Ranking The Positions

[LongJim]

Here's a topic worth (IMO) discussion:

EDIT: I ranked the positions by answering the following question: "In order, what position is it most imperative that you recruit well at in order to have the most success at the college level?"

Might give some perspective on recruiting strategy.

I'll post mine:

1. OL/DL

2. QB

3. CB/S

4. LB

5. WR

6. RB

7. TE

Edited July 24, 2009 by LongJim

[Quoner]

Here's a topic worth (IMO) discussion:

Which position would you say is most important to have the best athletes possible in order to ensure success? Or put another way--although all are important, which are most important to the overall success of the team?

Might give some perspective on recruiting strategy.

I'll post mine:

1. OL/DL

2. QB

3. CB/S

4. LB

5. WR

6. RB

7. TE

Good list - I might flip secondary and linebackers at the college level though - especially if you run a 3-4 since those guys are disguising and covering the short routes while the line hopefully disrupts the longer developing play.

[Shuke-D]

Here's a topic worth (IMO) discussion:

Which position would you say is most important to have the best athletes possible in order to ensure success? Or put another way--although all are important, which are most important to the overall success of the team?

Might give some perspective on recruiting strategy.

I'll post mine:

1. OL/DL

2. QB

3. CB/S

4. LB

5. WR

6. RB

7. TE

I find it hard to rank both Offensive and Defensive positions in the same list. Depends on relative schemes run and needs those schemes demand (as Quoner noted employing a 3-4). I will agree 100% with your #1 though. Games are usually won in the trenches.

[Censored by Laurie]

Kinkiest topic ever on the football forum

Edited July 24, 2009 by Censored by Laurie

[KRAM1]

I like the list and agree that most games are won or lost in the trenches. I wonder if the WR's and TE's might should switch poitions in the listing. Hard to say, but I really think the TE would play a big role in the teams' success. Nothing like converting those 4th and 4 or 5 situations with a flip to the TE...keeps that drive going so the RB's and WR's can make the big yardage plays...just wondering...think Novachek (can't remember the exact spelling...sorry).

GO MEAN GREEN!

Edited July 24, 2009 by KRAM1

[Mean Green 93-98]

I'll go with your list, generally speaking. Of course, position #1 is composed of 9 different players, while position #2 is only one player. If you want to go by individual positions, I'd go #1 QB, #2 DT (which is still two players), followed by the rest of the linemen and so on.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

1. QB

2. DL

3. OL

4. LB

5. DB

6. PK

7. WR

8. RB

9. P

10. TE

Quarterbacks, especially in the days of the spread offense, are what makes the team go. I'm not sure how true the old cliche "games are won and lost in the trenches" is but linemen put pressure on opposing quarterbacks and protect their own quarterback. Linebackers are to the defense what the quarterback is to the offense. They have to be good at tackling and defending the pass. Defensive backs prevent long gains and disrupt a quarterback's timing with good coverage. I may have put the place kicker a little high but a good PK can get you enough points to win a game when it's hard to get touchdowns. The majority of the points are often scored by wide receivers these days. Having come from an era where the running back was the heart of the team, it seems weird to rank them so low. They're still important but mostly in short yardage situations and to keep defenses from keying on receivers. They now are often blockers to protect the quarterback or safety valves when coverage is tight. I put the punter ahead of the tight end because a good one can get you out of bad field position and conversely a poor one continuously puts the offense's backs to the wall.

It's a team and every player has his job and it must be done well for the team to have success.

[LongJim]

If you want to go by individual positions, I'd go #1 QB, #2 DT (which is still two players), followed by the rest of the linemen and so on.

I would disagree with you with the following caveat: "In order to have success at the college level." I've edited my original post accordingly!

[Will to Win]

WINS

[Harry]

1. QB

2. DL

3. P

3a. Special Teams (includes kickoff/punt coverage and deep snapper)

4. OL

5. K

6. DB

7. LB

8. WR

[Mean Green 93-98]

I would disagree with you with the following caveat: "In order to have success at the college level." I've edited my original post accordingly!

What I was trying to say is that "OL/DL" is not an individual position--it's 9 positions, while QB is only 1 position. It's not really fair to compare 9 positions against 1.

[hickoryhouse]

I like the list and agree that most games are won or lost in the trenches. I wonder if the WR's and TE's might should switch poitions in the listing. Hard to say, but I really think the TE would play a big role in the teams' success. Nothing like converting those 4th and 4 or 5 situations with a flip to the TE...keeps that drive going so the RB's and WR's can make the big yardage plays...just wondering...think Novachek (can't remember the exact spelling...sorry).

GO MEAN GREEN!

1. OL/DL

2. QB

3. LB

4. RB

5. TE

6. Secondary

7. WR

I agree with Kram, we have not had a TE to stay in giving us another lineman and help protect during crucial points and it has const us dearly and additionally the TE going out and making that tough 4 yard catch for the first down is amazingly important, a 5-10 175 WR is not going to want to do that but a 6-1 245lb'er might be a little more adept at taking the hits from the LB's.

[eulessismore]

#1. Whoever who can pressure the opposing quarterback.

#2. Punt and kickoff return coverage men.

#3. Kickoff return man.

Edited July 25, 2009 by eulessismore

[Got5onIt]

1. OL

2. DL

3. RB

4. DB

5. QB

6. WR

7. K/P

8. LB

[FirefightnRick]

Defensive Ends 1st, Defensive Tackle 2nd. The rest doesn't matter in what order you get them.

Rick

[gangrene]

Wow! I must say I am surprised to see how low everyone has ranked the WRs, considering they compose more than 1/4 of our starting offense. I definitely agree that the OL has to be the focal point of the offense, but I think Texas Tech has proven that you can be very successful with an average QB.

My rankings

1. OL

2. DL

3. WR

4. LB

5. DB

6. QB

7. RB

8. K/P

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--COACH or coaches. At the college level they recruit the other positions. ..... and once that is done they select who to send on the field ---and then call most of the plays.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Wow! I must say I am surprised to see how low everyone has ranked the WRs, considering they compose more than 1/4 of our starting offense. I definitely agree that the OL has to be the focal point of the offense, but I think Texas Tech has proven that you can be very successful with an average QB.

My rankings

1. OL

2. DL

3. WR

4. LB

5. DB

6. QB

7. RB

8. K/P

---- I would not say Harrell or many other Tech QB's were average college QB's at all .. There are a lot of players that are great at the college level but can't play in the NFL.... Booger Kennedy was great against college players but was too short to be a successful NFL player. Even a few Heisman winners had short or even no NFL career. They were far from average... The only player with TWO Heismans was pretty much a failure in the NFL.

How many QBs from each year actually make or start a game in the NFL. Very few. Last year the NFL had two QBs from recent college classes, Flacco and Ryan.

On the flip side some so-so college QBs do very well in the NFL... Examples, Brady, Romo, Warner, and even Cassel who never started one game.

Edited July 25, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66