Silly fans, what do they know...

[Zagen30]

ESPN had an article asking some of their writers which player they would choose if starting an NFL franchise. But the article itself isn't what I'm discussing. To complement this article, they had a SportsNation poll about starting a franchise, and the first question is "Which position is most important in starting an NFL franchise?", with the choices being QB, RB, WR, OL, and DL.
Guess what the top choice was? QB, with a whopping 75% of fans choosing that choice! OL came in a far, far distant second with 15% of the vote.
Does anyone around the country not look at what happened to us and see the importance of an OL to a franchise? We did what everyone said we should, and drafted a QB to start a franchise with. We then ignored the OL, and look what happened: we ruined a promising QB (I think that Carr could have turned into a good quarterback if he had gone to a team with a good OL and some competent coaching, but he's been ruined at this point). Aren't we the best possible example that disproves that philosophy?
You build from the trenches, people!

[GNTLEWOLF]

I can't believe amid all the over optimistic koolaide rhetoric that I,ve been reading on these boards since the draft that I see something I actually agree with. I also want to add that just because a team has depth (bodies) at the o-line positions it doesn't mean that there is any starter quality talent there. I agree with you though that if I were going to start a franchise, I would start with quality o-line and D-line and build from there. Getting a franchise QB before getting a Franchise QB saving line is indeed putting the cart before the horse.

[HJam72]

I believe my first three picks would be OLT, RB, and OC.

[edo783]

You build a team from the inside out in the draft. O-line & D-lines first then you can sort of pick and choose which skill position(s) to fill first. The first two drafts shoud have been focused on filling the lines. IMO, we would be in a much better place if they had been.

[outofhnd]

It is easy to look back and say what we should have done.
But every franchise has usually started with a franchise QB. Even the ones that did not were not very successful when they first started. Of course there are exceptions to the rule like Minnesota and Miami but I am not old enough to remember those days. Heck I wasnt even born yet.
Saints - Archie Manning
Seahawks - Jim Zorn
Panthers - Kerry Collins
Browns Ver 2.0 - Tim Couch
Texans - David Carr
Look at Atlanta, Tampa, Minnesota, Miami, Jacksonville
They all didn't start with a franchise QB and they werent exactly really good, really fast, but when they got a franchise QB Minnesota and Miami did very well. The falcons and the Bucs never flourished for years. So really you can argue both ways but the bucs fans and the Atlanta fans will tell you they followed your formula and they still got the short end of the stick. Jacksonville Also was pretty successful early on, but they have paid for it for years now.

I think its more chemistry than drafting. I think we depleted alot of our team chemistry guys and we just lost that continuity in the race to get younger and faster and win now. It backfired...

[BIG ERN]

I say we bring Neon Dion out of retirement and start from there. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[SuperstarII]

ESPN had an article asking some of their writers which player they would choose if starting an NFL franchise. But the article itself isn't what I'm discussing. To complement this article, they had a SportsNation poll about starting a franchise, and the first question is "Which position is most important in starting an NFL franchise?", with the choices being QB, RB, WR, OL, and DL.
Guess what the top choice was? QB, with a whopping 75% of fans choosing that choice! OL came in a far, far distant second with 15% of the vote.
Does anyone around the country not look at what happened to us and see the importance of an OL to a franchise? We did what everyone said we should, and drafted a QB to start a franchise with. We then ignored the OL, and look what happened: we ruined a promising QB (I think that Carr could have turned into a good quarterback if he had gone to a team with a good OL and some competent coaching, but he's been ruined at this point). Aren't we the best possible example that disproves that philosophy?
You build from the trenches, people!

No they are right QB is the most important position. You can pick out a good QB the first time. Then its the offensive line. You can't always have all-star talent offensive line your first year. As time goes by you take out the bad ones and place in good ones Then over time you will have a good offensive line. Dude I don't think you know your football son. BTW if you want to use the military as your analogy then they first choose a sargeant. Then that sargeant chooses his best privates to help him dig those trenches. Capice?

[ObsiWan]

No they are right QB is the most important position.
No. QB is the most HYPED position.
You need a good, solid defense and a good offensive line. Your pretty boy QB or franchise RB won't be worth squat if your line can't block - have you been out of town since 2002? And even if your offense is solid, what good will it do if your defense gives the points right back?
And your military analogy is missing something... a GENERAL with a solid plan of attack and who knows how best to use his personnel.

[thunderkyss]

Give me John Elway, or Peyton Manning, any day of the weak.

Just picking a QB first doesn't really answer the question. It depends on who that QB is. If I have to choose between starting my franchise with Peyton Manning, Vince Young, Donovan McNabb, or Levi Brown, Robert Galloway, & George Foster, I'm going with the QB.

Our problem wasn't that we picked a QB with the first overall pick in franchise history, but all the decisions we made afterward, and all the luck we've had with injuries.

Imagine, that we didn't start David Carr right away... Or that Jonathan Wells could get us 1000 yards year in & year out.. Imagine that our team had confidence in David Carr, and we never lost Coleman, Glenn, Sharper, Wand, and countless others.

Imagine that winning football was this teams first priority(& not the coddling(sp) of David CArr)... Our defense was on the verge of being dominant at one time.... our running game had to make due without a passing game.

Imagine the Texans coming into existence in 2003, and taking a QB with the first overall selection.

[SuperstarII]

No they are right QB is the most important position.
No. QB is the most HYPED position.
You need a good, solid defense and a good offensive line. Your pretty boy QB or franchise RB won't be worth squat if your line can't block - have you been out of town since 2002? And even if your offense is solid, what good will it do if your defense gives the points right back?
And your military analogy is missing something... a GENERAL with a solid plan of attack and who knows how best to use his personnel.


My analogy is this

sargeant = QB
privates = offensive line

General = Coach

That is what I meant. But if you read my post you can not pick a perfect offensive line the first round. It takes TIME to build your offensive lineman. I bet Kubiak would also agree with this sentiment about QB being the most improtant position on the field and I thnk he already said it I believe.

[Zagen30]

Eh, a great O-line can make a mediocre QB look good more often than a great QB can make a mediocre O-line look good. And to the references to teams like the Saints starting with Archie Manning, I'm not sure that's the best example for your argument. He may have been a good quarterback, but didin't he never post a winning record? I bet a fair amount of that was due to a bad OL (of course they probably had a terrible defense too).

[SuperstarII]

Eh, a great O-line can make a mediocre QB look good more often than a great QB can make a mediocre O-line look good. And to the references to teams like the Saints starting with Archie Manning, I'm not sure that's the best example for your argument. He may have been a good quarterback, but didin't he never post a winning record? I bet a fair amount of that was due to a bad OL (of course they probably had a terrible defense too).

lol okay dude whatever I guess you would pass up a Peyton Manning for a Joe Thomas? Even though Peyton was 3-13 his first year as time went on adding pieces to the puzzle look at what he has become today. If you want mediocre QB I guess look at the bears and how bad the mediocre QB did in the NFC championship to the superbowl. The defense bailed them out at the NFC championship and the defense couldn't help them out at the superbowl.

[ObsiWan]

The bottom line is you need ALL the pieces to consistently play winning football.
If you have a great offense, with a great QB, but a mediocre defense and O-line, you won't consistently win. Ask Dan Fouts. Or more recently, ask Drew Brees. If the Saints bring their D talent up to the level of their offensive talent, watch out!
If you have a great running back but a mediocre D and QB you won't win. Ask Barry Sanders. Ask Larry Johnson.
You can win if you have a mediocre QB but a good, strong defense and good, strong running attack. Ask Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Ben Roethlisberger (sorry, I ain't sold on him yet), or Kurt Warner. You could argue that Warner succeeded because of the offensive system, and I wouldn't argue back. But I will point out that if not for his defense, Tennessee would have tied that game and won it in overtime. They had momentum.
Manning took NINE years to get a ring. As you said the Colts added pieces before they finally won a championship - which takes me back to my original point - You need ALL the pieces in place.

[ObsiWan]

lol okay dude whatever I guess you would pass up a Peyton Manning for a Joe Thomas?
Since they came out a decade apart, that's not really a fair question. And since the survey asked "if you were starting a franchise today..." a better question would be: Would I pass up Jamarcus Russell or Brady Quinn for Joe Thomas?
Yeah. I probably would. I would try and get somebody's decent QB in the expansion draft or thru free agency. Calvin Johnson is another matter. And I'd have to think a long time about Adrian Peterson too.
But if we were starting up in 2006, who would I pick? Reggie? Vince? Matt? Jay Cutler? Joseph Addai? D'Brick? DeMeco? Mario? .....man, I'd hate to have to make that call.

[Zagen30]

Eh, a great O-line can make a mediocre QB look good more often than a great QB can make a mediocre O-line look good. And to the references to teams like the Saints starting with Archie Manning, I'm not sure that's the best example for your argument. He may have been a good quarterback, but didin't he never post a winning record? I bet a fair amount of that was due to a bad OL (of course they probably had a terrible defense too).

lol okay dude whatever I guess you would pass up a Peyton Manning for a Joe Thomas? Even though Peyton was 3-13 his first year as time went on adding pieces to the puzzle look at what he has become today. If you want mediocre QB I guess look at the bears and how bad the mediocre QB did in the NFC championship to the superbowl. The defense bailed them out at the NFC championship and the defense couldn't help them out at the superbowl.

I'd feel more comfortable taking an OL than a QB. For every Peyton Manning there seem to be 2 Akili Smiths, while OL busts seem to be much less common. I'm saying I'd rather have a Jonathan Ogden or Anthony Munoz, as I know that that kind of player will anchor that side of the line and buy more time for a QB. We've all seen what a horrendous OL can do to a QB like Carr (he might have been good if we hadn't ruined him and given him no protection), especially the lack of a good LT. Plus a great OL improves the running game (as others have mentioned), which allows you to run out clock, etc., etc. A great QB isn't going to help the run game as much, as while the defense may play back to defend the pass a bit more, the RB is still going to have trouble making it through the line.
And at this point Grossman isn't even a mediocre QB, he looks more like a bad QB.
And of course a good defense is necessary. This thread is about OL vs. QB first and foremost, though.

[IMA TEXAN]

Eh, a great O-line can make a mediocre QB look good more often than a great QB can make a mediocre O-line look good. And to the references to teams like the Saints starting with Archie Manning, I'm not sure that's the best example for your argument. He may have been a good quarterback, but didin't he never post a winning record? I bet a fair amount of that was due to a bad OL (of course they probably had a terrible defense too).

lol okay dude whatever I guess you would pass up a Peyton Manning for a Joe Thomas? Even though Peyton was 3-13 his first year as time went on adding pieces to the puzzle look at what he has become today. If you want mediocre QB I guess look at the bears and how bad the mediocre QB did in the NFC championship to the superbowl. The defense bailed them out at the NFC championship and the defense couldn't help them out at the superbowl.

I'd feel more comfortable taking an OL than a QB. For every Peyton Manning there seem to be 2 Akili Smiths, while OL busts seem to be much less common. I'm saying I'd rather have a Jonathan Ogden or Anthony Munoz, as I know that that kind of player will anchor that side of the line and buy more time for a QB. We've all seen what a horrendous OL can do to a QB like Carr (he might have been good if we hadn't ruined him and given him no protection), especially the lack of a good LT. Plus a great OL improves the running game (as others have mentioned), which allows you to run out clock, etc., etc. A great QB isn't going to help the run game as much, as while the defense may play back to defend the pass a bit more, the RB is still going to have trouble making it through the line.
And at this point Grossman isn't even a mediocre QB, he looks more like a bad QB.
And of course a good defense is necessary. This thread is about OL vs. QB first and foremost, though.

Was the question "what position is least likely to be a bust if drafted high in the first round?" If so, sure OL wins, QB is last. If QB is so unimportant, then Akili Smith or Peyton Manning should not make that much difference. I disagree with you. You can have Akili Smith and Joe Thomas, I will beat you with Peyton Manning and Seth Wand.
Did the Saints improve from 3 wins to the NFC Championship Game by improving the O Line? No, they lost LeCharles Bentley. They added a QB (Brees) a RB (Bush) and a WR (Colston).
Also, adding one OL man does not help that much. If you say "the OL"... that is 5 people! 6 if Mark Brunner is your TE! I'll take an average OL, and Peyton Manning, Emmitt Smith, Jerry Rice, Lawrence Taylor, and Deion Sanders ahead of your great OL. The other problem with the whole "the OL is the most important thing" argument: the best OL man in the world can only block one person (99% of the time). The best he can do is to reduce the game to a 10 vs 10. And if your super LT is shutting out my best DL man, I will switch my D Ends! The defense can largely dictate who the OL lines up against.
I do love the fact that the die-hard Carr defenders argument boils down to: the QB is the LEAST important player on the team. Yeah, the Texans offense is only bad because of those other 10 players! Well guys, if the QB is that unimportant, why does it matter that Carr is not here? If the ten guys are adequate, can't Quinton Porter or Peyton Manning or Joe Montana or Bucky Richardson all perform the same? Why do we need Carr?
I'm glad that the Texans did not get Joe Thomas or Levi Brown or Joe Staley. If they did, and the offense was better, we would only hear "well David Carr could have done that with Joe Thomas....". Now if Schaub stands in and hits the open receiver instead of curling up into the fetal position because a DL man is within 5 yards then the national press (and this message board) will stand in awe of the improvement in the Texans OL.

[ObsiWan]

How did this thread get to be about David Carr?? Geeez!

[Zagen30]

How did this thread get to be about David Carr?? Geeez!
Because I've been arguing that we are a perfect example of how drafting a QB without an OL is usually a disaster.
And as to moving a DE, that's why some of the most effective pass-rushers are RDEs, because the left side of the OL is the weakside with no TE (usually), and the DE is usually 1-on-1 with the LT. Plus the QB has an easier time of seeing the strongside DE, as he is in the QB's normal line of sight.
And to whoever said it, someone, from ESPN I think, looked back the past 10 or 15 years at all the first-round picks, and found that defensive players tend to bust out much less often (I think linebacker was the least bust-likely) than offensive players, and QBs and RBs tend to bust out most often (although OL was still fairly high). I know it's not exactly the same thing as looking at just the first overall pick, but it still shows that drafting a QB is no guarantee.
For every Robert Gallery you have like 2 guys who worked out (like Ogden, Pace, etc.), while it seems that for every Peyton Manning you have 2 high-picked QBs who busted (Akili Smith, Leaf, etc.) Maybe some of you like the whole "QB touches the ball every down, he needs to be the best player on the field," but I still think that if he's getting killed he won't be winning many playoff games, and we all know that most teams' goal is winning playoff games (some teams like the Cardinals seem to have different goals[:P])
Oh and I'm not remotely a Carr supporter, I gave him a chance until about the Oakland game last year and then realized the truth about him. But he did have horrible protection his first 4 years (in particular '02 and '05), and he was ruined, perhaps for good, because of the beatings he was subjected to.

[ObsiWan]

We both know there was more to David Carr's failure here than just the perceived poor O-line. In fact, an astute offensive-minded coach would have analyzed WHY all those sacks were happening. Was the line THAT bad or was it that Carr was in over his head? The fact that Andre Johnson said Carr was "told where to throw" instead of how to make his own reads tells me that the coaching staff treated the symptoms (the sacks) and not the root cause - Carr's low football IQ. Even with bad mechanics Carr had a strong arm. And he has quick feet. But he was never taught what to do with them on an NFL level.
Carr should have never been allowed to start as a rookie. He should have watched and learned for at least a year while Tony Banks ran things. Fresno St. exactly didn't play top flight competition - not like say Matt Leinart or Vince Young did. And speaking of those guys, Carr was never a team leader, like those guys are either. Yet another root cause totally missed by the coaching staff (or ignored because of McNair's man-crush).
In another thread ("Our O-line isn't that bad") a couple of us have done a little checking and we found that both Indy and N.E. have succeeded using low round picks to build their O-line. Indy's line is 4 fifths late round and UDFAs and the Pats' superbowl lines were full of UDFAs.
Another example of poor coaching vs good coaching: We cut Jabar Gaffney because Carr could never find him open and the coaches didn't play to what he does well. Belichick picked him up and Brady made him look like an All-Pro in the playoffs because their system used him correctly.
That tells me that the most important position to fill, if you were starting a franchise today, is HEAD COACH. I guess the bottom line is, it doesn't matter who you draft if your coaches don't a master plan in place for making them winners.

[Whiskeyrbl]

Actually wasn't Tony Boselli the first ever Houston Texan? IIRC didn't we pick up Vets from around the leauge before the 2002 Draft? If so the FO's mindset was right, they just should have gone for one that was not injured. Hence, the curse of LT for our Texans.

[ObsiWan]

Actually wasn't Tony Boselli the first ever Houston Texan? IIRC didn't we pick up Vets from around the leauge before the 2002 Draft? If so the FO's mindset was right, they just should have gone for one that was not injured. Hence, the curse of LT for our Texans.
That's true. He was. But I heard there was a behind the scenes deal that we had to take Boselli (and his $6.88 million contract) in order to get Gary Walker and Seth Payne. When you look back at the expansion draft we had a pretty decent start... Check out these glowing assessments
http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1336150.html
http://archive.profootballweekly.com/content/archives2001/features_2001/buchsbaum_022502.asp
I wonder if the current front office would have made the same picks. If they did, I'm sure they would have made better use of the veteran experience we had. It still chaps me when I think of how Casserly threw that away.

[Grid]

If I was starting a franchise.. I would probably go QB, LB, or Saftey with my first pick. Why? cause those are the positions where leaders traditionally reside.

I dont think our problem was that we didnt make linemen our #1 priority.. I think the problem is that we didnt make it our #2 priority.

The bulk of your offensive linemen can, and should, be middle round picks. Only left tackles really need to be higher picks..and they dont have to be #1 overall. Or even in the top 5. mid-late first and the second round are good spots for picking up quality tackles... in a draft that has some tackles worth drafting, of course.

Im not surprised by the results of that poll though. The "glitzy" positions are portrayed as the most important... QBs, WRs, Running Backs, Linebackers..etc..etc.. the guys that get on the ESPN highlight reels. Because they get the most coverage.. people assume that they are the most important players on the field. And they are.. but as we showed in our first draft.. you cannot expect these players to make a difference if all of the "less popular" pieces are not in place. Its like casting Al Pacino in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie with Carrot Top, Jenny McCarthy, and Mos Def... no amount of star power from Pacino is gonna make that movie good.

[Zagen30]

If I was starting a franchise.. I would probably go QB, LB, or Saftey with my first pick. Why? cause those are the positions where leaders traditionally reside.

I dont think our problem was that we didnt make linemen our #1 priority.. I think the problem is that we didnt make it our #2 priority.

The bulk of your offensive linemen can, and should, be middle round picks. Only left tackles really need to be higher picks..and they dont have to be #1 overall. Or even in the top 5. mid-late first and the second round are good spots for picking up quality tackles... in a draft that has some tackles worth drafting, of course.

Im not surprised by the results of that poll though. The "glitzy" positions are portrayed as the most important... QBs, WRs, Running Backs, Linebackers..etc..etc.. the guys that get on the ESPN highlight reels. Because they get the most coverage.. people assume that they are the most important players on the field. And they are.. but as we showed in our first draft.. you cannot expect these players to make a difference if all of the "less popular" pieces are not in place. Its like casting Al Pacino in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie with Carrot Top, Jenny McCarthy, and Mos Def... no amount of star power from Pacino is gonna make that movie good.

That would be a monstrosity of a movie. Although it might be worth watching just to try to see Pacino visibly upset on film with the people he has to work with.
And on second consideration, I might change my stance on what I'd pick first. I agree that a new team needs leadership, and that's why I'd pick a LB. A great LB can fire up and improve the entire defense, and good defense is important for a new team to gain success. Plus LBs are typically better out of the gate on average, and tend to be involved with the most plays. I think you could see how in our early years the offense wasn't all that great, but the defense was pretty good (at least by expansion standards) and allowed us to win games.
Of course, proper coaching and front office personnel is key to improving said offense while the defense is playing well. If we could have built on our good early defense instead of throwing in lousy players to start games, and had actually bothered to coach Carr, we'd probably have kept improving, instead of regressing horribly.