higher pick has more upside and therefore should be able to be developed as well.

We say it over and over around here, but IMO it's the one thing we can't really say enough of....I frickin' love this FO.

I was just thinking of posting the same thing. Maybe the second guy has something to prove to the first guy. Don't know but it's working.

Don't get me wrong. Other that HB, I still really like the first guys as well.

 

[Asicswrg85]

Its pretty ingenious when you think about it! Very smart idea, something that our previous leaders would never have thought of

 

[BobDole]

not sure it's been entirely deliberate but it's seemed to work out pretty damn well.