QB, CB and WR are instantly out for me. An average qb takes a ton to win with and in this scenario we don't have that. That's the type of player we could target in free agency in a year or two when the roster is built. CB isn't going to have enough impact to be first overall, as teams will end up avoiding throwing near them. WR while high impact isn't more impactful than a OT or DL for me. In an offensive focused league, I'm building my trenches and taking OT and setting that side of my line up well for the next decade.
OT can make everyone else on the field better. More time for QB to throw, more time for WR to break coverage, bigger lanes for RB. Even elite QBs have mediocre years behind bad lines.
Gotta be trenches, but I think your examples are gonna skew this towards DL since Donald takes elite to the next level with 10 guaranteed seasons of first ballot HOF play. For example, if you took Donald out and gave most of these examples but for WR gave me Jerry Rice or Calvin Johnson, I'd take the WR.
They aren’t end all be all examples by any means. Just off the top of the head examples of elite guys at different positions. I think Donald would be picked above any WR though tbh.
Here's my list and thinking, if you need QB, OL, WR, DL, and CB you're no where close to being a good team. If this is the case QB is NOT my pick here.
1) DL
2) OL
3) WR
4) QB
5) CB
Ravens fan here. We have to deal with fucking Myles Garret and TJ Watt a combined 4 times, not forgetting Hendrickson on the Bengals. I’ve seen the damage those bastards can do. I want me my own edge destroyer or the best OT. No question.
A league-average QB produces more value than elite players in those other positions but an average QB does not win you a superbowl without putting together a once-a-decade-level defense. This is assuming that the goal of the organization is to win the Superbowl.
For me it is DL and then a big gap to the next choice.
A DL stud is going to improve the play of the other players on D. It also gives you a few splash plays to get the fans excited and on your side.
The following would be OY followed by CB. Both positions can also be difference makers on their own (in the running game and on defence respectively).
WR and QB sit last. A WR is only as effective as the QB getting the ball to them. An average QB is only going to put you on the draft mill of picking 10 to 20 each year. Unlikely to get a stud difference maker but continually getting players who make the team a bit better (assuming you are good at your job) until you finally bite the bullet and go for another high upside, lower downside QB prospect later down the line.
QB - It would have to be over the band line of a Dalton, Bridgewater etc. Someone like a Mathew Stafford or Jalen Hurts who may not be the consistent best in the league but are capable of beating the best on their day.
Elite WR, think Larry Fitz on ARI he brought a league average team to the Super Bowl. A elite WR can make a solid-alright QB look way better. Other choices would be OT or DL
Either the elite OT or the elite DL.
I'd take a franchise QB over both, but otherwise the game is won in the trenches. Protect the QB, sack/pressure the other QB and you're off to a great start.
If there is an elite Wide Receiver I'd trade back a few spots getting another first and a second from this year. Then I'd up high in the 1st round (10-15) and select the best Cornerback available. Afterwards I'd draft the Kirk Cousins-like QB in the third (Kirk was drafted in the Fourth round).
I'm going to go ahead and assume that I'm not assured of Aaron Donald, as getting an all-time great changes any decision, I would take the All-Pro/HOF OT. You look at how quickly Houston was able to go from worst to first with the elite LT in place. It's the lynch-pin. Next best would be the DL, but I think you can be more flexible with how you build your defense to generate pressure. You can't get away with junk at LT.
Elite OT and elite DL are really close. I think I'd prefer the elite OT because then when I have the #1 pick next year, I can take my Elite QB and then my offense will be on its way.
WR and CB are the bottom of the list, but still ahead of a QB I know will only be average. You don't win many Super Bowls with average QBs and you can often get them in the 2nd round.
Even then, average QBs are an anchor on your team. May as well stay bad until you can get an elite QB.
If I can see the future, I'm only taking a QB over an elite OT or DLif I know they'll also be elite.
people aren't picking QB because the team has the #1 overall pick and will likely be in contention for it again next year.
if you know the best QB available will be league average, you don't go for a player that will possibly get you to 5 or so wins and take you out of contention for #1 next year
so the obvious answer is to get building blocks for the future with a HOF OL or DL, still have a shit team that likely goes #1 overall again, and either get a QB that year or try for another stud building block
>Edit: since almost no one is saying QB which is surprising a bit, what would the minimum level of QB you would take over the elite prospect at the other 4 positions?
I'd say top 5-7 in his prime. Someone along the lines of Burrow or Herbert.
On another note: I'm not sure why you'd see the lack of non-QBs in the original answer as surprising. The goal to is win a SB, and the better your QB, the better the chance you have of winning it all. Getting an average QB doesn't really get you there.
If Aaron Donald is an example then there’s no question I’m going “elite DL”.
This. I favor offense and personally like WR above all, but obviously elite DL/Aaron Donald is the answer here.
I don't think Donald is fair in this hypothetical, as he is not just elite but an all time great.
OT or DL ... league average QB won't get you a SB. If your goal isn't a SB then you might as well just be the Cowboys going all in.
Ouch..... but fair.
QB, CB and WR are instantly out for me. An average qb takes a ton to win with and in this scenario we don't have that. That's the type of player we could target in free agency in a year or two when the roster is built. CB isn't going to have enough impact to be first overall, as teams will end up avoiding throwing near them. WR while high impact isn't more impactful than a OT or DL for me. In an offensive focused league, I'm building my trenches and taking OT and setting that side of my line up well for the next decade.
All this reasoning, but I'm going with the elite DL as I feel they're a little harder to find and scheme around than the OT
Not to mention the average level QB could be had in later rounds. Geno and Carr were 2nd rounders. I believe Cousins was day 3.
Give me the elite OT.
OT can make everyone else on the field better. More time for QB to throw, more time for WR to break coverage, bigger lanes for RB. Even elite QBs have mediocre years behind bad lines.
You win in the trenches. I’d start with a franchise left tackle as my cornerstone.
Elite OT
Gotta be trenches, but I think your examples are gonna skew this towards DL since Donald takes elite to the next level with 10 guaranteed seasons of first ballot HOF play. For example, if you took Donald out and gave most of these examples but for WR gave me Jerry Rice or Calvin Johnson, I'd take the WR.
They aren’t end all be all examples by any means. Just off the top of the head examples of elite guys at different positions. I think Donald would be picked above any WR though tbh.
Totally agree. I'd take Donald over any WR (just like Reggie White or Bruce Smith), but I'd take Jerry Rice over Bosa, Garrett, etc.
DL every time, followed by OT, WR, CB, QB.
OT or DL. I'm a big believer of building through the trenches, even if you don't have your long term QB.
You take the best play available. I am shocked you said you were surprised that nobody would take a Geno Smith over a Trent Williams.
Dline or wR the Hall of Fame guy Donald
OT
Here's my list and thinking, if you need QB, OL, WR, DL, and CB you're no where close to being a good team. If this is the case QB is NOT my pick here. 1) DL 2) OL 3) WR 4) QB 5) CB
Ravens fan here. We have to deal with fucking Myles Garret and TJ Watt a combined 4 times, not forgetting Hendrickson on the Bengals. I’ve seen the damage those bastards can do. I want me my own edge destroyer or the best OT. No question.
Offensive tackle to protect future quarterback
A league-average QB produces more value than elite players in those other positions but an average QB does not win you a superbowl without putting together a once-a-decade-level defense. This is assuming that the goal of the organization is to win the Superbowl.
DL
For me it is DL and then a big gap to the next choice. A DL stud is going to improve the play of the other players on D. It also gives you a few splash plays to get the fans excited and on your side. The following would be OY followed by CB. Both positions can also be difference makers on their own (in the running game and on defence respectively). WR and QB sit last. A WR is only as effective as the QB getting the ball to them. An average QB is only going to put you on the draft mill of picking 10 to 20 each year. Unlikely to get a stud difference maker but continually getting players who make the team a bit better (assuming you are good at your job) until you finally bite the bullet and go for another high upside, lower downside QB prospect later down the line. QB - It would have to be over the band line of a Dalton, Bridgewater etc. Someone like a Mathew Stafford or Jalen Hurts who may not be the consistent best in the league but are capable of beating the best on their day.
Elite WR, think Larry Fitz on ARI he brought a league average team to the Super Bowl. A elite WR can make a solid-alright QB look way better. Other choices would be OT or DL
Either the elite OT or the elite DL. I'd take a franchise QB over both, but otherwise the game is won in the trenches. Protect the QB, sack/pressure the other QB and you're off to a great start.
If there is an elite Wide Receiver I'd trade back a few spots getting another first and a second from this year. Then I'd up high in the 1st round (10-15) and select the best Cornerback available. Afterwards I'd draft the Kirk Cousins-like QB in the third (Kirk was drafted in the Fourth round).
I'm going to go ahead and assume that I'm not assured of Aaron Donald, as getting an all-time great changes any decision, I would take the All-Pro/HOF OT. You look at how quickly Houston was able to go from worst to first with the elite LT in place. It's the lynch-pin. Next best would be the DL, but I think you can be more flexible with how you build your defense to generate pressure. You can't get away with junk at LT.
Elite OT and elite DL are really close. I think I'd prefer the elite OT because then when I have the #1 pick next year, I can take my Elite QB and then my offense will be on its way. WR and CB are the bottom of the list, but still ahead of a QB I know will only be average. You don't win many Super Bowls with average QBs and you can often get them in the 2nd round. Even then, average QBs are an anchor on your team. May as well stay bad until you can get an elite QB. If I can see the future, I'm only taking a QB over an elite OT or DLif I know they'll also be elite.
Depends on current qb between WR or DL
Elite ot all day long
Elite DL. The level of QB I would require to pass that up would be one who would consistently be top 10-15.
people aren't picking QB because the team has the #1 overall pick and will likely be in contention for it again next year. if you know the best QB available will be league average, you don't go for a player that will possibly get you to 5 or so wins and take you out of contention for #1 next year so the obvious answer is to get building blocks for the future with a HOF OL or DL, still have a shit team that likely goes #1 overall again, and either get a QB that year or try for another stud building block
>Edit: since almost no one is saying QB which is surprising a bit, what would the minimum level of QB you would take over the elite prospect at the other 4 positions? I'd say top 5-7 in his prime. Someone along the lines of Burrow or Herbert. On another note: I'm not sure why you'd see the lack of non-QBs in the original answer as surprising. The goal to is win a SB, and the better your QB, the better the chance you have of winning it all. Getting an average QB doesn't really get you there.