Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
89 replies to this topic

#25 carolina-chuck

carolina-chuck

    HORNETS 2014

  • Joined: 11-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,678
  • Reputation: 2,761
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:26 PM

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)

#26 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,136
  • Reputation: 19,490
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:30 PM

So you would have passed on Gross at #8?

#27 carolina-chuck

carolina-chuck

    HORNETS 2014

  • Joined: 11-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,678
  • Reputation: 2,761
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:34 PM

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.

#28 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,709
  • Reputation: 1,166
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:37 PM

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....

#29 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,136
  • Reputation: 19,490
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:38 PM

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.

#30 The Golden Child

The Golden Child

    HUDDLER

  • Joined: 15-January 13
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,848
  • Reputation: 363
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:39 PM

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

#31 carolina-chuck

carolina-chuck

    HORNETS 2014

  • Joined: 11-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,678
  • Reputation: 2,761
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:42 PM

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.

#32 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,709
  • Reputation: 1,166
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:42 PM

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....

#33 LinvilleGorge

LinvilleGorge

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,969
  • Reputation: 4,588
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:44 PM

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.

#34 carolina-chuck

carolina-chuck

    HORNETS 2014

  • Joined: 11-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,678
  • Reputation: 2,761
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:45 PM

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".

#35 carolina-chuck

carolina-chuck

    HORNETS 2014

  • Joined: 11-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,678
  • Reputation: 2,761
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:48 PM

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.

#36 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,709
  • Reputation: 1,166
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:49 PM

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....