Drafting Linebackers
Advanced NFL Stats has continued their series on draft scarcity, this time focusing on linebackers. We've certainly seen the Seahawks build a linebacking corps out of guys drafted after the first round (Julian Peterson is the exception, although the Niners drafted him). Once again, there are graphs that you'll want to take a look at, so make sure you actually click through and follow the link. Remember that this is not a discussion of value, but rather a discussion of success.
Firstly, the measuring stick:
Pro Bowl selection is a very imperfect measure of a player's value for a lot of different reasons, but it does identify the top players at each position which is what much of the draft is about. One other advantage it offers is that player value can be compared across positions. For example, we can compare LB draft picks to QB draft picks using Pro Bowl selections, but using passing yards or tackles wouldn't work to well.
Thanks to the complexity of football, we're a long way from having an individual value stat like baseball has in WAR. As such, these sort of analyses will always come with an asterisk and an admission of imperfection.
The continuing theme in this series is that the best players really do come from the top of the draft. No surprise there. But the top players have more than just an incrementally higher chance of great success, but double or triple the chance.
As much as the financial disincentive for high draft choices is real, players at the top do have more success. What this discussion does not encompass is the ability of top linebackers to make a major impact on the success of their team. In the discussions on Aaron Curry over the last week, John has touched on the fact that he does not believe that top linebackers are as valuable to a team as other defensive positions. That will be exceedingly difficult to prove empirically, but at least sleep well at night knowing that the draft is also sane with respect to linebackers.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I guess that...
Ruskell’s ‘skill’ at procuring LBs in later rounds is one of his more valuable skills, as evidenced in both Tatupu and Hill, maybe others. I’d like to see some of his other later-round guys develop into PB-type players. With this being Ruskell’s first post-Holmgren year and last year possibly to some extent, how Ruskell fares in the draft will go a long way towards my perception of him. A consideration is all of our picks this year will be higher.
So far, it appears WR is not on the same level as his ability to draft the LB position. There are plenty of other positions in play, notably project/depth/potential starting-material offensive linemen and guys like Atkins, Bryant. He hit a home-run on Mebane, as we all know.
I think Ruskell is an interesting topic to discuss and it melds well with this particular LB discussion. I’m observing our moves and reading about them. This draft could show us a lot about Ruskell’s adaptability and ability to get valuable assets – potentially numerous starters – in this particular draft due to the nature of our picks. I’m excited, and also think there could be some good LBs had later in the draft. It’s hard not to have confidence in Ruskell getting another good one beyond Curry or others in round one. Some might even fall to round two with round one value, but I’d rather see another later-round gem, trusting if we draft a LB later that TR can roll the dice like a champ later on.
You think Ruskell will even address LB in this year's draft?
He’s already got two young studs and others that are perfectly serviceable. I’m not sure he’ll use any picks on LB this year …
by Nick Andron on Apr 23, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Having depth is important, and remember that we are currently looking at starting either D.D. Lewis or Will Herring.
I would be surprised if the team doesn’t add at least a later round linebacker.
Built2Spill, you're on deck.
Z-z-zach Follett time.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 23, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Quite possibly.
I like ‘The Heater’. DD Lewis is getting up there in age, so I’m not convinced we don’t need to add one through the draft. Who knows? Even street-FAs can pan out.
Moving outside...
… Hawthorne is listed as a MLB but he looked really good in the preseason last year. Do you think he has the coverage skills to move outside?
If you're asking me, I can tell you that I wouldn't know.
John or Doug would be the ones to ask. My guess would be no, being that he’s a ILB/MLB, but I’m also curious of the answer to that question.
I do believe that John said we could platoon at one LB spot
Hawthorne on run downs, Lewis or Herring on pass downs.
There’s an article here somewhere about it.
This is why (as per what I said in the other thread) I think Hill could be dealt.
Ruskell seems to know his LB’s and could probably do pretty well finding a replacement later on – for a fraction of the cost.
K, so then why would we draft Curry again?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 23, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think we will, honestly.
Not much to base that on, other than the fact that Ruskell has found good value at LB in the middle-rounds already. But now with that statement that “we will not be taking a QB at 4” (see the other thread), what the heck is left? Crabtree?
I’m so confused.

by 

























