| Chaka |
04-27-2018 06:35 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610
(Post 65094)
A LT's value is in being able to neutralize the opposing team's best pass rush threat. They have to have athleticism to be able to force adept pass rushers to run the arc, and the strength to prevent them from bending the edge and creating a direct path to the QB. A guard can't and is not expected to do any of those things. They don't have the value of OTs because the athleticism and footwork requirements are nowhere near as high. Thus, many players who can't play tackle professionally can play guard. The greater supply is what makes it possible to find starters at the position with relative ease on Day 3. Greater supply always means lower value.
|
Thank you, I appreciate the effort and I do understand the reason why OTs are generally valued higher that guards, but my question was a little more specific: why was Nelson, in particular, a bad pick given the seeming consensus that he's a uniquely effective guard? And incidentally, what about the emergence of the three tech DTs like Aaron Donald that Chromeburn mentioned in a prior post – wouldn’t that merit reconsidering your lowly view of guards?
Lastly, I’ll add that your conclusions aren’t really borne out in the real world. If guards are merely unathletic, slow-footed OTs, then why does the guard profession exist independently in the first place? Wouldn’t all the bad OTs just move to guard? And why are the top guards now getting $10M+ while there are lots of out-of-work, slow-footed OTs who could be paid a lot less? Why doesn't Zach Banner just move to guard?
I’m really not trying to be overly critical, it’s just that I don’t think it’s as simple or cut-and-dried as you’re saying. The old chestnut that you can't take a guard high in the first round is often stated, but rarely explained other than to say that OTs are generally more important than Guards
|