Would you draft an elite wide receiver or an elite cornerback?

[George_Bonanza]

While I was watching the Superbowl last night, I had a spirited debate with two of my friends. To sum it all up, I advocated drafting an elite cornerback, while they insisted that they would go with a great wide receiver.

I reasoned that it was common to find great NFL wide receivers in the later draft rounds (i.e. Jerry Rice, Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens), and that wide receivers could easily be plugged into a system (receivers don't need to have high football IQ). In contrast, great cornerbacks are difficult to come by and even decent cornerbacks are at a premium in the NFL (CBs are the third highest-paid position after QB and Left Tackle). Plus, receivers are wholly dependent on the quality of their quarterbacks, and their stats are usually more of a reflection of the skills of their thrower: when Randy Moss had Culpepper and Brady throwing to him, he was awesome, but when it was some Oakland Raider scrub, he was invisible. So if you have a chance to draft the next Champ Bailey or Deion Sanders, you should take it! Their reasoning was that offense creates the character of the team, and that offense wins games (yes, it's true that you have to score points in order to win a game). They also argued that offensively-inclined teams have a better road to winning Superbowls (citing the miserable 2007 Chicago Bears as proof that defense doesn't win championships), and that offensively-inclined teams are better off in foul-weather games.

I was pretty aghast at their arguments. Firstly, everybody knows that defense wins championships. In the new millennium alone, the Ravens (2001), Patriots (2002, 2004, 2005), Bucs (2002), and Steelers (2006) are testament to this old maxim. However, I would concede that the St. Louis Rams (2000) and Indianpolis Colts (2007) were offensive teams. Secondly, the 2007 Chicago Bears are a poor example since they had NO offense, and if anything, their ascension to the Superbowl game should only emphasize how far a great defense can take a team. In contrast, teams with great offense and no defense, like the old Colts or the Priest Holmes-led KC Chiefs went NOWHERE. Thirdly, foul-weather games negate offenses, especially vertical offenses, of which wide receivers are responsible for. A team with a great smashmouth running game can benefit from rainy or snowy games, but receivers are rendered moot in bad weather. I can't believe they failed to realize this.

I will also concede that cornerbacks, especially in the era of Tampa 2 defense, are not the most integral part of a great defense; having smart, tough linebackers and safeties are more important. But cornerbacks are indisputably important to a defensive scheme, and if I were a GM, I wouldn't hesitate to draft a future Deion Sanders over a future Randy Moss.

[Chan790]

1. The CB.

A good many NFL QBs will admit that you don't throw at a shutdown CB too often, someone like Champ Bailey, because no matter how good your receiver is, sooner-or-later if you give a CB like that a shot, he's going to come down with one.

In this way, a great CB takes away one passing option on nearly every dropback, which makes every other pass-coverage players' job easier.

I'd take a top CB over any other position, excluding QB. Depending on the QB, I still might take the CB.