There has been a lot of talk on this site about the draft board.  Here's Jim Thomas weighing in on a couple of things:

Jim Thomas: Well, there's a lot of ways the Rams could've gone, and you can start with the second round. The Rams picked 47th overall in the round. They could've gone guard with Ben Ijalana (Villanova), who went two picks later (49). Marcus Gilchrist (Clemson), who could've provided help at nickel back and free safety, was a guy the Rams showed a lot of pre-draft interest in _ he went No. 50 to San Diego. Another safety prospect, Temple's Jaiquawn Jarrett, I believe was a private workout guy for the Rams. He went No. 54 to Philly. Illinois RB Mikel Leshoure, another pre-draft visit guy, went No. 57 to Detroit. Maryland WR Torrey Smith, one of the fastest wideouts in the draft, went No. 58 to Baltimore. And Brandon Harris of Miami (Fla.) who made a pre-draft visit to Rams Park, went No. 60 to Houston. Harris was said to be very effective covering slot receivers in college.
But the Rams apparently stuck by their board. They liked Kendricks so much they apparently considered trading up for him for a while.

Jim Thomas: I don't think that's necessarily true. Rudolph has had a lot of injury issues at Notre Dame, and Josh McDaniels apparently thought that Kendricks had the best hands in the draft next to A.J. Green.

Me:

Obviously this doesn' t prove anything.  Van could be right about the board.  Jim could be right about the board.  It's a matter of whose sources are correct.  Source quality, if you will.  I don't know.  Thought it was worth sharing, b/c there are accounts that are in conflict.  

Where would Jimmy Clausen rank in this year's QB crop?  Definitely inside the top 5, in my opinion, but how high?  I think Bradford would be number 1 in this crop.  Assuming the top 5 are (obviously this is debatable in itself) Gabbert, Newton, Locker, Mallett and Ponder - Clausen seems very similar to Gabbert, to me, skillset wise.  There was a lot of talk last year about how "pro-ready" Clausen was.  Where does the community come down on this?

I was hoping I could crowd source the following Q: What is the best place to sit at the Ed (for the $).  In theory, I guess, the most expensive seats should be the best, but I was hoping you guys had some thoughts/experiences that went a little beyond that.  

The last couple games I have gone to, I have simply bought from scalpers, but I'm going to the Atlanta game with my cousin (who lives out of town) and a mutual friend - and we'd like a little bit of certainty (plus - 3 is the wrong number to need from a scalper).  

Any thoughts/suggestions you guys might have are appreciated.

"Sam Bradford cleared up rumors Tuesday, insisting he has no issues playing in St. Louis and will go where he's drafted.
Along with the rumors of a Redskins push to trade up for Bradford, it's also been speculated that the quarterback would prefer not to play for the Rams. While we can understand a desire to be tutored by Mike Shanahan, we were left wondering why Bradford would want to get stuck behind the Redskins' tattered offensive line. Apr. 1 - 1:07 pm et
Source: Brian Stull on Twitter"

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=NFL&id=5161&line=170785&spln=1

I don't have anything to say about this article.  I don't know that it proves anything.  The point of the article is simply that taking a DT at the top of the draft is not necessarily any safer than taking a QB at the top of the draft.  Walter Football is a great site.  I don't necessarily agree with everything over there, but it's a thoughtful site, and they're independent.  They think for themselves.  So, without further ado:  

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftquarterbackriskmyth.php

I am assuming we won't be able to move down with the 1st overall pick.  It's more difficult than ever to do so, simply for financial reasons.  Even if a team loves Suh or G. McCoy, they don't want to spend picks and more than $10 million to trade up to get him.  

I personally think that the combination of money and direction lead to the conclusion that the Rams will likely take a QB with the first overall pick.  Devaney has mentioned that he believes that there might be an opportunity to move down and add extra picks in the 2nd round.  That might be an interesting opportunity to pick up an extra pick in the 3rd in what most people are calling a deep draft.  That being said, this post also assumes that we stand pat with our valuable (high) second round pick.  It's our opportunity to pick up the player that we don't feel should have fallen out of the 1st.  

I've seen a lot of big names mocked to the 2nd round, depending on the mock and the mocker, including Jahvid Best, Jermaine Gresham, Jason Pierre-Paul (who I've also seen go as high as 8th overall in some mocks - with discussion by McShay of him going as high as 3rd overall to TB), Carlos Dunlap (like Pierre-Paul - mocks have him all over the place), Everson Griffin, Navorro Bowman, Donovan Warren, Ryan Matthews and Arrelious Benn.  

My question is this: if you do choose a QB in the first round - do you feel forced to use your second round pick on an additional weapon to make that QBs life easier (assuming he'll start at some point as a first year player), like a Gresham, Best or Benn?  Or, do you feel compelled to address a defensive need after passing on Suh, perhaps one of the DEs?

If you go QB in the 1st, DE (assuming one of those guys is available) in the 2nd, I think you almost have to add an offensive weapon in the 3rd - such as a Mike Williams or Aaron Hernandez.  Obviously, the PC answer is that we'll take the best player available.  I hope that will include putting a young QB in a position to succeed.

On the question of which QB they draft, assuming that they draft a QB, the consensus currently seems to be that Bradford is the better player.  I definitely think that Bradford is the more likable person.  I like the fact that he's 6'4".  That's legitimate NFL QB height.  

I spent some time watching highlights of the two top QBs last night.  I like the way Clausen throws the ball.  Quick release, tight spiral, accurate, pretty nice deep ball.  What I didn't like is that Clausen didn't stay in the pocket very often.  He was at his best rolling out.  In the NFL, where the game is faster, you have to be able to step up in the pocket and make throws with pressure closing in around you.  Of course, Clausen may have been a product of his line.  

Bradford's highlights, on the other hand, involved very little pressure (good line), and lots of them involve him throwing a short pass to a great athlete, and that athlete breaking tackles on his way to the end zone.  He didn't have as classic of QB mechanics - but maybe that means he has more room for improvement than Clausen, who has very good mechanics.  

In short, neither are perfect prospects.  Right now I agree with the consensus that Bradford is probably the better player.  I encourage other people to watch some of the highlight film, though, to see if it does anything to affect your opinion.  They're closer in my mind than they were before I did so.  Just my $.02.

Today's article in the post says the Rams are considering 4 players: Curry, Monroe, Smith and Sanchez with the number 2.  Do you think they're just throwing Sanchez in there to try to garner trade offers for the pick, or are they really considering taking a first round QB with the team in the current state of disarray?

I hope it's the former.  The same article is very complimentary of Curry, who I think a lot of fans would like to see them take.  If he goes number 1, I personally hope we go Monroe.  It would be so nice if Denver wanted the pick.  I don't think they do, but man it would be nice to get both their first rounders.  I think that could help this team a lot.

I feel that the Elias Sports Bureau's system of ranking players and assigning them a type is a broken system.  To be more precise, MLB's use of this system as a means of ascertaining compensation is a broken system.  It's not necessarily that they don't find the top players at a given position...I think for the most part they do that successfully.  One problem is there is not really an adjustment of value for a specific position.  Are middle relievers worth the same amount as dominant starting pitchers or even closers?  By virtue of the fact that they're middle relievers, there is a suggestion that they weren't good enough to start or close.  Under this system, a team that loses CC Sabathia is given the same compensation as a team that loses, say, Russ Springer (had he been offered and declined arbitration, of course).

The rankings seem to be both over and under inclusive.  Rafael Furcal, due to injury factors, was not even deemed to be a type B, despite being the most sought after infielder this side of Mark Teixiera.  Is a team hurt more by replacing Furcal or Springer?  I'm not saying that a middle reliever/set up guy should never be a type A - Carlos Marmol is too filthy for me to say that.  But it should be a rare occurrence.  As teams have come to value draft picks more, I feel that the system needs to be revised.  First, take it out of Elias' hands and come up with your own criteria for determining what players deserve compensation.  Second, make more stringent standards for handing out that ever so coveted type A classification.

My last post took a look at the draft position of pitchers among the active leaders in innings pitched.  This post will look at position players based on their total plate appearances.  I say "active" with the perameter being active as of last year. 

To the two-three people who read the last post;), recall that just 3 of the top 25 in innings pitched were 1st round draft picks.  This is a sharp contrast with the findings of this post.  12 of the top 25 players in at bats were 1st rounders, while 6 were undrafted free agents.  3 were not first round picks but were picked in the first 5 rounds, while the four remaining players went in rounds 13-20.  While this backs up my perception that the draft is largely a crapshoot, I believe that this suggests (mildly) that position players tend to be safer picks than pitchers with early picks.  This is, admittedly, a very small sample size and questionable use of statistics.  At bats, like innings pitched, does not prove how good a player is/was.  It does prove that these players were good enough to garner playing time for a number of years.  I think a long career in the major leagues represents a quality pick. 

I did not gather as much information for this post, but here are the players and their round drafted, based on total plate appearances in their respective order:

1.  Barry Bonds, 1st round

2.  Craig Biggio, 1st round

3.  Omar Vizquel, undrafted FA

4.  Steve Finely, 13th round

5.  Ken Griffey, Jr., 1st round

6.  Gary Sheffield, 1st round

7.  Luis Gonzalez, 4th round

8.  Sammy Sosa, Un-FA

9.  Frank Thomas, 1st

10.  Julio Franco, un-FA

11.  Kenny Lofton, 17th round

12.  Jeff Kent, 20th round

13.  Ivan Rodriguez, un-FA

14.  Ruben Sierra, un-FA

15.  Alex Rodriguez, 1st round

16.  Jim Thome, 13th round

17.  Derek Jeter, 1st round

18.  Manny Ramirez, 1st round

19.  Johnny Damon, 1st round

20.  Chipper Jones, 1st round

21.  Royce Clayton, 1st round

22. Ray Durham, 5th round

23.  Garrett Anderson, 4th round

24.  Carlos Delgado, un-FA

25.  Moises Alou, 1st round

I was personally surprised to see Royce Clayton on this list.  I guess the ability to play SS at the major league level will get you to the plate quite a few times. 

So there you go.  Take it for what you will.  Once again, it proves nothing, but I think it is relevant when deciding whether to take a risk on a high upside pitcher who is far away or a high upside position player.  I did not list the HS/college ratio the way I did with the pitchers. 

I looked back at the top 25 active pitchers in wins.  I know wins is a statistic influenced by a lot of factors, including the strength of the team, ballpark factors, and luck.  One thing that wins does suggest is longevity.  You don't get to 100 wins in two seasons.  The people on the list have managed to stay in the majors for an extended period of time, which is a testament to their success.  When the next hot prospect is always a phone call away, every major leaguer has to perform at a high level in order to stay in the league long enough to get on this leader board. 

After seeing who was in the top 25, I focused on a couple of things: their draft position, handedness, and whether they were drafted out of high school or college.  I also classified them loosely as power or finesse pitchers, without a real criteria for this besides my own perception.  I ignored body type and mechanics - mainly because I feel like mechanics is a matter that should be discussed by an expert (if ex-HS players are experts, then I'm one, too), and mechanics is an inexact and evolving science. 

Before I type the list, here are some of my findings.  Of the 25 active leaders: 3 were first round picks, 6 were second round picks,  4 were undrafted FAs, 7 were from rounds 5-10, and 5 were from rounds 11-40.  9 were drafted out of HS, 12 were drafted out of college (2 JUCO), the four undrafted FA were from Latin America and some were signed before 18 so I left them out of the HS/College class but they could, for the most part be considered of HS age and experience when drafted.  7 of the 25 were LH and 18 were RH.  Based on my extremely loose classifications of Power and Finesse, 13 were power and 12 were finesse.  I thought about setting a minimum K/9, but was ready to quit.

Without further ado, here's the list:

1.  Roger Clemens, 354 W, 1st round (19th overall), BoSox (College)

2.  Greg Maddux, 349 W, 2nd, ChC (HS)

3.  Tom Glavine, 303, 2nd, AtL (HS)

4.  Randy Johnson, 284, 2nd Montreal (C)

5.  Mike Mussina, 252, 1st (20th overall) Baltimore (C)

6.  David Wells, 239 W, 2nd Toronto (HS)

7.  Jamie Moyer, 230, 6th by ChC (College)

8.  Curt Schilling, 216, 2nd by BoSox (C)

9.  Kenny Rogers, 210, 39th by Rangers (HS)

9.  John Smoltz, 210 22nd by Detroit (HS)

10.  Pedro Martinez, 209, undrafted FA signed by LAD

11.  Andy Pettitte, 203, 22nd by NYY (C)

12.  Tim Wakefield, 169, 8th by Pitt (C)

13.  Aaron Sele, 148, 1st by BoSox (College)

14.  Bartolo Colon, 146, undrafted FA signed by Cleveland

15.  Steve Trachsel, 142, 8th by ChC (C)

16.  Mike Hampton, 138, 6th by Seattle (HS)

16.  Tim Hudson, 138, 6th by Oakland (College)

17.  Livan Hernandez, 137, undrafted FA signed by FLA

18.  Tom Gordon, 134, 6th by KC (HS)

18.  Kevin Millwood, 134, 11th by AtL (HS)

19.  Woody Williams, 132, 28th by Toronto (C)

20.  John Lieber, 131, 2nd by KC (C)

21.  Jason Schmidt, 128, 8th by AtL (HS)

22.  Esteban Loaiza, 126, undrafted FA by Pitt

That's the top 25.  Some notes.  Some of the pitchers are arguably inactive, such as Woody, Clemens, Wells, etc.  I did this was last season being the cutoff.  The Cubs have the most players on this list with 3.  There are definitely some interesting names on this list (Steve Trachsel has won games?).  A couple of guys who spent several years as relievers (Smoltz, Gordon), a couple who have had their careers derailed by injuries (Hampton, recently Schmidt), but for the most part, these are guys who have been effective for a long time.  I thought it was very interesting that only 3 guys were first round picks. 

Notable Cardinals and former Cards in the wins dept. - Morris has 121 wins, Suppan has 119, Mulder has 103, and Carp has 100. 

I also did this with 5 of the top current "aces." Johan Santana undrafted FA by Houston, Peavy was a 15th rounder out of HS by SD, Dedard was a 6th rounder out of college, Sabathia was a 1st rounder out of HS and Webb was an 8th rounder out of college by AZ. 

I'm not sure this proves anything, but it reaffirms what a crapshoot the draft can be.  I also think that this is the point you can judge the quality of some yester-year drafts.  If the Cards passed on a guy like Joba Chamberlain b/c of injury concerns, we won't know for a while (maybe years), whether they were right.  Only time will tell.  I think a pick is a success if he makes it to the major leagues.  If he pitches for a long time, he is a great success.

If it seems there is interest in this, I might try to do something similar with hitters.  Thanks for reading!