from profootballhof.com- "Soon he was the starting right offensive tackle and it was a job he held for 13 years until he retired following the 1965 season." I know Dierdorf definitely played on the right. Brown I don't know for myself because I haven't seen film. But I will take the Hall of Fame over other sources.
Yeh I read about Brown as well as strictly a RT, he was gonna be my guy until you grabbed him and I had to take Erik Williams
Dierdorf I know was a RT. Brown as you say has conflicting reports as to his true position. I will research it after we get the 24 rounds our of the way
Well, many of these conflicts could probably have been dealt with by a good coach. I think Dierdorf did move over to left tackle for a few games based on an injury to the regular left tackle.
So, if you have two corners or two tackles that both played most of their career on the same side, we can probably let it slide. The bigger problem would be if you drafted a 3-4 LB and then followed that up with 4-3 personnel. Lawrence Taylor's best play was the 3-4 outside linebacker blitz, but J_V drafted four down linemen. (Brazile and Hendricks did this before Taylor came along, but not as well, of course.) One guy drafted two free safeties (I'm sure one could have been moved to the strongside relatively easily, but still, if we want to be technical here...). Like I wrote once before, all these 10 teams have great individual players. It's the Xs and Os (how the great individual players fit together as a team and how each of you sell your team and your explanation of how you'd run the offense and defense) that will determine how I vote in polls and what not.
Will we being doing that for each individual week then, I like that idea alot because my offensive line is based on explanation, That was probably the most research that I did
I think after we draft the starters, coaches, and backups we could each write a post with our basic offensive and defensive philosophy. Then for each game, we could have other people (anybody on this message board aside from the two owners or GMs or whatever the 10 of us will be known as) comment on the matchups. I could comment on a Donnie-Murrell matchup, but not a Cakes-Murrell matchup. What wouldn't work would be if, say, Donnie is playing Murrell and Donnie says he's going to do this and that and then Murrell counters with a post saying what he'll do to stop what Donnie will do. That would be like in August Eric Mangini announcing to the world how he'll attack the Titans in Week 1. Yeah, so once we're done drafting we could make an all time draft philosophy (or all time draft Xs and Os)/hype thread where each of us explain our schemes and hype our players and stuff of that nature. Once that is done we would, for the most part, cease talking up our own teams.
Here's some Xs and Os stuff that kinda relates to the two right tackle thing with 1028. This was originally going to be in post 445, but I severely cut it. What the heck, I decided to post this info instead of it going to waste. One of my cornerbacks, Roger Wehrli, played right corner for most of his career (my other one, Barney, played on the left). Then Wehrli moved to left corner for his last couple of seasons. Was Wehrli actually playing on the right side (weakside) 100% of the time in his heyday? I doubt it. He probably played on that side at least two thirds of the time, though. On the right side, he probably did not often cover the other team's feature receiver. The feature receiver would generally have been the flanker (he's the WR who lines up off the line of scrimmage on the tight end side and sometimes goes in motion). If the Cards faced a left-handed team (lefty QB or a team that had a righty QB but still felt its strongside was on the left), perhaps Wehrli stayed on the right where he would have covered the feature receiver. He was real good in coverage. Larry Wilson was his safety help on the weakside and Wilson was the king of the safety blitz. Wehrli had to really stick to the split end on those blitzes. The first paragraph was supposed to show that some of these players can be shifted. Not the end of the world. One of the tackles could be moved to left tackle. However, you'd lose some value. Same thing with the guy who drafted two lefts- one would lose some value shifted to right tackle (just like when Fabini moved to LT and had problems; look at Kendall- forget about moving four spots over, he moved one spot over in the line and sucked). Then again, how many people on this message board will even pay attention to that? Many of the voters here may see Roaf and Ogden together and say, "Wow, that's a great line". The second, shorter paragraph is something I'd write in the potential Xs and Os/hype thread.
I think you're overanalyzing the LCB RCB shtick. I dont think its like offensive tackle where LT and RT demands different skill sets. As for my own personal situation at OT, I was convinced when I drafted Brown that he was a LT. But I will research the topic. Worst comes to worst, if trades are allowed, then Ill propose a trade like Brown/Dierdorf for Roaf/Ogden. Which would solve the problem for both teams.
I saw something last night in a book that had a diagram of the Vince Lombardi sweep of the 1956 Giants. Brown was at left tackle. I've seen enough conflicting stuff on this to assume Brown played both left and right tackle at various times. Yeah, and I agree with you on the cornerbacks. There's not going to be as much of a difference there. I was just pointing out that the two I took had sides that they definitely stayed on more often than the other. If two people drafted cornerbacks who both primarily played on the left side, I would not care. I haven't even looked at that with the nine other teams. Guards aren't a problem, either. Linebackers wouldn't be a big deal, probably not with defensive ends, either.
I was thinking about the drafting of coaches. If we are drafting players and coaches and just going directly to polls, then having coaches would be good. But if we are drafting players and then explaining in detail how we'd run our teams, then having coaches is maybe not good. The reason being if somebody drafts Vince Lombardi and then says he wants to run a lot of three receiver sets, that's sort of silly because Lombardi didn't utilize three receiver sets or at least certainly not regularly. Or somebody drafts Bill Walsh and then doesn't run a West Coast offense because he drafted Dan Marino? To me, that would be too weird. I think if we draft coaches we should stay true to what kind of offense and defense they ran. In conclusion, I see two scenarios here- Scenario A if we draft coaches we should just go right to the polls (the regular season, as Murrell stated) and not bother getting all technical with Xs and Os. In this scenario the ten of us are essentially general managers. Scenario B If we don't draft coaches, we'll act as the coaches and explain the Xs and Os. That would be difficult, though. I just don't know how many of us know about and/or can explain Tom Landry's flex defense, Hank Stram's stack defense, Chuck Noll's stunt 4-3, or Vince Lombardi's bread-and-butter sweep play. In this scenario the ten of us are general managers and coaches. I opt for Scenario A only because it is easier. Scenario B would be difficult and could bore people. If we do draft coaches, I agree that we should throw them in with the backup players draft.
The problem I have is that if that was the case then it would have made sense to get the coaches first because people may have been drafting for best players available instead of going with a scheme, and trying to find the perfect coach that would fit your scheme and offense after their players have already been selected may get too complicated and difficult especially with the older coaches
Another reason why scenario A looks better. Luckily for those in the baseball all-time draft, this issue would be a non-issue.
