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!

     

2013 NFL O-linemen Busts?


Recommended Posts

Some in here knew that I wasn't a big fan of taking an O-lineman in this year draft. Others argued for a Lane Johnson or even DJ Fluker at 14 at times. Am I the only one who's glad we didn't spend a high pick on an OT or even OG this year? Thank God we landed Star.

 

But, my point is even with the many O-linemen taken in the 1st round of this year Draft (9) I expect to see a couple of these linemen bust in the next level. I have nothing against them and am not bashing them, but I view many of these guys as 2nd-3rd rounders. Danny Watkins (Eagles 2011) and Gabe Carimi (Bears 2011) are two guys that are on the edge of being cut just after being high picks two years ago. The two could eventually be cut before the season starts.

 

As much as Mayock and many others liked Eric Fisher and Lane Johnson, I had Fisher as a late 1st and Johnson as a 2nd rounder behind Jake Matthews and Taylor Lewan before the 2012 season ended. I'm no scout expert but that's just my opinion, nor am I being a bit bias bc of the big school (Michigan) vs. small school (Central Michigan). I just believe that if Matthews and Lewan had enter the draft, Matthews could've easily push Joeckel as the top OT in this draft especially with Fisher beating out Joeckel as the no.1 pick. And Lewan would have been the 3rd best OT ahead of Fisher. That would have push a few of these guys into the late 1st and 2nd round. As much as Mayock praised Fisher before the Draft, I would have love to see what Mayock would had said about Matthews or Lewan probably pushing Joeckel as the no.1 overall pick if they had entered.

 

Potential Busts:

(1) Lane Johnson
(2) DJ Fluker

(3) Justin Pugh
(4) Kyle Long

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric Fisher was always the best lineman in the draft. That was evident from the Senior Bowl. The guy dominated. I'm not even sure if domination is the right word for what he did to those guys. He could flat out not get beat.

 

I do agree on Jake Matthews, though. I think he would've been the 2nd pick behind Fisher, and will probably be the #1 OT tackle taken next season (barring anything catastrophic, obviously.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very rare that you get that combination of size, weight and quickness in this world. That is why tackles are valued that much. You take your chances when they come up because you don't know if you will have that opportunity for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As much as Mayock and many others liked Eric Fisher and Lane Johnson, I had Fisher as a late 1st and Johnson as a 2nd rounder behind Jake Matthews and Taylor Lewan before the 2012 season ended.

 

No offense but where you "had them" doesn't mean anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric Fisher was always the best lineman in the draft. That was evident from the Senior Bowl. The guy dominated. I'm not even sure if domination is the right word for what he did to those guys. He could flat out not get beat.

 

I do agree on Jake Matthews, though. I think he would've been the 2nd pick behind Fisher, and will probably be the #1 OT tackle taken next season (barring anything catastrophic, obviously.)

 

I think its pretty hard to say that Fisher is better than Joeckel. On the field, people may like him more bc of his physicality compare to Joeckel. Fisher was the only  OT along with Joeckel that I viewed as a 1st rounder. But if Matthews and Lewan had enter the draft, it would've been hard for Fisher to beat out those two along with Joeckel as the no.1 overall pick. Lewan is a bruiser and very physical guy just like Fisher. And I think Matthews may had been better than Joeckel last year. With his stacked pedigree also, he could've easily push Fisher and Joeckel for that spot. I dont think Fisher would have been taken as the no.1 pick if those two guys had enter, but I do think he'll be a stud unlike Lane and Fluker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very rare that you get that combination of size, weight and quickness in this world. That is why tackles are valued that much. You take your chances when they come up because you don't know if you will have that opportunity for a while.

 

Yea, I agree. And considering the need for one, they have to take one which those teams did. But I think that 2-4 teams may not be as happy as they are today 2-3 years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...