arrellbee

Real football consideration. Who knew. Thanks for a really good question.

My crack at it is simple.

If you have less than a top level DL, then to make up for that you have to have at least 4 DBs that have to compensate for the weakness of the DL (not to mention 3 or 4 LBs as well). Considering that CB is a fairly expensive position comparatively, you probably don't even have enough money no matter what to pay premium to 4 DBs. Also, obviously, one top CB doesn't do you much good since the other team can go against the weaker DB positions all day long. Interestingly enough, seems to me we have had a lot of examples where teams tried to upgrade their defense by adding a top CB - and it didn't work worth a darn.

Perhaps something folks don't step back to think about also. A DL has to be be pretty well balanced in strength. If you have a marginal player at one of the positions, that leaves much more opportunity to single team that player and double team the stronger DLs which takes away so much of the power of the DL. So it's even far more of an impact than thinking you are just weakening one position on the DL - you have probably seriously impacted the effectiveness of the whole line.

Another part of the equation - an important part of a really effective CB is run support. But in no way is the CB a controlling part of the run defense. So in addition to the equation of DL versus DBs in pass defense, the DL has a critical contribution to make as far as defending the running game. So a DL has more of an impact on the full game than a CB.

I don't see how a CB could ever get one of PFK's two slots if there are two top DL to chose and, as the proposition is posed by PFK, you only get to pick two.

Joker

well, if I were GM...the FIRST thing I'm doing is firing Patsfanken...he makes me too paranoid

Box_O_Rocks

Obviously you re-sign the CB and the DE, the two most expensive non-QB positions.

I look at BB's team building choices in rounds 1 & 2:
2000 #46 OT
2001 #6 DL
2001 #48 OT
2002 #21 TE
2002 #65 WR
2003 #13 DL
2003 #36 CB/FS
2003 #45 WR/KR
2004 #21 DL
2004 #32 TE
2004 #63 DL
2005 #32 OT
2006 #21 RB
2006 #36 WR

14 1st & 2nd round picks:
4 DL - 29%
3 OT - 21%
3 WR - 21%
2 TE - 14%
1 DB - 7%
1 RB - 7%

DB isn't even close to DL: Warren and Wilfork get re-signed.

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

patfanken

Now THAT is very interesting BOR. If we can infer anything from that, it is that BB thinks he can coach up lower round DBs 3rd and 4th rounders, INTO premium players. Kind of makes you think differently about this year's draft, with many of us hoping that BB draft 2 DBs with the early picks. Good find, Rocks

Pat_Nasty

Unfortunately, we can't infer anything from that, because when BB was making those draft picks, he wasn't deciding solely -- or even primarily -- based on position. BB ranks draft prospects as individual players. One can't assume that if Wilfork hadn't fallen to us, we would have selected the next available DT.

upstater1

#1 Warren: he's the best player of the 3. You keep your best players regardless of position, and you fill in elsewhere.

Samuel or Wilfork are in the same boat, after that. Both are good players but I don't believe they are as irreplaceable as Warren. We've seen other DTs do OK at Wilfork's position, although Wilfork has been excellent, especially his pursuit.

patsox23

FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST - and I've only read the first page of this thread - why is it that people have such a hard time staying on point? The question of this thread is the hypothetical - WHICH of the three WOULD you sign if you could only sign two of them? Jesus. Apologies, patfanken, for the short-sighted insanity that sometimes grips this board.

My answer:

WILFORK

WARREN












SAMUEL IS WAY DOWN HERE.

patsox23

You should try watching the games sometime. Honestly, this is the kind of post that would get you banned for myopia if there were some kind of kangaroo court here at patsfans.

Wilfork is the IDEAL NT for the 3-4 system and over the last two years has EXCELLED in that role. What world are you living in?

patsox23

Sorry for the negativity. I'm not even in a bad mood this morning. These posts are so over-the-line ridiculous and off-point that it drives me a little nuts. Let's make this the first off-season in a few where the nut-jobs don't take over and yank down the level of discourse - myself and my frustrations included.

GREAT post, ken.

Fixit

BUT WE CAN KEEP ALL THREE!!!