Greg Little vs series..

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, trucpfan said:

Hopefully we can execute our simple dump offs which are like extended run plays for us. Drop back dump it off let CMC scurry for about 7-10 yards seems like a solution to his run blocking deficiencies. Our RPO blocking usually mirrors running and passing so once he’s engaged if Cam hands it off hopefully he’s already blocking if Cam throws it not much to worry about bc his pass blocking is his strong suit.

We are also going to see a LOT of new or returning faces on that OL. IF Little ends up starting, it may not be as big of a deal if he is a weak run blocker as long as the other 4 are strong. 

I also don't think it is anywhere near a given that Little starts at LT next year. Probably one of the most interesting stories this offseason for me is who we put where on that OL. Outside of Turner and Paradis, those other spots seem to be up for grabs.

[Black&BlueBubba]

For the health and success of our team I would rather have Little competent at pass pro and needing work on run blocking.  That is the easier of the 2 to coach up. And won’t get our QB killed in the meantime.  In the short term we can scheme around the run blocking.  He has the skill set to be an adequate run blocker. Just hoping Matsko works his magic quick.  

[MasterAwesome]

27 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Then it should be easy. Who that hadn’t already passed on him was trading up? 

The Rams could have stayed put at 45 (instead of trading to NE) to take Little to groom behind Whitworth for a year, since he’s old as hell and is a FA next season. Probably would have been an ideal situation to ease him into the starting position, after learning from one of the best.

The draft is such a fluid and complex process...every move causes ripple effects and impacts subsequent moves. It’s virtually impossible, even with hindsight, to predict how things would have unfolded even if you alter just one move.

[Toomers]

7 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

The Rams could have stayed put at 45 (instead of trading to NE) to take Little to groom behind Whitworth for a year, since he’s old as hell and is a FA next season. Probably would have been an ideal situation to ease him into the starting position, after learning from one of the best.

The draft is such a fluid and complex process...every move causes ripple effects and impacts subsequent moves. It’s virtually impossible, even with hindsight, to predict how things would have unfolded even if you alter just one move.

So one team possibly, maybe might have. Even though that same team passed on Little 6 picks earlier. Sure why not? 

[trucpfan]

25 minutes ago, Toomers said:

So one team possibly, maybe might have. Even though that same team passed on Little 6 picks earlier. Sure why not? 

So the Bills trading up to take the best available tackle left means what to you? If Little was there you trying to say they would’ve traded up and passed on him? We don’t know teams draft boards the broncos took a tackle at 45 ish you think they would’ve passed on a better rated tackle to take the guy they drafted cone on now you’re arguing to make your point while leaving out obvious scenarios. He would have been drafted before 47 based on how it played out.

[kungfoodude]

7 minutes ago, trucpfan said:

So the Bills trading up to take the best available tackle left means what to you? If Little was there you trying to say they would’ve traded up and passed on him? 

If you had watched the video, you will clearly see the Bills trying to trade up to get Ford. Then you will see them celebrate when we take Little instead of Ford. The Bills were not likely to take Little. 

[MasterAwesome]

32 minutes ago, Toomers said:

So one team possibly, maybe might have. Even though that same team passed on Little 6 picks earlier. Sure why not? 

Lol why are you stating “possibly, maybe might have” as if to be dismissive. Are you really looking for absolute concrete empirical fact that a team would DEFINITELY beyond any doubt have taken Little before our pick? I wish I had known that’s where your bar was so I could have abstained from even engaging in the impossible. If you posit a hypothetical scenario, then generally you’re going to be met with an answer based on inductive rather than deductive reasoning.

-”Hey if you decided to major in Aerospace Engineering rather than Theater Arts, would you be making more money now?”

-“Well...the median salary for Aerospace Engineering is virtually double that of Theater Arts majors, so it is very likely...”

-“Psh okay maybe possibly....but do you KNOW though...?”

What kind of answer are you looking for?

And why would it be hard to believe if the Rams thought Little was worth a mid-second round pick but not a late first-round pick? There is a pretty drastic difference in value between the two. Generally if a team trades down at the end of the first (as they did), that’s because they don’t find as much value there and think they could get someone comparable with a later pick.

Also, refer to the second paragraph of my original post.

[Toomers]

31 minutes ago, trucpfan said:

So the Bills trading up to take the best available tackle left means what to you? If Little was there you trying to say they would’ve traded up and passed on him? We don’t know teams draft boards the broncos took a tackle at 45 ish you think they would’ve passed on a better rated tackle to take the guy they drafted cone on now you’re arguing to make your point while leaving out obvious scenarios. He would have been drafted before 47 based on how it played out.

The Bills have a LT already. Why would they take Little as opposed to a more versatile RT/G. Little isn’t playing those positions. 

The Broncos took a player that plays everything BUT LT. Or is that not obvious enough?  

 I can just as easily show and back up that he would have been there at 47. No team needed a LT. They had all passed on him once. Those are the facts. Everything else is hypothetical. 

[Peppers90 NC]

1 minute ago, Toomers said:

The Bills have a LT already. Why would they take Little as opposed to a more versatile RT/G. Little isn’t playing those positions. 

The Broncos took a player that plays everything BUT LT. Or is that not obvious enough?  

 I can just as easily show and back up that he would have been there at 47. No team needed a LT. They had all passed on him once. Those are the facts. Everything else is hypothetical. 

Assuming no team who liked Little wouldn't have traded up ahead of us or no team in between wouldn't have drafted Little is also a hypothetical.

Regardless, whether you agree with them or not, our FO had a first round grade on Little and may have even reached further to draft him at 16 if Burns wasn't there (thankfully that wasn't the case). So in their(FO) eyes, trading #47 and #77 for a top 20 guy is a no-brainer. Again, I am not saying you have to agree with that placed value, but you can see why to them the trade was justified. Of course I would have preferred to get him at 47 while keeping 77 to get another need, but it is hard to argue with their thinking either, knowing they valued Little that highly. They essentially got two guys they considered at #16 and that is a win.

[Navy_football]

Just watched the videos posted in this thread. What I see is a smart LT. He's not physically imposing but he knows where and how he can give up leverage without giving up a play. This is huge since you'll inevitably lose on plays in the NFL, but it's important to minimize your loses. I guess that comes from playing the same position for an extended period of time - you understand the nuisances of the position. I wouldn't move him to Guard - ever. Let him play LT and adjust to the NFLs speed and physicality. He'll be fine. I hate when this team brings in Lineman and DBs to play a position they've never really played before. A CB is not a Safety, an OG is not an OT, and a DT is definitely not a damn starting RT in the NFL!

[trucpfan]

47 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

If you had watched the video, you will clearly see the Bills trying to trade up to get Ford. Then you will see them celebrate when we take Little instead of Ford. The Bills were not likely to take Little. 

Just watched the video Beane’s putting in work I was happy to see that. But I as everyone keeps stating he was the only pure LT left what would we do with Ford is my question? They thought we were taking Ford and started pouting that was hilarious. We’ll definitely see how this plays out this year and years to come being  they were both coveted in the same manner but by two different teams. 

[Toomers]

25 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Lol why are you stating “possibly, maybe might have” as if to be dismissive. Are you really looking for absolute concrete empirical fact that a team would DEFINITELY beyond any doubt have taken Little before our pick? I wish I had known that’s where your bar was so I could have abstained from even engaging in the impossible. If you posit a hypothetical scenario, then generally you’re going to be met with an answer based on inductive rather than deductive reasoning.

-”Hey if you decided to major in Aerospace Engineering rather than Theater Arts, would you be making more money now?”

-“Well...the median salary for Aerospace Engineering is virtually double that of Theater Arts majors, so it is very likely...”

-“Psh okay maybe possibly....but do you KNOW though...?”

What kind of answer are you looking for?

And why would it be hard to believe if the Rams thought Little was worth a mid-second round pick but not a late first-round pick? There is a pretty drastic difference in value between the two. Generally if a team trades down at the end of the first (as they did), that’s because they don’t find as much value there and think they could get someone comparable with a later pick.

Also, refer to the second paragraph of my original post.

I’m Dismissive? Coming from someone who tries to dismiss any slightest issue with how this team is run. With almost every post. Or when you do that is it OK? Then when I question you about what these specific “hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty” were, poof you disappear. Instantly. 

  I posted a legit reason for your scenario not being likely. Why would LA pass on him at 31? But your made up hypothetical is much more valid...lol.

Maybe you could point me to the trade where LA traded DOWN in the 1st round. Or is this something else you made up to support your BS? Throw out another diatribe based on a lie. Rape a thesaurus? Rinse. Repeat. 

 

[mc52beast]

No doubt he has the talent and athleticism, will he put in the work it’s going to take to make him a really good OT is the question.

And of course there is the question about him being “soft”, that he doesn’t finish guys off. I think working with Matsko will do wonders for him.

[Toomers]

26 minutes ago, Peppers90 NC said:

Assuming no team who liked Little wouldn't have traded up ahead of us or no team in between wouldn't have drafted Little is also a hypothetical.

Regardless, whether you agree with them or not, our FO had a first round grade on Little and may have even reached further to draft him at 16 if Burns wasn't there (thankfully that wasn't the case). So in their(FO) eyes, trading #47 and #77 for a top 20 guy is a no-brainer. Again, I am not saying you have to agree with that placed value, but you can see why to them the trade was justified. Of course I would have preferred to get him at 47 while keeping 77 to get another need, but it is hard to argue with their thinking either, knowing they valued Little that highly. They essentially got two guys they considered at #16 and that is a win.

   Them having a mid 1st round grade on Little is part of the problem, not the answer. 

  And if we don’t throw away our next pick, it would have been much easier to understand. But doing both, with holes still there, made no sense.