Archived

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

My case to why we should not take an OT at 14

90 posts in this topic

Posted

With a rookie 1st round pick (#8 overall) starting at RT.

That is irony.

Sure, just like Bulaga with GB or Solder with NE.

LT: Steussie (1st, FA)

LG: Jeno (6th)

C: Mitchell (5th, FA)

LG: Donalley (3rd, FA)

RT: Gross (1st)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So you would have passed on Gross at #8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's probably already been said, but this is a really poor comparison. Not well thought out at all. All the teams that struggled with a first round LT have one thing in common. Shitty, or average QB play. Outside of the Texans (and I would say Schaubb is just above average), every single one of them had questionable Quarterbacks. The difference is we have arguably one of the ten best Quarterbacks in the game. Protecting him with a franchise LT would not only be a very smart investment, it would also lead to better play from Cam and the rest of the offense.....

Stafford, Romo, Cutler, Garrad? Above average.

Most of the teams have something in common also. That is, they lacked playmakers while drafting a franchise OTs. Can't blame some of them bc it was a need. But for us, OT is not in our Top5 needs.

The point is, it doesn't matter how great a franchise LT or OT in general you have. If you don't have people who can score points for you, you're not going to win a lot of games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Stafford, Romo, Cutler, Garrad? Above average.

Most of the teams have something in common also. That is, the lacked playmakers while drafting a franchise OT. Can't blame some of them bc it was a need. But for us, OT is not in our Top5 needs.

Stafford is definitely not above average. Romo and Cutler are debatable with all the gaffs they have. Garrad....meh, he's not a QB that's going to take over games. My point was the teams that had Quarterbacks that can take over games and added a franchise OT, the results speak for themselves. I'm not saying we should absolutely draft an OT with our first pick, because that's just ridiculous. I'm saying I don't understand why some people don't think we need one, or don't think they're that important....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Stafford, Romo, Cutler, Garrad? Above average.

Most of the teams have something in common also. That is, they lacked playmakers while drafting a franchise OTs. Can't blame some of them bc it was a need. But for us, OT is not in our Top5 needs.

The point is, it doesn't matter how great a franchise LT or OT in general you have. If you don't have people who can score points for you, you're not going to win a lot of games.

If you can't protect your playmakers you aren't gonna score points or win games either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I give you credit for the research but I can't say I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So you would have passed on Gross at #8?

I wouldn't have. In those days it was a run heavy league. RT was a need in 2003. OT isn't a huge need in 2013.

If we were redoing the 2003 Draft next month based on our needs today, at no.8 I would have to pass on Gross for Kevin Williams or Troy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The point is, it doesn't matter how great a franchise LT or OT in general you have. If you don't have people who can score points for you, you're not going to win a lot of games.

There are Wide Receivers who can play that will be available with our second round pick. If Lane Johnson was on the board it would be asinine to pass him up barring some ridiculous trade down or a guy like Star/Milliner on the board as well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wouldn't have. In those days it was a run heavy league.

You're not gonna have much success in a pass heavy offense when your QB is flat on his back looking out of his helmet's ear hole having trouble remembering his own name after being sacked for the 6th time that game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There are Wide Receivers who can play that will be available with our second round pick. If Lane Johnson was on the board it would be asinine to pass him up barring some ridiculous trade down or a guy like Star/Milliner on the board as well....

I would clearly use Lane as a bait to trade down. I would not take him at all, just me personally.

Now, if a Star or Milliner were to be there we'd be stupid to pass on them. Theyre "needs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're not gonna have much success in a pass heavy offense when your QB is flat on his back looking out of his helmet's ear hole having trouble remembering his own name after being sacked for the 6th time that game.

If your whole reason to why we should take a Lane Johnson at 14 is to move Bell at RG and Gross to LT, please stop now. I think Rivera have made it clear that Bell will be a RT.

Like many other times, the only way I would not be oppose to take an OT in the 1st is if we parted ways with Gross. When OT actually becomes a NEED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would clearly use Lane as a bait to trade down. I would not take him at all, just me personally.

Now, if a Star or Milliner were to be there we'd be stupid to pass on them. Theyre "needs".

So just because it's not an immediate need (but will be within the next year or two) it's not worth addressing? I just don't buy that. Outside of Star or Milliner, Lane Johnson would be the BPA on our big board if he was there at 14. He's a legitimate top five to seven pick for a reason. I hope it would take a pretty big trade offer to move out of the spot if he was there. LT is a premium position, and the players are paid that way for a reason....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites