Can someone explain positional value?

[Time's Yours]

Obviously, I get the basic concept. Quarterback is the most important position, fullback is the least. But what about everything in between? Why is a left tackle more important than a left guard or right tackle? Why not take an LB with a top-5 pick? What is the general heirarchy of positions?

1. QB
.
.
.
DE/DT/LT/HB?
.
.
.
22. Fullback
23. Kicker
24. Punter


Edit: I forgot my post requirements. Your and idiot, and Fire Herm!!!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Positional value is the degree to which having a player who is at least good and preferably great will improve your team's chances of winning relative to having simply an average player at such position or, conversely, the degree to which a mediocre player at such position will hurt your team's chances of winning.

QB is obviously #1 because they have more impact on more things than any other position on the field.

While kicker or punter may seem destiend for #24 becuase they play the least number of snap, I'd put them ahead of a position that can effectively be eliminated. FB, for example. FB is #24 on my list because you can substitute nearly anyone into that role and do a "serviceable" job.

Blind side tackle (usually left, because most QBs are righty) is a position where if you have a mediocre player, it can destroy you because one strip sack is enough to make a difference in the closely balanced NFL.

Conversely, pass-rushing DE or OLB has the same weight on the other side of the ball.

TAckles are generally more important than guards because they operate on the offensive line's edges, and if they need help, it must come from a TE or RB, which can mess up formation/play preferences. Centers are also ahead of guards because they set the pass protection. Guards can get help on either side, and don't need to make decisions, so they're less valuable.

TEs and RBs are involved in every play, so they are important. WRs less so because they don't impact as many plays in general. On running plays they have little/no impact or significance.

Defensively, pass rushers are first. Then I'd put linebackers and interior defensive linemen into the next tier down. Then cornerbacks, then safeties.

I guess I'd group them this way, more or less:

1. QBs
2. blind-side tackle and pass rushing DE/OLB
3. DL/TEs/RB/LBs/CB
4. OT/C/WR
5. Safety/Guard
6. P/K
7. FB

Of course, this whole thing is overly simplistic. A third WR mgiht be more valuable than a starting LB, in some ways, depending on the team's offensive philosophy.

Good post. I should also add that the positions you listed can change, depending on the head coach/GM philosophies. For example, in Miami, they like to run more than pass, so the WR can be switched around with the G position, and the FB will possibly be valued a little higher, but not by much. I'm not saying that a FB should be selected over a WR by any means, but it can be applied for 2nd day draft as it's more of a crapshoot really.

I would probably tend to value O-line and D-line pretty high, as IMHO, it's the foundation for a offense/defense for it to build up, especially if you can get what, 2-3 linemen who are starters and less than 25 years old, and they do a serviceable job, then the future looks pretty bright. Like the Chiefs case, they have a LT, so that's good. LG can probably play at a high level for say, 1-2 more years, so that should be looked into. Center, and the right side of the line probably will be needing attention, as the Chiefs cannot run the ball well on the right side of the line.

Same thing applies to defense, as even though we have two young DT's in Tyler and Dorsey, the run defense is still a problem. And of course, as it is evident that the Chiefs have a major issue on DE as they set a new NFL record for least sacks in a single season. My point being is, the LB can't do his job effectively if the 4 guys up front aren't doing theirs, either that is rushing the QB or occupying blockers/stopping the run.

[Direckshun]

I'll put this out there.

I think a 3-4 NT is the most valuable player on the team (I'd put it equal to QB), because there really aren't a lot of them out there and there are even fewer who are damn good.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'll put this out there.

I think a 3-4 NT is the most valuable player on the team (I'd put it equal to QB), because there really aren't a lot of them out there and there are even fewer who are damn good.

How many teams run a 3-4? How many of those teams have a bad nose tackle?

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'll put this out there.

I think a 3-4 NT is the most valuable player on the team (I'd put it equal to QB), because there really aren't a lot of them out there and there are even fewer who are damn good.

You're insane.

If a team doesn't have a NT, they could always go to a 4-3. Or they will give up an extra 0.5 YPC or so.

If you don't have a QB, your offense basically isn't going to function.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by cdcox

[B]

Fourth surprise is TE > WR. I think TE are being over-valued in the NFL right now due to the TG and Gates effect.

I think you're right, but I am one of the few who believe that a Tony G. Gates type of TE, who will haul in 90 balls at 12yrds per catch, every season, should be valued as high as WRs. Hell, I think they should be lumped in with the WRs. They are that valuable.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'll put this out there.

I think a 3-4 NT is the most valuable player on the team (I'd put it equal to QB), because there really aren't a lot of them out there and there are even fewer who are damn good.

But there also aren't all that many teams running the 3-4 so there aren't that many NT needed in the league, but every team needs a QB.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

I think you're right, but I am one of the few who believe that a Tony G. Gates type of TE, who will haul in 90 balls at 12yrds per catch, every season, should be valued as high as WRs. Hell, I think they should be lumped in with the WRs. They are that valuable.

That's all well and good except Gates has never had a single season where he has caught 90 balls. He's only had one season over 1000 yards (three others above 950). His production has not really lived up to his hype. His stats are no where near an arc needed for a HOF WR, so I don't think you can really put him in that category.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by cdcox

That's all well and good except Gates has never had a single season where he has caught 90 balls. He's only had one season over 1000 yards (three others above 950). His production has not really lived up to his hype. His stats are no where near an arc needed for a HOF WR, so I don't think you can really put him in that category.

Agreed.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by cdcox

That's all well and good except Gates has never had a single season where he has caught 90 balls. He's only had one season over 1000 yards (three others above 950). His production has not really lived up to his hype. His stats are no where near an arc needed for a HOF WR, so I don't think you can really put him in that category.

And also I'm saying that these special talent TEs should be lumped in with the WR general population. The special talent WRs are another story altogether.

[Chiefnj2]

The other aspect of positional value is its use as a defense. When someone doesn't agree with your opinion of a quarterback and wants to take any other player at any other position, the typical retort is - "You idiot, you don't know anything about positional value. We need a QB!"

[Chief Faithful]

Originally Posted by cdcox

That's all well and good except Gates has never had a single season where he has caught 90 balls. He's only had one season over 1000 yards (three others above 950). His production has not really lived up to his hype. His stats are no where near an arc needed for a HOF WR, so I don't think you can really put him in that category.

Did others notice how Gates does not produce as well when he gets covered high and low by both a LB and Safety? Gonzo has lived with that type coverage since his third season.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by jettio

I disagree about FB, seems like wherever an outstanding FB like T-Rich or Lorenzo Neal changes teams, the departed team loses more and the new team improves its W-L.

Two points.

First, positional value is the degree to which an above average or good player improves yoru team's chances of winning, and conversely the degree to which a bad player at the position hurts your team's chances of winning.

In the 2008 NFL, FB has all but been eliminated by many teams that prefer 3 and 4 wide sets, two TEs and other approaches. The Patriots have won three Super Bowls this decade with NO FULLBACK AT ALL. Lead blockers were essentially bottom roster feeder RBs or OLs or DEs (Richard Seymour played some FB).

If you can completely ignore the position, then it's obviously not that important. Sure, a VERY good FB can help you out, but then the question is whether a run-oriented offense is even a good approach in the modern NFL. There's something of an argument that it's not.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'll put this out there.

I think a 3-4 NT is the most valuable player on the team (I'd put it equal to QB), because there really aren't a lot of them out there and there are even fewer who are damn good.

VERY valuable, but not most valuable. Probably the most valuable player on defense, but not as valuable as QB.

What team would take Vince Wilfork (or, if you prefer, Hampton or Jamal Williams) who are the best at their position) over Manning or Brady?

Answer: None. Not a single one.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

I think you're right, but I am one of the few who believe that a Tony G. Gates type of TE, who will haul in 90 balls at 12yrds per catch, every season, should be valued as high as WRs. Hell, I think they should be lumped in with the WRs. They are that valuable.

TEs are highly valauble because they're involved in EVERY Play, either blocking or catching, unlike WRs. That's why the Pats have drafted two in the first round in recent years, and another in the third.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

The other aspect of positional value is its use as a defense. When someone doesn't agree with your opinion of a quarterback and wants to take any other player at any other position, the typical retort is - "You idiot, you don't know anything about positional value. We need a QB!"

Positional value doesn't translate much on the draft board.

If you think a guy isn't that great, but take him because you have a "need" at his position, then you probably still will have a need at that position, because the guy you took wasn't great, and meanwhile you ignored another player who may have fit your scheme/team better.

Positional value, to me, is more important in assessing salary cap and free agency decisions than draft pick considerations.