In the NFL draft, Is it really good to have draft picks 3-10?

Question

Sure there is alot of talent in every draft, but it seems to me that no Team wants those spots. Paying a unproven player a huge guarntee is not what most owners like to do. Later round draft picks seem to produce very well in the NFL, and you can save your money for free agency? any one agree??

Answer 1

Ultimately, I agree with you.

As for whether or not teams want to be in the 3-10 spots, it depends on the year. Everybody fights over the top spots some years (Leinart, Bush and Young were being fought over) but then other years, there isn't much in the draft, and nobody really wants the top picks.

Why take a top pick when there aren't really all that many good players? Those years, the teams with top picks ought to trade down, or for a high pick next year. When the 49ers grabbed Alex Smith with a high pick, I remember my Dad groaning and saying, "Why did they have to get a high pick this year?"

Also, the high picks demand more money. It also signifies that your team was bad last year. I don't think any team would swap winning a lot of games for a high draft pick. There are some great players up at the top of the draft, but they are untested in the NFL, and you might get a great player in the last round for much less money (like New Orleans and Marques Colston last year).

Answer 2

It all really depends on who you have in the draft and what a team needs. Overall athetic ability cant be taught. Someone like LT or Bush, you cant teach that. If a team needs someone at a certain position and you have someone with obvious rare talent like that, then there is no problem with those picks. If you see a guy that is far and above anyone else at his position (size, speed, strength, natural abilities) then there isnt a problem with that. Guys like Brady are always out there and you cant stop that. The right coaching and dedication by a player can make a guy better. Some guys it clicks some it doesnt. But just because you get ONE or so of those guys every so often, doesnt mean you should assume u are wasting your time with a 3-10 pick.

Answer 3

I personally would rather have no 1st round picks at all. 1st Rounders are usually wasted money. There are always a few gems in the batch whom are overlooked because they're productive, but not flashy (this year, those gems are Brady Quinn, Dwayne Jarrett, and Paul Posluszney). However, most 1st rounders are players who flash potential, but have a history of failure on the field (consider all the hype for RB Chris Henry, who was a failure at Arizona, but wowed the scouts and the claims that unproductive Calvin Johnson is the best WR in 15 years, which are ludicrous).

Smart teams can stockpile lots of picks in the later rounds and come away with gems. If you draft a bust after the 1st round, nobody cares because you didn't waste any money. Money that goes to 1st rounders should be targeted toward keeping your stars or to proven free agents.

It'd be nice if the NFL would dump that anti-competitive and unAmerican salary cap and stop teams such as the Ravens from having to dump superstars such as Adalius Thomas. It's a travesty of justice and unfair to every fan that the great Ravens defense (and the Colts offense before it) had to be broken up by the salary cap. It's sad that a dynasty such as the 49ers was turned into a laughing stock by the salary cap. The NFL needs to stop destroying their own league.

Answer 4

as most people say, it depends on the players available, the particular team's needs, and their cap situation. The Browns will be pretty happy to pick up Brady Quinn or Adrian Peterson, and a bit further down, teams like Atlanta and Miami are chomping at the bit for a crack at players like Amobe Okoye and Laron Landry.

At number 4 the Bucs are praying to the almighty that calvin johnson slips to them. (I think he may).

I think this year's draft has some very interesting potential at slots 3-10.

To say no team wants these slots is way off base. Atlanta just traded for the number 8 like 2 weeks ago.

By the time the draft has gone off free agency is kinda dead. Most teams are trying to build through the draft not free agency. Even top ten picks are cheaper than many free agents. It is true however that some teams like to stockpile lower picks to save money in cap space. But they do this to have a foundation to build the future of the franchise on, not to save for free agent spending.

Answer 5

Depends on the teams needs and who that certain player is. This year there is talk about Brady Quinn being taken in those limits and last year's rookie of the year Vince Young was the third pick in last year's draft. Some guys who were really good in college and then bust in the NFL don't end up on teams that help them. Whereas quarterback Tom Brady ended up on a team surrounded by talent which of course helps.

Answer 6

It all depends on the player. You look at someone like Danny Wuerfful who was a Heisman winner and a complete NFL bust, then you look at someone like Tom Brady who was a 6th round pick. There have been more Hall of Famers picked in spots 3 and 4 than #1 overall. In every draft, some player slips through the cracks and makes a big impact on his team.

Answer 7

I agree. Every player should make the same amount of money (base salary) with respect to their tenure then get paid on performance. Some one who has been in the league for 7 years should make significantly more based on playing time and statistics than an unproven kid out of College.

Just ask San Diego (Cryin Ryan Leaf), or Cleveland (Tim Ouch, err Couch).

But so long as they can get the money, god bless them because i would take it if i had the chance.

Answer 8

Justin Blackmon, WR, Oklahoma State University

Answer 9

Ofcourse you want those picks, usually, not always, there are exceptions, but usually the higher in the draft the more talent that player has.

Answer 10

I disagree, you would miss a lot of calibur players in the later end of the first round. Good example.....L. Tomlinson was a 5th overall pick.