04/16/24
September 12, 2007
Most Valuable Position: Slate's Robert Weintraub ranks the most important positions in the NFL.
posted by kirkaracha to football at 02:05 PM - 17 comments
I'd think Michael Lewis would take issue with the blindside tackle not being #2. it does seem like a market inefficiency that running backs are so highly paid in spite of how easy they are to replace. If he's right about corners, the same applies there, though I tend to think the defensive backfield is changing and the difference between small linebackers, big safeties, quick safeties, slow corners, good nickel/ dime players is all becoming one of semantics.
posted by yerfatma at 02:18 PM on September 12, 2007
Dear lord, if the QB is the most valuable position, the Chiefs are in deep trouble. Damon huard, who was in the league 11 years before becoming a starter, backed up by Brodie Croyle? Ugh.
posted by hawkguy at 02:19 PM on September 12, 2007
Glad to see a team can get along just fine without a kick returner. I kid, I kid!
posted by DrJohnEvans at 03:24 PM on September 12, 2007
I know its all in good fun but I have a hard time looking at a team in a vacuum. In reality for most teams the most valuable position is the one that has the most talented player and it isn't always the quarterback. As a Pats fan, Brady is our most valuable player (unless you want to count the cameraman) so quarterback is our most important position but I bet that there are a lot of Bears fans who could make a strong argument that Brian Urlacher drives that team and wouldn't trade him for anybody. Not only that, but the Bears made it further than the Pats with what we could call the photo-negative of Tom Brady. Grossman takes more touchdowns away from that team than he produces.
posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 09:04 PM on September 12, 2007
The argument can also be made the rest of the Bears talent- particularly on D- made up for the Bears lack of a solid QB. Put a Brady or Manning in place of Grossman and we're talking Super Bowl victory (or so I'd think).
posted by jmd82 at 07:58 AM on September 13, 2007
Offensive guard more valuable than a defencive end and corner back? Please. Guards can be replaced during the season by any second string lineman out of position, practice squad player, or box-stacker at UPS, and often are. It may be the most easily replaceable position on the field. Usually their job on a given play is to help out the center or tackle. Try winning an NFL game without a long snapper.
posted by r8rh8r27 at 09:25 AM on September 13, 2007
A glaring weakness at ANY position on an NFL team will be exposed, sooner or later. Just the same, outstanding strength at certain spots will overcome some of the shortcomings elsewhere. I don't think you can necessarily look at which position is most important in the overall scheme of things (league-wide). I do, however, think you can look at how important the various positions are on each individual team. On Indy, their most important position is QB, which happens to be their strongest. Manning makes up for weaker positions elsewhere. In San Diego, on the other hand, running back is most important, because LT compensates for deficiencies at QB and WR. And there isn't a single team that can say kicker isn't vitally important. Look at how Cincinnati was in trouble early in their opener against Baltimore when it appeared Graham may not be able to continue. All of a sudden, what is just assumed to be easy points, or three-points here and there, may not be possible which means the loss of a close game.
posted by dyams at 09:35 AM on September 13, 2007
I agree with dyams on this one. On any given offensive play, if ten players execute their assignments and one player does not, the play will fail. By the same token, on defense, a missed assignment will result in a big play for the opposition. It is an 11-man game, no matter how good any of your players are.
posted by Howard_T at 09:48 AM on September 13, 2007
Wow this list is awful. He makes a case for Kickers being so important to a team but a good kicker is not as hard to find as a good corner. The difference between a good kicker and a bad one is much smaller than any position. Kicker is the most volatile position in the game. One year your good, the next year your average(See Vanderjagt, Rackers, Gould). Cornerbacks are way too low and he bases their lack of importance on one team(the Colts) being able to replace their holes for one game. While cover 2 has decreased the importance of the corner, not every team runs cover 2 and the importance hasn't been diminished to the degree that the writer implies. A weakness at corner is going to draw the attention of the opposing offense. Centers, Safeties and Punters are too high, Ends are too low... I'd say the rank in salaries looks more accurate than this list.
posted by tron7 at 11:38 AM on September 13, 2007
One year your good, the next year your average(See Vanderjagt, Rackers, Gould). But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the point about kickers. The same could be said of most closers, yet closers still matter.
posted by yerfatma at 01:08 PM on September 13, 2007
The thing about a cornerback is that quite a few teams have one either great, or very good corner, which coincides with the other team's top receiver. Not a lot of teams have two dynamite receivers (Indy being the main exception), so Champ Bailey, for example, can match up with and often shut down the opponents main threat. With the majority of receivers in the NFL being average, at best, having average corners doesn't generally present a problem. Plus, with the sorry state of many teams' quarterbacks, average cornerbacks can sometimes excel. The thing about kickers is they account for points, plain and simple. Bring them on the field (except during kickoffs) and they are expected to put points on the board. It's not like a cornerback getting beat on a play and the safety is there to make the tackle. The kicker either gets the points, or doesn't. That becomes pretty important when you look at the close games many of these teams play. Just watch when your team botches a extra point and how many times that comes back to haunt them.
posted by dyams at 02:27 PM on September 13, 2007
But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the point about kickers. The same could be said of most closers, yet closers still matter. It makes it harder to determine the quality of the player which in turn makes it harder to pay them more. Your right though, that point doesn't really detract from their importance to the team. The thing about a cornerback is that quite a few teams have one either great, or very good corner, which coincides with the other team's top receiver. Not a lot of teams have two dynamite receivers (Indy being the main exception), so Champ Bailey, for example, can match up with and often shut down the opponents main threat. Which makes Champ Bailey important, right? I don't follow your arguement. Good corners let you roll coverage elsewhere or allow you to send an extra man at the QB because your corner doesn't need the help.
posted by tron7 at 05:22 PM on September 13, 2007
I'm not saying cornerbacks are not important. It's just where they fall on a given list of the most important positions. If an opponent runs the ball the majority of the time, the cornerback isn't all that involved. If the team has a mediocre-to-terrible quarterback, chances are the passing game won't be too much of a focus, taking some pressure off the cornerback. Also, there are other defensive backs who can help out a cornerback. Last week when Randy Moss scored, beating three defenders around him, it wasn't only the cornerback who was in position to possibly make a play. There were three guys around him, all who had an opportunity to break up the pass. Defenses can dedicate other players to help out a cornerback. But I still feel, overall, every position is crucial in a game such as football, which makes ranking most important near-impossible.
posted by dyams at 08:45 AM on September 14, 2007
If the Jets would have had Champ Bailey then they don't need 3 guys to cover Moss. I just think the cb position is way too low on this list. While the running game is important, the NFL is a passing league and having good corners is key to successful defense IMO.
posted by tron7 at 02:15 PM on September 14, 2007
Bailey's listed at 6'0" which, I assume, makes him like 5'10". Blanket coverage wouldn't have stopped most of the completions to Moss. At least two of the catches were against fine coverage. He's just tall. Either way, you miss dyams' point: even if Bailey erases Moss, there's still a whole 'nother side of the field to throw to, plus the slot receiver, plus the tight ends and backs. One great corner does not shore up an entire defense.
posted by yerfatma at 02:24 PM on September 14, 2007
I think in general, on the offfensive side, a good O-line, top to bottom, will make mediocre RBs and QBs look great, and a bad O-Line will make great RBs and QBs look mediocre. So IMHO, the O-Line is the most important. AGNP
posted by AaronGNP at 04:19 PM on September 17, 2007
Here's his list: Quarterback Center Offensive tackle Safety Defensive tackle Middle linebacker Running back Offensive guard Rush end/linebacker Wide receiver/receiving tight end Kicker Punter Cornerback Fullback Blocking tight end As a former guard I take exception to his description of guards as "offensive line grunts." And I peg the rise of badass safeties to Joey Browner and Ronnie Lott (who played together at USC).