Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

2shy

Why not G?

15 posts in this topic

Each year you must play divisional foes. The division has a few young promising DTs(s.ellis, babs in atl, anderson, moore etc). Second round is a GREAT round to pick a top three rated G(sometime the best G goes late 2nd). Makes a strength stronger. There is a opening at the G spot; Key is a FA and old.

y not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each year you must play divisional foes. The division has a few young promising DTs(s.ellis, babs in atl, anderson, moore etc). Second round is a GREAT round to pick a top three rated G(sometime the best G goes late 2nd). Makes a strength stronger. There is a opening at the G spot; Key is a FA and old.

y not?

Duke Robinson is y:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea in house could be the answer. if duke was as good as most say, he would have been starting day one and not inactive for most the yr. mac showed some skills and geoff could slid inside. maybe or draft the #1 rated G that can pull and add another element to run game. i still think it should be consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mac got the nod over Duke on Sunday's because he could back up any of the interior line spots... as far as I know, Duke couldn't swap in at C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea in house could be the answer. if duke was as good as most say, he would have been starting day one and not inactive for most the yr. mac showed some skills and geoff could slid inside. maybe or draft the #1 rated G that can pull and add another element to run game. i still think it should be consider.

duke is very talented just lazy and not in nfl shape. He just got by on his own merits. Hopefully he's ready to step up next season.

I really think WR or DT should be our first priorities, but i would have no problem with an OG or athletic LB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea in house could be the answer. if duke was as good as most say, he would have been starting day one and not inactive for most the yr. mac showed some skills and geoff could slid inside. maybe or draft the #1 rated G that can pull and add another element to run game. i still think it should be consider.

yeah.But fox values experience and vets so he left Vincent at G..D.Robinson was the Best G out of the draft last year.It just depends on what we do with him.Bernadeau could start but then we would need a back up Center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with four spots solid and #5 being a pretty critical run game spot, I'd really prefer putting the two guys with more experience - Bernadeau and Schwartz - in the role and let them fight it out. Loser becomes a top backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to have a young stud in there, as it would lock out OLine up for a number of years baring injuries or people stopping their improvement. However, we drafted the top OG for a power running system last season, so it would seem a touch dramatic to target the top guard in this draft as well.

Also to consider is Mac and Schwartz. They are two absolute workhorses, so if Duke does not pan out, we are going to have a average or better guy who plays hard every play. I think their performance late in the season has shown it is not an immediate need AND we can draft late and still produce.

Address it in the 5th-7th rounds, as most teams are drafting OTs to slide inside these days which means one of the top OGs will slide. We unfortunately have a couple glaring holes that really do need to be addressed first, although if the best value is an OG I would not be displeased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olineman are the easiest position to find gems later in the draft.. it's not worth spending the high pick on one unless you need a surefire starter day 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is everyone getting that Duke was lazy or an underachiever? I don't remember ever seeing/reading anything that even insinuated this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites