PFT article - 1st Rd players need more time to develop

[*ochocincos*]

In recent years, many have criticized the Bengals for not playing their first round picks. There has been a common, long-lasting expectation that a player drafted in the first round can (and should) be a starter as a rookie. When a first rounder doesn't contribute as a rookie, the pick is viewed as a waste, the coaches are being stubborn, the player is a bust, etc.

However, it turns out that the Bengals might be becoming trend setters, as PFT reports that more and more teams are starting to do the same, saying that first round players are not ready to immediately impact the team and should get at least a year to develop before earning a starting role.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/24/more-teams-realizing-they-have-to-wait-for-first-rounders-to-develop/

As mentioned in the article, it might be due to players leaving college too early, the result of more college teams playing in a spread and more simplistic scheme, something else, or a combination of things.

What are your thoughts on this seeming to become a trend? Does this change your thoughts on first rounders needing to be immediate impact players?

[fredtoast]

Here is my theory.

Bad teams are worse at picking good players and and/or coaching them up. At the same time first round picks are also much more likely to play for bad teams that have bigger holes in their rosters.

Meanwhile better teams are better at choosing good players and then coaching them up. But first round picks are also much less likely to start for a good team withj a deeper roster.

So while first round picks that start right away don't do as good as those that sit a year it may have more to do with the team that selected them drafting lesser players and then not coaching them up properly.

[ItsOdellThurman]

Certain positions are also a lot more difficult to play from day one.

For instance, a WR has a much greater chance of contributing than a TE. A OLB has a much better chance at contributing than a CB.

[BengalChris]

It really depends on the player and the situation. Some are drafted for a spot where there's just a hole there like when AJ Green was drafted, while others come in and they've got 5 veterans ahead of them, like Dennard. Dennard would be starting on at least 25 other clubs in 2015, if not his rookie year.

Remember if you take guy #1 who might be more talented than guy #2 but has to wait behind 5 other veteran guys it might be better to take guy #2 if he's a bigger upgrade for the team at his position. A guy has to make it on the field to help them team on game day. If #2 guy can start and is sufficiently better than the guy he's replacing, then the team will get more bang by drafting him than it would slightly more talented #1 guy who won't see the field much.

I'm not say that you pass on a clearly more talented guy to fill a need either. I'm more referring to two guys who are relatively close in talent but where you can make better use of one than the other.

That's just my 2 cents worth.

In addition, for my 3 cents worth, I'm not a fan of the team taking projects in the first 3 rounds. There were better guys available who could have contributed far more than guys like Hunt, Still and Clarke. If a 2nd round pick isn't getting regular playing time by year two, then I'm willing to bet money that there was someone else available who would have meant more to the team.