Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The “Deep OT class” may not be as deep at LT in scouts eyes


ncfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tackle is deep for RT and developmental LTs. Day one starters at LT are Sewell & Slater and obviously KC had no shot at them.  They are in 'win-now' mode so no time for a rookie LT to slowly develop. 

Tackle "not being deep" has to be taken with some perspective.  Day one starting LTs?  Nope, only two.  The tackle class overall?  Yes, it has some really good depth.

Edited by 45catfan
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Tackle is deep for RT and developmental LTs. Day one starters at LT are Sewell & Slater and obviously KC had no shot at them.  They are in 'win-now' mode so no time for a rookie LT to slowly develop. 

Tackle "not being deep" has to be taken with some perspective.  Day one starting LTs?  Nope, only two.  The tackle class overall?  Yes, it has some really good depth.

Nails it.  Sewell or slater at 8.   No exceptions.   I also think you can definitely find a starter at corner and safety in the 2nd.  There is no LT in the in the second tier that can come in and start day 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only issue I see with versatility is sometimes we get obsessed with it and it bites us big time. Having a bunch of guys that are capable of 2+ positions can be less viable than a master at one. I hope the mindset is get a legit LT and not a versatile one.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Michael G said:

If Sewell is available at 8 I think its a slam dunk. The big questions are- How much do they like Slater?  How do they rate Darrisaw? Do they like Slater enough to take at #8. Do they like Darrisaw enough to trade back if both he and Slater is available at #8?

If we trade back more than several picks, the staff has to love Darrisaw because Slater will be gone.  Personally, I'm not sold on Darrisaw.  He's not athletic enough for me.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the guys who could play LT in the 2nd are not ideal day 1 starters but does that mean they couldn't beat out what we have on the roster to be a day 1 starter? On a non-contender does it really matter?

Looking at our roster I say yes they could win that competition. We need to be taking a LT in the first 2 rounds and not sweat it at all. A RT playing LT worked great with Gross and would still be an improvement for us, it's why we keep asking to see more of Moton over there the last couple of years lol.

Edited by Waldo
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s really good linemen in this draft, probably about 7-9 after Slater and Sewell in the top-40. Thing is, a lot are just a tad undersized for LT. Sewell and Slater are, then Radunz, Cosmi, Mayfield, etc. 

Darrisaw and Eichenberg have the size. 

Edited by davos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • He's a free agent next year actually. Wish we had the balls to bring him in to compete, looking around the league though he might get a legit starting offer or at least an offer to compete somewhere that he would control his own destiny. 
    • I don't love Bryce Young.  I DO understand his abilities as a QB. I dont expect him to do things that are beyond that. I also dont hold it against him.  The ability to throw 40 yards in with the velocity to take your receivers hands off, doesn't have the impact on the game as people think it does.  I think it's a pretty silly thing to even attempt to debate, when the ones crying about it doesn't add context.   Bryce can and does throw deep.  His last TD to T-Mac was a thing of beauty,   and the ball placement was incredible,  especially for the distance of the throw.  I get it y'all want to talk all day about his physical limitations, rather than look at what he does, and does well.  We wouldn't be playing meaningful football in December without him.  That is a fact.  Bryce doesn't fit the mold of my type of QB, but I don't hold that against him. That is beyond stupid.  
×
×
  • Create New...