Anthony Stalter: My dad used to buy me a box of Topps baseball cards every year for Christmas starting in the late 80s. I remember going through the box carefully and organizing all the players by team with him at our kitchen table. I remember when Topps used to be the brand everyone bought, but in the early 90s, UpperDeck got huge and started pushing Topps out of the picture. Eventually my dad stopped buying the boxes because Topps just weren’t worth what they used to be. But I remember sitting on the steps outside of my friend Josh’s house and trading with all the kids in the neighborhood. I distinctly remember fleecing a kid when I traded him Ken Griffey Jr. “Rated Rookie” card that had a crease in it. I traded for a couple of valuable Frank Thomas cards and he didn’t realize until the next day that he got taken. I then had to convince him that he must have bent it after the trade and eventually he blamed the entire thing on his sister, whom he swore must have snuck into his room and bent the card. For me, collecting cards was all about my favorite teams and players. If I purchased cards individually, I only bought players that were on my favorite teams. And the only reason why I sold any cards were so I could add to my Will Clark, Deion Sanders or David Robinson collections. I also really enjoyed the process of putting the cards into those plastic sheets and binders with my father. I can still remember spending hours on end with him sorting the cards, and my looking for days trying to find his specific baseball card because he told me he played for the Pirates. (Turns out he meant the Little League Pirates, not Pittsburgh.) That said, it’s sad to hear that the massive collection I have tucked away at my parents’ house in Florida isn’t worth as much today as it was just 15-20 years ago. Even though they were never an investment for me, I know my dad looked at it that way and I had hopes of one day passing along my card collection to my son.

AS: For sure. My favorite is the aforementioned Will Clark collection. I have a small, separate binder that only has Clark cards and while it’s hard picking out a favorite, there’s a 1992 Upper Deck where he’s getting eye black put on by coach in the dugout that I always thought was cool. He was my idol and I remember any time a friend or neighborhood kid got a Will Clark card, I stopped at nothing to acquire it. (Looking back, I probably got hosed on a ton of trades just so I could add to my Will “The Thrill” collection.)

You made a good point about how if kids have no interest, the next generation of collectors will continue to get smaller and smaller. I don’t knock video games because I think they do serve a purpose (i.e. hand-eye coordination), but it’s sad that kids these days have little to no interest in collecting cards. It wasn’t just about collecting cards when I was growing up, it was about saving enough money to buy a box or a couple of packs and the thrill of opening them and wondering what they would be worth someday. Collecting cards was the first investment lesson I ever got and now it looks like they were a bad investment, at least in financial terms. One of the more depressing scenes in that documentary was when the store collector said that one of the Reggie Jackson cards was only worth $5. Five dollars?! For a Reggie Jackson card?! That’s amazing to me and it goes to show you how little cards from back in the day are worth nowadays.

Unfortunately there might not be any way to reverse the fortunate of card collecting, at least for kids anyway. Why would a kid buy a $100 box of baseball cards when he could buy two video games for that price? He or she would get more mileage out of the games and chances are, there won’t be one card in the box worth the investment made to buy it. Plus, as technology grows and toys get more sophisticated, there are better things to collect today anyway. As you alluded to, a small piece of cardboard to you and me back in the day was gold depending on who was printed on that cardboard. Nowadays, kids could care less.

AS: Card collecting was about many things to me – saving up to buy the cards, opening them up, collecting and trading with friends. On a deeper level, you’re probably right suggesting that card collecting could be akin to gambling or feeding a compulsion. And if you are right, then it is sad and it’s probably safer that it has turned into an adult business. But I also think that it’s sad that my kids probably won’t have the same joy as I did tracking down Will Clark cards or trying to trade for that Shaq card your friend just scored. There probably isn’t any life lesson that I can contribute to collecting cards, but not everything in life has to be about lessons or investing or whatever. Card collecting was fun for me and taking about it conjured up some good memories.

Anthony: For those who have followed the NFL over the years and more specifically, paid attention as prospects made the jump from college to the pros, it’s easy to understand why quarterbacks, wideouts and cornerbacks are considered risky picks in the first round.

It’s the age of free agency in the NFL and with that, teams need rookies to play right away even though quarterbacks, wideouts and cornerbacks would benefit from learning on the sidelines for a year or two before they saw extensive game action. Granted, wideouts don’t have to download as much as quarterbacks in terms of recognizing defenses and learning the playbook, but most colleges don’t run pro style offenses and therefore it takes longer for them to learn how to run routes and understand the nuances of trying to get open.

When you factor in how big the expectations are because these prospects are first rounders, it’s easy to understand why the failure rate is so high. If these players aren’t struggling to learn the game, they’re surely crumbling under the lofty expectations bestowed upon them for being high draft picks.

What’s interesting about this particular debate as it relates to the Lions is that word is they’re trying to trade out of the No. 1 slot so they don’t have to carry the financial burden that comes along with having the top overall pick. But if Detroit is so concerned with the amount of money they’ll have to pay the No. 1 pick, then taking a quarterback or an offensive tackle is unwise.

The top quarterback in last year’s draft was Matt Ryan, who went No. 3 overall to the Falcons. Ryan signed a six-year, $72 million contract that included $34.75 million in guarantees. Jake Long, who was selected No. 1 overall by the Dolphins and who was also the top offensive tackle in last year’s draft, signed a five-year, $57.75 million deal that included $30 million in guarantees. So, whether the Lions drafted Smith or Stafford, they’d still have to commit roughly $12 to $15 million a year towards one of those players.

Some analysts (including me) consider Curry as the best player in the draft and he fits a major need for the Lions. When you factor in that the Lions are worried about the potential cap hit that they would endure in going with either Stafford or Smith, as well as the fact that linebackers have generally been one of the safest positions to draft in the first round, Curry would appear to be a slam dunk for Detroit at No. 1.

By the way, the Jets made Vernon Gholston the top linebacker in the 2008 NFL Draft when they selected him with the No. 6 overall pick. They signed Gholston to a five-year, $32.5 million contract that included $21 million in guarantees. Even though Curry would make more as the No. 1 overall pick, if the Lions selected him they would be looking at a yearly cap hit of roughly $5 to $8 mil less than if they chose Stafford or Smith.

Anthony: I would say so. Star QBs are few and far between, but there’s no guarantee that you’ll find one in the first round. Tom Brady was a seventh round pick, Drew Brees and Brett Favre were second rounders, and Tony Romo and Kurt Warner were undrafted. Obviously Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb and Eli Manning were all first rounders, but there are a ton of first round busts too.

I think star offensive tackles are hard to come by as well because it’s hard to scout them. You can’t just look at their size and say, “Yep – he’s going to be great.” Scouts have to take into account their size, strength, footwork and even their arm reach.

Linebackers, on the other hand, are usually easier to spot. Did they show the ability to shed blocks in college? Are they fast enough to play sideline to sideline? Are they athletic enough to play on third downs and in obvious passing situations? And don’t forget that there are more linebackers to choose from in college, too. Four USC linebackers will be drafted this year and all of them will most likely go in the first three rounds. There’s only one USC quarterback that will be selected.

It’s also easier for teams to recognize what kind of linebacker fits their scheme. USC’s Rey Maualuga can’t play outside linebacker in a 4-3, but he definitely fits as a middle linebacker in that scheme or an inside linebacker in a 3-4. Virginia’s Clint Sintim isn’t a great fit at middle linebacker in a 4-3, but he would make a great strongside ‘backer in that scheme.

So to answer your question – yes, in my opinion, a great tackle and/or quarterback is harder to come by than a great linebacker.

Anthony: It’s all relative. That star tackle has to keep defenders off that good quarterback in order for him to throw 20-30 passes a game. And that great linebacker can turn a game on its head by forcing a turnover, stopping a run in the backfield or making a game-saving tackle.

It’s hard to grade impact on a football field. Every position holds its own value and that’s why football is the ultimate team game. But at the risk of contradicting myself, I guess one could say that a quarterback has the ability to make the biggest impact. After all, the ball is in his hands every play and we’ve all seen what guys like Manning, Brady and Favre can do when they take over a game seemingly on their own. But again, they’re just one cog in the machine.

Anthony: The running back position perplexes me when I look at the numbers you mentioned because, generally speaking, that is one of the easiest positions to learn coming out of college. So why haven’t running backs taken in the first round found much success?

One notion I have revolves around teams focusing too much on the size and speed of a running back prospect and not taking into account how good his vision is. (I’m obviously not talking about his actual vision in terms of being 20/20 or what have you, but him being able to read holes and get up the field.)

Players like T.J. Duckett, Curtis Enis, William Green and Ron Dayne all had the size teams looked for, but clearly lacked the ability to recognize where the holes were so that they could make their cuts and get up field. Teams fell in love with Trung Canidate, John Avery and Michael Bennett’s speed, but all that speed will be neutralized if a back doesn’t have the awareness to get through that initial hole as quickly as he can and get to the next level.

Now look at guys like Warrick Dunn, Shaun Alexander and LaDainian Tomlinson. Do those players have the best combination of size and speed? Nope. Dunn has always been too small, Alexander has never had enough top end speed and LT isn’t the biggest back in the league at 5’10”, 221-pounds. But they all have tremendous vision and that’s what separates them from other backs taken in the first round.

You asked if quarterbacks, wideouts and cornerbacks have higher bust rates than other positions because of the learning curve and I would have to say yes, that’s a huge part of it. Skill position players coming out of college have a hard time adjusting to the speed of the game. Throw in the amount of knowledge they must attain from playbooks and game film – as well as the lofty expectations for being a first round pick – and you create a tough environment for these players to succeed in.

The game of football has always been the same, but the amount of preparation that goes into just one NFL game is unrivaled by any other sport. It’s why fewer than 1,700 players make it on NFL rosters every year.

Anthony: I think these ratings would be very beneficial to a team, assuming of course that they agree with my player rankings. But the thing to keep in mind is that not all of the 32 teams run the same offensive and defensive schemes. So certain prospects don’t appeal to some teams like they do others. That might be an obvious statement, but I don’t want any reader to interpret our discussion and findings as the end all/be all for how to draft a player.

But your mock scenario is a good one, so I’ll play along. If I have the #10 pick in the draft and I have needs at WR, DE and FS, and there are WR, DE and FS prospects that are available and I have them similarly rated, then I’m going with the FS. If I know there’s a 91% chance that I’m going to get a starter at the No. 10 pick and that he filled a need and was high on my board, I would jump at the opportunity. I’ll also throw in the fact that having an impact safety in the NFL is almost becoming a necessity. Look at the safeties in the final four playoff teams last year: Adrian Wilson (Cardinals), Ed Reed (Ravens), Troy Polomalu (Steelers) and Brian Dawkins (Eagles).

Another interesting point of view is the one of a fan. As a fan, I look at these rankings and I hope that my favorite team takes a player in the first round that plays a position that has a high success rate of turning into a starter (i.e. LB, S, G). Granted, most guards aren’t selected in the top 20 and this year’s safety class is weak, but in general, I would want my team to stay away from positions that have a lower success rate.

Anthony: Thanks, this was fun.