[dieterbrock]

Here's what I would say to that fact.

Which teams went out, knowing they'd need a LT and tried to solve it by drafting a player in round three or later?

Do the Rams need a LT?
In any event, I guess the only round you draft players in that "you need" is the first?

[/zn/]

As you keep ignoring, 10 of 32 starters not from 1st or 2nd round

We;re mixing up 2 issues.

Issue 1: how many starting LOTs were drafted after round 2.
Issue 2: what is the hit rate on LOTs taken after round 2.

Issue 1. The 24 original starters from rounds 1 and 2 are Smith, Flowers, Williams (who was injured), Whitworth, Staley, Brown, Humphries (who was injured), Decker (who was injured), Reiff, Matthews, Kalil, Smith, Glenn (who was injured)., Tunasil, Solder, Fisher, Okung, Bolles, Stanley, C. Ogbuehi, Thomas (who was injured), Castonzo, Cam Robinson, and Lewan.

One guy who was not a 1st or 2nd rounder but is considered a question mark is Charles Leno (Chicago). You can count Leno if you want because they extended him (it was controversial). The genuinely good left OTs who played this year and were not drafted in rounds 1 or 2 are the traditional ones---Bakhtiari, Armstead, Beachum, and sometimes Veldheer except they're switching him to ROT. New guys on the radar are Villanueva and Davenport (Villanueva was originally a UDFA). Other good UDFAs are Peters (who was injured this year) and Penn.

Issue 2. It's hard to calculate hit rates on UDFAs because there's never anyway to find out how many signed in the first place, so you can't do a percentage out of that. So I will ignore UDFAs. 3 are ostensible starters in the NFL when not injured---Penn, Peters, Villanueva. Those guys are finds but the hit rate on UDFAs is so low you just can't count on it. In fact I would say it was astronomically low. That's three since 2004 (when Peters first signed) though you would have to look back for guys who were injured or retired to get a better number. Still, it would be pointless, because we don't know how many UDFAs there were and therefore it's impossible to get a hit rate. Suffice it to say, it's not good. That at least we know.

You can calculate hit rates on draft picks. So just looking at the draft picks from round 3 and down, that's Bakhtiari, Armstead, Beachum, Leno (who I said I would count), and Davenport. Veldheer may be switching but he has been a left OT so I will count him. That's 6.

One fair way to do this is to look at the hit rate on guys taken 3rd round and after guys from 2010 to 2017. (Why 2010? That's the earliest year any of my 6 listed guys were drafted). In that period 82 OTs were drafted. I have a list of 6. 6 of 82 is 7.3%. So the hit rate since 2010 is 7.3% (so far anyway). Any other college tackles who were drafted round 3 and down and made it in the league in that time frame became guards or ROTs (like Saffold and Brown).

Short version.

The hit rate on LOTs drafted after round 3 is always low, no matter what time frame you use (in this thread I used 2 different time frames). You just cannot count on getting a left OT after round 3. It's too iffy. 6 in 8 years out of 82 picked is not good enough, considering the importance of the LOT position.



...

[dieterbrock]

We;re mixing up 2 issues.

Issue 1: how many starting LOTs were drafted after round 2.
Issue 2: what is the hit rate on LOTs taken after round 2.

Issue 1. The 24 original starters from rounds 1 and 2 are Smith, Flowers, Williams (who was injured), Whitworth, Staley, Brown, Humphries (who was injured), Decker (who was injured), Reiff, Matthews, Kalil, Smith, Glenn (who was injured)., Tunasil, Solder, Fisher, Okung, Bolles, Stanley, C. Ogbuehi, Thomas (who was injured), Castonzo, Cam Robinson, and Lewan.

One guy who was not a 1st or 2nd rounder but is considered a question mark is Charles Leno (Chicago). You can count Leno if you want because they extended him (it was controversial). The genuinely good left OTs who played this year and were not drafted in rounds 1 or 2 are the traditional ones---Bakhtiari, Armstead, Beachum, and sometimes Veldheer except they're switching him to ROT. New guys on the radar are Villanueva and Davenport (Villanueva was originally a UDFA). Other good UDFAs are Peters (who was injured this year) and Penn.

Issue 2. It's hard to calculate hit rates on UDFAs because there's never anyway to find out how many signed in the first place, so you can't do a percentage out of that. So I will ignore UDFAs. 3 are ostensible starters in the NFL when not injured---Penn, Peters, Villanueva. Those guys are finds but the hit rate on UDFAs is so low you just can't count on it. In fact I would say it was astronomically low. That's three since 2004 (when Peters first signed) though you would have to look back for guys who were injured or retired to get a better number. Still, it would be pointless, because we don't know how many UDFAs there were and therefore it's impossible to get a hit rate. Suffice it to say, it's not good. That at least we know.

You can calculate hit rates on draft picks. So just looking at the draft picks from round 3 and down, that's Bakhtiari, Armstead, Beachum, Leno (who I said I would count), and Davenport. Veldheer may be switching but he has been a left OT so I will count him. That's 6.

One fair way to do this is to look at the hit rate on guys taken 3rd round and after guys from 2010 to 2017. (Why 2010? That's the earliest year any of my 6 listed guys were drafted). In that period 82 OTs were drafted. I have a list of 6. 6 of 82 is 7.3%. So the hit rate since 2010 is 7.3% (so far anyway). Any other college tackles who were drafted round 3 and down and made it in the league in that time frame became guards or ROTs (like Saffold and Brown).

It's not mixing up anything. Its a fallacy that it rare to find a starter after round 2.
If one of the top OT slides to #23, and they cant pass him up, so be it. But if they take an OT with a 2-3 round grade in the 1st because of "need", its a poor pick.
DT and ILB were a weakness and due to injury and contracts, CB is a weakness too. Finding a replacement for our pro bowl LT in round 1 just shouldnt be our play when the league shows there are other ways to get it done

[/zn/]

I think a solid LT is critical to success.
Also.. I feel comfortable that you can find a functional right tackle in the third round and expect that guy to start as a rookie. Same thing at Corner.. definitely at Safety.. Guards for sure..

Yes.. it's a different thing. Part of it is just a function of population.
How many guys out there are 6-6.. 300+ with the athleticism needed to play LT?

You'll find MANY more guys who can physically handle the job of starting corner, for example.

Yeah. Cause if nothing else, (1) as you say the physical abilities and measureables needed to play LOT are less common than for CB, and (2) all college teams start 1 LOT and 2 CBs so the population of the latter is higher.

...

[/zn/]

Its a fallacy that it rare to find a starter after round 2.

Yeah the 2 issues are different. That's just obvious.

And yes it's hard to find a starting LOT after round 2. My hit rate on those drafted since 2010 is 7.3%. Or are you just playing semantics with the word "rare"? How about this. You absolutely cannot count on it.

And LOT is one of those positions that's so important you have to have a fair amount of certainty when trying to find one if and when you need one.

24 of 32 that is 75% of NFL teams have a 1st or 2nd rounder as their starting LOT. (Or as their original starter this year...a few were injured.) Name another position in the entire NFL where 75% of the starters are 1st or 2nd rounders. That's not even true of qbs.

...

[dieterbrock]

Yeah the 2 issues are different. That's just obvious.

And yes it's hard to find a starting LOT after round 2. My hit rate on those drafted since 2010 is 7.3%. Or are you just playing semantics with the word "rare"? How about this. You absolutely cannot count on it.

And LOT is one of those positions that's so important you have to have a fair amount of certainty when trying to find one if and when you need one.

24 of 32 that is 75% of NFL teams have a 1st or 2nd rounder as their starting LOT. (Or as their original starter this year...a few were injured.) Name another position in the entire NFL where 75% of the starters are 1st or 2nd rounders. That's not even true of qbs.

...

1st or 2nd rounders that went to a different team. So acquiring another team's 1st or 2nd rounder is an option.
31% of starting OT were not drafted by the team in the 1st or 2nd round.
You can spit out whatever you like, it doesn't change that.

[Legends]

I think because of the difficulty of finding an LOT we need to be more innovative. How many guys playing on NFL teams today maybe guard or ROT have the footwork etc to be a LOT. Maybe the Rams should try something like that. We could use the lure of potential money. Just an idea.

[snackdaddy]

Do the Rams need a LT?
In any event, I guess the only round you draft players in that "you need" is the first?

If your team "needs" a position filled immediately, doing it through the draft usually results in disappointment in the first year. The only position I see a lot of rookie success is running back. You have your occasional rookies that surprised, but for the most part those rookies are for the future, not now.

Fortunately we're finally in a position where the draft is to groom future replacements. Not immediate starters. If we find a couple, then great. But depending on it usually doesn't work out. Free agency is the best place to fill immediate holes. We hit the lottery with Whitworth.

[dieterbrock]

If your team "needs" a position filled immediately, doing it through the draft usually results in disappointment in the first year. The only position I see a lot of rookie success is running back. You have your occasional rookies that surprised, but for the most part those rookies are for the future, not now.

Fortunately we're finally in a position where the draft is to groom future replacements. Not immediate starters. If we find a couple, then great. But depending on it usually doesn't work out. Free agency is the best place to fill immediate holes. We hit the lottery with Whitworth.

I agree about rookie disappointment however I do also feel that with contracts the way they are, rookies need to get in sooner than later. And a 1st round pick should be able to contribute right away. Contribute doesnt mean play at their highest level of course, but they shouldnt be sitting waiting for their turn either.
Dlineman rotate, cb's rotate etc. There's ways to get guys broken in. With olineman, typically you want your 5 out there.

[snackdaddy]

I agree about rookie disappointment however I do also feel that with contracts the way they are, rookies need to get in sooner than later. And a 1st round pick should be able to contribute right away. Contribute doesnt mean play at their highest level of course, but they shouldnt be sitting waiting for their turn either.
Dlineman rotate, cb's rotate etc. There's ways to get guys broken in. With olineman, typically you want your 5 out there.

It seems like certain positions take longer than other positions. Quarterback usually takes 3 years for the game to truly slow down and grasp the nuances of reading defenses. Makes what Goff and Wentz did look really special. Its possible those two are the Brady/Manning of the next generation.

I sure seems like offensive linemen drafted near the top need more time. But yeah, I agree these days you need to get certain guys in sooner than later. You hope that your lineup is strong enough to absorb the inexperience of a rookie or two starting.