Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

[steeler_fan_in_t.o.]

There has been quite a bit of discussion lately on whether or not we should have taken a tackle in the first round over the years.

Here is a list of our first rounders this decade along with the next OT drafted after we picked. I have given my opinion on those picks more than three years old.

2010: (1 Pouncey - (23) Bulaga

2009: (32) Ziggy - (39) Britton

2008: (23) Mendenhall - (26) Duane Brown

2007: (15) Timmons - (2 Staley - Many here were calling for Staley but he lasted much longer than they thought. I will stick with Timmons who I believe will be a great player

2006: (25) Santonio - (39) Winston Justice - We moved up to grab Holmes and despite his departure he paid off big.

2005: (30) Miller - (41) Michael Roos - Roos is a good solid player who has started every game of his career. However, Heath means so much to this O and fits his role here to a T.

2004: (11) Big Ben - (16) Shawn Andrews - Wow, can you believe that some (supposedly even Cowher) wanted Andrews over Ben?

2003: (16) Troy - (20) George Foster - We jumped up 11 spots to grab Troy. Should we have traded up to grab Foster?

2002: (30) Simmons - (40) Mike Pearson - I figured that this would be a sure fire miss when I saw this was the Kendall draft.....but I don't even know who Pearson is. Note that even the tackles taken before us is not a great list either in this draft - (4) MikeWilliams, (7) Bryant McKinnie, (10) Levi Jones, (29) Marc Columbo

2001: (19) Big Snack - (43) Maurice Williams - No contest of course but of note is that we dropped back three spots to take Casey. In doing so we missed a shot at Jeff Backus (who we still wouldn't have wanted over Hampton). Also by making that trade we moved up in the second and chose Kendrell Bell - still before Williams.

2000: ( Plax - (20) Stockar McDougle - Plax provided us with some good years and McDougle is nothing to write home about. Of note we did use our second round pick on Marvel Smith this year.


I really thought that the results would pan out differently but I'm surprised. There was not one obvious miss on this list. There certainly were several obvious hits - Ben, Troy, Snack.

Now, I'm sure there are a few instances of gems missed that other teams picked up further down the draft, or the team who grabbed the next tackle went off the board, but I was more interested in who would have been the next tackle available when we picked. I also didn't go far enough into this to see if we should have gone OT in the second or third - something we only did a couple of times during this span: Essex third round 2005, Starks third round 2004, Marvel second round 2000.

Note, this is not in any way proof to determine that the Steelers FO are better at drafting players than us guys who sit at our keyboards.

[NJ-STEELER]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

not in 2010. bigger need at center then either tackle. after left tackle, i feel center is the 2nd most important position oon the line


i have questioned not going up in 2008 to grab either Otah or Baker. even perhaps duane brown.

Backs can be found everywhere in the draft and if the OL is good, then it should improve the running game and passing game


you dont wanna know who was taken 2 spots after sweed

[hawaiiansteel]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

yes, we definitely should have drafted an OT in Round 1 in 2002...

[Steelskin]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

Well look at the teams that were taking tackles high from the years you posted and then look at us.... then count the Lombardi's.... who drafted right?

Looking at the teams that have been successful (Ind, NE, NO) you see that they didn't draft any high tackles either. New England took Light a couple of years ago, but that was it from the first round. Indy's line is makeshift from tackle to tackle as was New Orleans' (Jammal Brown was a former 1st round selection, but did not play last year and was traded to WAS).

Everyone says how important the tackle position is, but with the success that teams have had over the past few years with otherwise pedestrian lines has me thinking that the whole philosophy may be overrated.

Just plug a few of the names that you suggested we could have taken in and you see that we're a much worse team. Shawn Andrews over Big Ben alone screws up the franchise for a decade--he's not even in football anymore.

It's been established that this franchise knows what it's doing. We may not like all of the moves and some of them might not work out, but when you step back and look at the big picture, it's clear we're perpetually moving in the right direction.

you dont wanna know who was taken 2 spots after sweed

*facepalm*

Is there any way we can get any value from Sweed at this point? Perhaps we can convert him into a towel rack for the showers? Although, he'd probably drop those too.

[Oviedo]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

Well look at the teams that were taking tackles high from the years you posted and then look at us.... then count the Lombardi's.... who drafted right?

Looking at the teams that have been successful (Ind, NE, NO) you see that they didn't draft any high tackles either. New England took Light a couple of years ago, but that was it from the first round. Indy's line is makeshift from tackle to tackle as was New Orleans' (Jammal Brown was a former 1st round selection, but did not play last year and was traded to WAS).

Everyone says how important the tackle position is, but with the success that teams have had over the past few years with otherwise pedestrian lines has me thinking that the whole philosophy may be overrated.

Just plug a few of the names that you suggested we could have taken in and you see that we're a much worse team. Shawn Andrews over Big Ben alone screws up the franchise for a decade--he's not even in football anymore.

It's been established that this franchise knows what it's doing. We may not like all of the moves and some of them might not work out, but when you step back and look at the big picture, it's clear we're perpetually moving in the right direction.

you dont wanna know who was taken 2 spots after sweed

*facepalm*

Is there any way we can get any value from Sweed at this point? Perhaps we can convert him into a towel rack for the showers? Although, he'd probably drop those too.

I agree with you. IMO a pick in the first round should be a playmaker who can make a game changing play or as Tomlin calls them "splash plays." Not everyone may agree but I think only occasionally should you draft a lineman in Round 1 and that is only when it is a player who is heads and tails above everyone elese at that position that year and someone you know you can plug in as a 6-8 year starter.

I think pretty much since Colbert has taken over our Round 1 picks have been excellent.

[BURGH86STEEL]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

It takes a combination of factors to really grab the good first round tackles.

[Oviedo]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

It takes a combination of factors to really grab the good first round tackles.

First and foremost you typically have to be a very bad team picking in the Top 10 of the draft.

[williar]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

I have no complaints about the choices our FO has made in the first round. I would say some of the later round selections (3-7) have been questionable. With that said, I still can't understand why ou OL has been perrenially bad over the past few years. I don't believe we are as talent deficient as some think. No team has 3 or 4 probowlers starting on their lines. With the exception of the jets and the giants, two teams I think have very good personnel starting on the front line, I think our talent level is on par with most of the other teams. Maybe it's the coaching or the scheme, etc........ Whatever it is, something aint clicking right.

[BURGH86STEEL]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

It takes a combination of factors to really grab the good first round tackles.

First and foremost you typically have to be a very bad team picking in the Top 10 of the draft.

I agree, other team's needs, Steelers needs, and the players coming out of college have a role as well.

[steelblood]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

I generally agree. However, I think your argument is a little flawed. You can't compare the #8 pick to the # 20 pick very easily. The value of these two picks isn't really comparable. That #8 pick could be worth two #20 picks or more.

[phillyesq]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

It seems that things haven't aligned well for the Steelers to take a tackle. The two years where the Steelers were in the best position to take an OT were 2007 and 2008. In 2007, the Steelers had the draft position to snag an OT, but there weren't many tackles available. I don't think that Staley was regarded as a top flight OT, and he probably would have been a reach at 16.

In 2008, there were a lot of OTs available, but there was a crazy run on tackles in the first round. Duane Brown, the only tackle on the board when the Steelers picked, was considered a reach in the first round, and could have even been a reach if taken in the second. Maybe you fault the Steelers for not trading up, but there was a big run on the position before they had an opportunity to pick.

I can't remember how Britton was rated in 2009, but from what I recall, based on their board, the Steelers would have grabbed Unger if Hood was gone.

The Steelers generally stay true to their board in the first round, and it is hard to argue with their track record. I don't think there is a team that drafts better in the first round.

You can certainly take issue with the Steelers track record later in the draft, but I'm not sure that I want them taking mid round tackles. There was a string in the 90s where they kept taking OTs in the third round - Farris from UCLA, and a few other guys I can't remember. They were all mediocre, at best, and flamed out. I know that Starks and Colon were mid round picks who worked out, but if the Steelers were to take an OT, I would have wanted somebody premium, a clear upgrade over those two - not more of the same.

[Oviedo]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

Don't discount the economics of this argument in a business where each team has a fixed labor cost. First round draft picks demand premium contracts. Each team has an allocation of a percentage of their total cap to positional units like the OL. Tackles demand a higher contract value than other OL positions.

We are already paying a high cap value to Max Starks at LT which is appropriate because that position should demand the highest OL value. Debate if you must but I think he has earned that over the past couple of seasons. We are now paying a premium contract value to a Center who we draft in Round 1 this year. IMO it is highly unlikely we add another premium contract on the OL. You can't tie up that much of your total cap in the OL and still have the flexibility to keep impact players like Woodley, Timmons, etc.

I think the model that the Steelers use is right on and enables us to keep a top 5 defense every year, pay a true franchise QB and keep other skill positions like RB and WR stocked to top talent. The sacrifice here is that you have to draft OL and DL typically lower and hope you can develop them.

[Slapstick]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

Don't discount the economics of this argument in a business where each team has a fixed labor cost. First round draft picks demand premium contracts. Each team has an allocation of a percentage of their total cap to positional units like the OL. Tackles demand a higher contract value than other OL positions.

We are already paying a high cap value to Max Starks at LT which is appropriate because that position should demand the highest OL value. Debate if you must but I think he has earned that over the past couple of seasons. We are now paying a premium contract value to a Center who we draft in Round 1 this year. IMO it is highly unlikely we add another premium contract on the OL. You can't tie up that much of your total cap in the OL and still have the flexibility to keep impact players like Woodley, Timmons, etc.

I think the model that the Steelers use is right on and enables us to keep a top 5 defense every year, pay a true franchise QB and keep other skill positions like RB and WR stocked to top talent. The sacrifice here is that you have to draft OL and DL typically lower and hope you can develop them.

I also think that this may be part of maintaining a 3-4 defense...though with the increased number of 3-4 teams in the NFL, that economic and drafting advantage may erode...

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

I have been promoting the selection of an offensive tackle with a prime selection for some time now, but as your favorite lawyer from the Iladelph has already stated, circumstances have prevented this from happening lately. It seemed to be that whenever we draft late in the first, there are a lot of solid OT prospects, but other teams get enamored with them and there is huge run, so we'd have to reach for the 8th best OT by the time we pick...like 2008...I thought Duane Brown was a huge reach...no way I would have made that move...I was overjoyed with the Mendenhall pick there because I thought he was easily a top 15 talent that I did not think had any chance of being available when we picked. On the other hand, when we draft early, it tended to be a thin crop of tackles overall...like in 2007...I would not have drafted Staley at #15, but I would have been happy to have him if we were able to excute a trade down in the mid 20's or so and picked up some extra picks.

In this past draft, I would have taken Bulaga. I figured that he was almost surely a top 10 guy (and even if he somehow dropped into the teens, I didn't see any way he would make it all the way to 1. I'm not upset with Pouncey at all...I trust that the front office knows what they are doing...but I saw a deep center crop next year (USC's Kris O'Dowd, PSU's Stefan Wisniewski, Maurkice's brother Mike), and figured one of those top guys should be available to us even if we picked late next year. I figured we could get through this year with Hartwig and Legursky at center, then draft our pivot of the future in 2011. Meanwhile, Bulaga would have a year as a backup behind Starks and Colon because our depth at tackle was atrociously thin (remember, Colon wasn't injured at that time) and could potentially take over for Colon in 2011 in his second season if we were unable to sign Willie to a long term extension. In the mean time, Bulaga could compete with Essex at RG as a rookie before moving over to RT in year two (which is the pretty much the same plan that Tomlin devised for Pouncey...compete at RG as a rookie before moving over to center in year 2). You aren't going to get a top tackle prospect if you are drafting late...if one happens to fall in your lap where we were picking at the unusally early slot of 18 for us, you make the move.

The year before that, I really wanted to move up to get Oher when he fell into the 20's (I had a top 10 grade on him). I was royally ticked off when the #&@%ing Ravens made the trade that I thought we should have made. Even after we missed out on an opportunity to go get Oher, I supported the idea of standing pat and taking the next best OT option, Eben Britton. I had a mid-20's grade on him, which still provided value where we were picking at #32. Again, I don't dislike the Ziggy pick (although at the time, he seemed more like a 4-3 DT than a 3-4 DE to me...but his work ethic has shined through for him so far this year, and I look for him to start becoming a valuable contributor to our D).

I've been on the big ugly train for the past couple of years, and although we did not get an OT in either case, we did get a big ugly in the first round of each of the past two drafts...one on either side of the ball in the trenches. Things look good for Pouncey and Ziggy in the Burgh, and I'm excited about that. I trust that the front office knows best. I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that Oher is a Raven, Britton is a Jag, or Bulaga is a Packer now.

[Oviedo]

Re: Should we have drafted a first round tackle?

Don't discount the economics of this argument in a business where each team has a fixed labor cost. First round draft picks demand premium contracts. Each team has an allocation of a percentage of their total cap to positional units like the OL. Tackles demand a higher contract value than other OL positions.

We are already paying a high cap value to Max Starks at LT which is appropriate because that position should demand the highest OL value. Debate if you must but I think he has earned that over the past couple of seasons. We are now paying a premium contract value to a Center who we draft in Round 1 this year. IMO it is highly unlikely we add another premium contract on the OL. You can't tie up that much of your total cap in the OL and still have the flexibility to keep impact players like Woodley, Timmons, etc.

I think the model that the Steelers use is right on and enables us to keep a top 5 defense every year, pay a true franchise QB and keep other skill positions like RB and WR stocked to top talent. The sacrifice here is that you have to draft OL and DL typically lower and hope you can develop them.

I also think that this may be part of maintaining a 3-4 defense...though with the increased number of 3-4 teams in the NFL, that economic and drafting advantage may erode...

I think the difference between the 3-4 and the 4-3 is that in the former you have to pay top dollar to LBs and in the latter it is DL, particularly DEs. It's probably a wash. The benefit of the latter is that you have a deeper resource pool to draw from and restock each year because you do not have to convert DE to OLBs and take the hit in terms of time to develop without being able to get them into the line up.