Ohrnberger: A Tale of Draft Perspective

[Armchair Quarterback]

Just to be clear, I've also had serious doubts about Ohrnberger so far.

However, citing the players above and their starts (mostly gained through injury opportunities) seems like a false comparison, differences in blocking schemes aside. GB, CHI and PIT have been three of the shakiest O-lines in the NFL for the past couple seasons at least, and while the starters for SD and the Jets have been top notch, the O-line depth for those teams has been virtually non-existent for a couple years. Meanwhile, Ohrnberger has been attempting to break onto perhaps the best (starters) and deepest O-line crew in the league.

IOW, promoting the impression that these guys are better than Ohrnberger because of what they've "accomplished" in terms of playing time in comparison seems to me similar to saying that Colt McCoy is a better pick than Aaron Rogers was (early on) because he managed to beat out Delhomme and Wallace right away.

While I have my doubts about the abilities of Lang and Louis, I happen to think that Greene, Slauson and Foster are all actually pretty good and probably better players than Ohrnberger. However, this argument doesn't really help their case for me.

Those players were listed to refute Patchick's claim that not one of them is a regular NFL starter today. BTW, Lang will likely start now for GB now that Colledge signed elsewhere and Kruetz likely won't be back in Chicago, Garza will move to C, Louis to G.

Ohrnberger got virtually no playing time (2 games) even though Mankins held out, Neal missed half the year, Kaczur missed the whole year and Connolly missed the last two games. Wendell (15 games) was next on the depth chart followed by Ojinnaka (8 games). Ohrnberger was basically the 7th guard on the depth chart. It's not an unreasonable expectation to have for a 4th round pick to be able play over the likes of Wendell and Ojinnaka.


I can only fight this battle on so many fronts. I'm not promoting the impression that these guys are better than Ohrnberger because of what they've "accomplished" in terms of playing time. Try to remember what this thread is about, draft perspective, and the (false) premise that not one player drafted after Ohrnberger is a starter. So if you agree with PC when she says that Ohrnberger shouldn't be judged because of the supposed lack of starters to come out of that draft, how can you at the same time dismiss the accomplishments of the 5 starters that I pointed out to her to refute that claim. You can't have it both ways.

I've already said in this thread that I disagree her original premise, I disagree with the facts she presented and that even if her original claim were true, I don't think it is an accurate way to judge the quality of a draft pick. I've said that they should be judged on their own merits, not what someone else has done or not done. So maybe you agree with me more than you think you do.

 

[sg14]

And come next April, or whenever the next draft is, if we select a OL in the 4th round, lots of us will think, "Just want till Scar get him coached up".
(As if we are not thinking that right now about some udfa's.)

I don't expect much from the late round guys for the OL, since BB has been here the starters are either high picks or excellent atheletes(Neal). So I actually have higher hopes for the lacrosse player and converted TE's than the other players.

Going by the BB tack record, 2nd round and higher=starter,
lower round =back-up.
(except for Koppen)


Can only hope all do well,,,

 

[MaineMan]

Those players were listed to refute Patchick's claim that not one of them is a regular NFL starter today. BTW, Lang will likely start now for GB now that Colledge signed elsewhere and Kruetz likely won't be back in Chicago, Garza will move to C, Louis to G.

Ohrnberger got virtually no playing time (2 games) even though Mankins held out, Neal missed half the year, Kaczur missed the whole year and Connolly missed the last two games. Wendell (15 games) was next on the depth chart followed by Ojinnaka (8 games). Ohrnberger was basically the 7th guard on the depth chart. It's not an unreasonable expectation to have for a 4th round pick to be able play over the likes of Wendell and Ojinnaka.


I can only fight this battle on so many fronts. I'm not promoting the impression that these guys are better than Ohrnberger because of what they've "accomplished" in terms of playing time. Try to remember what this thread is about, draft perspective, and the (false) premise that not one player drafted after Ohrnberger is a starter. So if you agree with PC when she says that Ohrnberger shouldn't be judged because of the supposed lack of starters to come out of that draft, how can you at the same time dismiss the accomplishments of the 5 starters that I pointed out to her to refute that claim. You can't have it both ways.

I've already said in this thread that I disagree her original premise, I disagree with the facts she presented and that even if her original claim were true, I don't think it is an accurate way to judge the quality of a draft pick. I've said that they should be judged on their own merits, not what someone else has done or not done. So maybe you agree with me more than you think you do.

Hmmmmm.

Seems to me that PC's original premise was that folks seem to be condemning Ohrnberger NOT on his own merits but because he has yet to meet their comparative expectations for a high-falutin' 4th round pick. Her "perspective" appears to be that very few (five, by your count) of the 19+ (including UDFAs) O-line candidates who were available when Ohrnberger was picked in 2009 contributed much more in their first two seasons than Ohrnberger has.

Beyond this, it seems there are some technical disagreements among us over what constitutes a "regular starter" and "earning a start" and "accomplishment", as well as over the importance of the unique competitive/quality context of the O-line units of different teams and of different O-line positions. To use your example, I don't see the shame in Ohrnberger not getting time at OG over the more experienced Wendell and Ojinnaka, especially since I was under the impression from the get-go that Ohrnberger was originally drafted as a developmental Center behind Wendell and Koppen with some potential to fill in at guard in a dire emergency (though well behind Connolly and even Wendell and others at the time, in that regard). I've always had Ohrnberger on my depth chart as "OC#3/OG#6".

Another bit of context with regard to a popular method for demonstrating how much a waste of a grand 4th rounder Ohrnberger was - the canard that the Pats essentially "traded" Hobbs for Ohrnberger and Jake Ingram. Apparently, folks have forgotten that we traded Hobbs in his contract year nearly two months after we had his replacement at RCB, Leigh Bodden, already on the roster - at 1/4 the money.

 

[patchick]

Outrage? Personal Ire? Belichick incompetent? Failed draft approach? You are taking an extreme amount of liberties with my words if you are trying to associate those thoughts with mine. I didn't like the Ohrnberger pick, simple as that. Not liking the Ohrnberger pick means I think Belichick is incompetent? Come on, that's quite a leap.

etc. etc.

AQ, hold on -- I wasn't talking about you when I wrote that! I'm describing the same attitudes I addressed in the opening post, not ascribing those opinions to you.

This was about the people who have, in the past, gotten all foamy at the mouth raging at Belichick over Ohrnberger and every pick that turned out badly. Those people do exist, but you are not one of them. Ergo I wasn't describing you when I wrote that.

Also, I never said Ohrnberger was a good pick. Did I mention that?

 

[ay-yo]

Completely arbitrary but I draw the line at the 2nd round. After that things are just way to uncertain. I don't attempt to guess which ones will succeed and which ones will fail. If I simply guessed that everyone drafted after the 2nd round would be a bust I'd be right more than everybody else.


My take on Ohrnberger:

Bad player thus far but an average pick. That may seem strange at first but take a deeper look.

Using the numbers provided in this thread we have 23 players and 5 guys who have several starts to their credit. Regardless of whether or not this is a good measure of a player that still only yields 22% of picks from the mid third on are good players. I don't consider Rich a bad pick because he is still on the team where some of the OL drafted are not.

That leaves Rich above the guys not on their original team and below the guys with starts which equals an average pick. As long as you have some hits in the later rounds, and we certainly have had our share, then I'm fine with picks like Ohrnberger.

 

[rookBoston]

Don't forget that Hobbs was going to cost them about $3M (maybe more) for 2009, which also played into it.

And Hobbs no longer plays in the NFL

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

AQ, hold on -- I wasn't talking about you when I wrote that! I'm describing the same attitudes I addressed in the opening post, not ascribing those opinions to you.

This was about the people who have, in the past, gotten all foamy at the mouth raging at Belichick over Ohrnberger and every pick that turned out badly. Those people do exist, but you are not one of them. Ergo I wasn't describing you when I wrote that.

Also, I never said Ohrnberger was a good pick. Did I mention that?

Fair enough, Do you think Ohrnberger was a good pick? I'm not sure if that's you're position.

 

[SanAngeloState]

reason he WAS a bad pick is that he wasn't even that good in college and was a consensus UDFA. You don't trade up into the fourth round to "grab" an UDFA. BB just developed a mancrush on him because he played lacrosse in high school...and he wanted to be SURE he got this very average UDFA player.

It was a bizarre thing to do and a complete waste but it was relatively cheap...not like taking chad jackson with a #2, that was painful.

 

[MaineMan]

reason he WAS a bad pick is that he wasn't even that good in college and was a consensus UDFA. You don't trade up into the fourth round to "grab" an UDFA. BB just developed a mancrush on him because he played lacrosse in high school...and he wanted to be SURE he got this very average UDFA player.

It was a bizarre thing to do and a complete waste but it was relatively cheap...not like taking chad jackson with a #2, that was painful.

To paraphrase myself, after the first 100 or so picks, the rest are all virtual UDFAs. As is typical, there were probably a half dozen prospects widely binkified by posters here with discussions about whether BB would need to take them by the 6th, 5th or even the 4th round in order to get them - guys who not only didn't get drafted by anyone but who BB may well have passed on as UDFAs - most of whom will be perennial camp bodies at best and never see a 53-man roster.

So, there really are no "bad picks" from the 4th on. There are shots in the dark, one-in-five (or less) of which turn out to be lucky.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

To paraphrase myself, after the first 100 or so picks, the rest are all virtual UDFAs. As is typical, there were probably a half dozen prospects widely binkified by posters here with discussions about whether BB would need to take them by the 6th, 5th or even the 4th round in order to get them - guys who not only didn't get drafted by anyone but who BB may well have passed on as UDFAs - most of whom will be perennial camp bodies at best and never see a 53-man roster.

So, there really are no "bad picks" from the 4th on. There are shots in the dark, one-in-five (or less) of which turn out to be lucky.

What a convenient, arbitrary number to settle on when debating the merit of a 4th round pick.

 

[The Brandon Five]

And Hobbs no longer plays in the NFL

Belichich foresaw the neck injury he suffered last year?

 

[MaineMan]

What a convenient, arbitrary number to settle on when debating the merit of a 4th round pick.

Because none of the other criteria that anyone uses for asserting whether a 4th round pick was "good" or "bad" are arbitrary?

 

[patsfaninpa]

By the power vested in me I hereby declare this thread closed and non-sense. Does Bill Belichick make bad draft picks? Yes. At least not in the 1st round. And, Maroney wasn't a bad pick. He just wasn't as good as we thought he would be. You don't want me to list all of the 1st round busts at rb do you? Does Bill Belichick make good draft picks? Yes!! Closed/

ps Let's move on to the upcoming college football season.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

To paraphrase myself, after the first 100 or so picks, the rest are all virtual UDFAs.

So, there really are no "bad picks" from the 4th on. There are shots in the dark, one-in-five (or less) of which turn out to be lucky.

Because none of the other criteria that anyone uses for asserting whether a 4th round pick was "good" or "bad" are arbitrary?

There are other criteria that can be used to judge a draft pick "good" or "bad" such as playing time, a starting job, pro bowls, statistics, awards, getting cut, being out of the league.

The word arbitrary was applied to your claim that "after the first 100 or so picks, the rest are all virtual UDFAs."

And here is the definition and why it applies to you.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

arbitrary - definition of arbitrary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You're joining a discussion of whether or not a draft pick was a good pick or a bad pick and you say that he can't be a bad pick because "after the first 100 or so picks, the rest are all virtual UDFAs." and that "there really are no "bad picks" from the 4th on." You say this like it is the absolute truth, which it is not, it is 100% your opinion. That is why I used the word arbitrary, it applies to the number that you made up. I don't understand why you think that is funny.

 

[MaineMan]

There are other criteria that can be used to judge a draft pick "good" or "bad" such as playing time, a starting job, pro bowls, statistics, awards, getting cut, being out of the league.

The word arbitrary was applied to your claim that "after the first 100 or so picks, the rest are all virtual UDFAs."

And here is the definition and why it applies to you.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

arbitrary - definition of arbitrary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You're joining a discussion of whether or not a draft pick was a good pick or a bad pick and you say that he can't be a bad pick because "after the first 100 or so picks, the rest are all virtual UDFAs." and that "there really are no "bad picks" from the 4th on." You say this like it is the absolute truth, which it is not, it is 100% your opinion. That is why I used the word arbitrary, it applies to the number that you made up. I don't understand why you think that is funny.

Because everything YOU write is, of course, obviously determined by fact reason and principle. It's NEVER merely YOUR opinion or in anyway arbitrary.

Frankly, that's a sidesplitter.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Everything you write is obviously determined by fact reason and principle.

Thank you for noticing.

 

[mrscruff]

What is a 'bust?' | National Football Post

A perspective on what is a "bust" by Greg Gabriel at NFP