Jump to content

If There Were One Choice Of A Line To Fix For Next Season - Ol Or Dl?


Theyhateme : )
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Anyone see Brady's TD to Gronk yesterday? He literally did not move in the pocket. He dropped back and stood completely still for 5 secs! I have NEVER seen Ryan have that much time. Pats were smart to make sure they pay the guys that protect the guy they pay billions.

It's like we hired Gary Coleman to be the Rock's bodyguard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone see Brady's TD to Gronk yesterday? He literally did not move in the pocket. He dropped back and stood completely still for 5 secs! I have NEVER seen Ryan have that much time. Pats were smart to make sure they pay the guys that protect the guy they pay billions.

It's like we hired Gary Coleman to be the Rock's bodyguard.

And the Patriots pretty much just pay Brady and his linemen. They get by with B-level receivers and an average defense.

I just want a stonewall line, imagine the possbilities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both can be fixed though, no need to choose either or. You can draft for both sides, you can hire a new D-line coach. You can sign free agents (we'll have plenty of money to do so)...

Right. If I have to choose, I choose DL because there are more holes. But we're AT MOST 2 pieces away from having an o-line that can compete. Not a dominating o-line, but a serviceable one. The same argument could be made for the DL, but on the DL, we need impact players, and those aren't as easy to come by as serviceable plug ins.

If we, say, get Raji in FA, draft Clowney or another impact DE, maybe get another DE/OLB in FA, or maybe just get a 2-gap pig for the middle, we can pressure the QB, allow more blitzes, and do more of what Nolan likes to do. On the OL, if we get improved play at RG and RT, we are in much better shape.

We can do both. But if I have to choose, DL because it's a much bigger project and a much bigger liability on the field right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team is built to have the offense carry the load so the O-line is a priority. Gain a decent lead, force oppossing teams to be 1-D with passes and make it easier on the D.

With Hawley at C, all we need is a RG(2nd round) and RT(FA) to fix the O-line.

D-line: Draft Clowney, resign Babs/Peters and sign DT in FA.

Two draft picks and two FAs will make this team a force again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team is built to have the offense carry the load so the O-line is a priority. Gain a decent lead, force oppossing teams to be 1-D with passes and make it easier on the D.

With Hawley at C, all we need is a RG(2nd round) and RT(FA) to fix the O-line.

D-line: Draft Clowney, resign Babs/Peters and sign DT in FA.

Two draft picks and two FAs will make this team a force again.

I think the only reason Hawley looks decent is because he's been on the team longer and knows the calls/protections. I would still like a solid center that can actually protect our QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most folks are more realistically turning the question into: do you address O or D in first round, since aside from a trade down scenario we only get 1 first round pick for a supposedly elite talent there.

Our team is better with a competent O line even with a poor defense than vice versa. Reaching playoffs and winning there proves we can have success with this strategy.

However, as others point out there does not seem to be an elite OL talent available as a high 1st round pick. You do not draft C or OG or a RT top 10, and we have commitments at LT already. Plus you can use 2d-3d round picks to get quality OL or even free agency. There have been a few pro bowl G and C hit free agency that do not break the bank. But DL or DE free agents are crazy. Haynesworth and Peppers broke some banks. And bargain guys like Ray Edwards did not work out so well.

So the best use of our top pick should be DL or DE, since it would be overdrafting at other positions, or overpaying for elite FA on DL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defensive line. Not close.

The OL will improve with further reps and experience. And enough teams have won Super Bowls with middling-to-bad offensive lines that I think we'd be fine with a poor OL.

Fixing the defensive front would allow us so much more flexibility on the defensive side of the football and it would lead to better play at all three levels.

DL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defensive line. Not close.

The OL will improve with further reps and experience. And enough teams have won Super Bowls with middling-to-bad offensive lines that I think we'd be fine with a poor OL.

Fixing the defensive front would allow us so much more flexibility on the defensive side of the football and it would lead to better play at all three levels.

DL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OL.

Are you serious? "The OL will improve with further reps and experience." Really???

They aren't talented. Baker has been bad for 6 years now. Blalock is solid. Everyone else looks worse than when the season started. We have no talent there. No strength. It breaks the back of our entire team and it's a miracle Ryan isn't injured.

Our offense can't even stay on the field because we can't run and we can't pass. The D gets winded and turns into complete trash because they keep going back out there after we fail on another third down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most folks are more realistically turning the question into: do you address O or D in first round, since aside from a trade down scenario we only get 1 first round pick for a supposedly elite talent there.

Our team is better with a competent O line even with a poor defense than vice versa. Reaching playoffs and winning there proves we can have success with this strategy.

However, as others point out there does not seem to be an elite OL talent available as a high 1st round pick. You do not draft C or OG or a RT top 10, and we have commitments at LT already. Plus you can use 2d-3d round picks to get quality OL or even free agency. There have been a few pro bowl G and C hit free agency that do not break the bank. But DL or DE free agents are crazy. Haynesworth and Peppers broke some banks. And bargain guys like Ray Edwards did not work out so well.

So the best use of our top pick should be DL or DE, since it would be overdrafting at other positions, or overpaying for elite FA on DL.

Exactly this.

We've had a less than favorable DL more times than I can count over the past several years, and still managed to make out okay. This season should be the clearest sign ever that fixing our piss-poor OL is a much more urgent need than the DL, but I wouldn't dare spend a top 5 pick on OL. Not in this draft, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? "The OL will improve with further reps and experience." Really???

They aren't talented. Baker has been bad for 6 years now. Blalock is solid. Everyone else looks worse than when the season started. We have no talent there. No strength. It breaks the back of our entire team and it's a miracle Ryan isn't injured.

Our offense can't even stay on the field because we can't run and we can't pass. The D gets winded and turns into complete trash because they keep going back out there after we fail on another third down

Correction... Baker was good last year... Which was his contract year... And he got PAID!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like to see the DL fixed....I'd have to go with fixing the OL and giving the offense the opportunity to consistently put points on the board.

I'd go with the D-line because as long as Jackson, Quizz, White, and Jones are all healthy, the O-line doesn't need to be elite, they just need to be good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? "The OL will improve with further reps and experience." Really???

They aren't talented. Baker has been bad for 6 years now. Blalock is solid. Everyone else looks worse than when the season started. We have no talent there. No strength. It breaks the back of our entire team and it's a miracle Ryan isn't injured.

Our offense can't even stay on the field because we can't run and we can't pass. The D gets winded and turns into complete trash because they keep going back out there after we fail on another third down

Hear him out Dharm. Pitt beat ARZ with a horrid line and almost beat GB with that same line. If we signed a RT and draft/sign a RG I think we are in business. Matt has to learn how to work the pocket better too. I don't want a high draft pick at LT because they tend to bust more than any other position. Plus I'm scarred by Sackmaster and exKonz

Edited by lju713
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hear him out Dharm. Pitt beat ARZ with a horrid line and almost beat GB with that same line. If we signed a RT and draft/sign a RG I think we are in business. Matt has to learn how to work the pocket better too. I don't want a high draft pick at LT because they tend to bust more than any other position. Plus I'm scarred by Sackmaster and exKonz

Until last year it was impossible to sack Roethlisberger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DL,

offense can still put up points without an ol, we haven't had a real defense since the begining of time.

Like when we scored 17 and 13 against NO. Or how about 10 against Carolina and Seattle. Oh and by the way those are the teams we will be competing with in the NFC over the next 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both can be fixed though, no need to choose either or. You can draft for both sides, you can hire a new D-line coach. You can sign free agents (we'll have plenty of money to do so)...

Man...you give me hope! So having said that, do you think that at the beginning of this season (Falcons letting go FA and clearing up space for Matt's deal) the brass intentionally took one on the chin? I clearly remember TD saying that the extra cap $$ wouldn't be for "shopping" it'll be there for an injury or so.
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


×
×
  • Create New...