Jump to content

G-Dawg Conclusion: We Need Offensive Tackle In 1St Round


g-dawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think the oline is a bigger weakness and more important to the team than the dline.

However if somehow Clowney can be had for a fair price, you take the best player in the draft

Exactly how I feel. I have much more faith in some of the younger guys on D like Mass stepping up than I do for let's say Holmes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

We need an impact player on defense with our first pick. But it doesn't matter what we think.

just the general level of competancy is better in the interior with Soliai and Tyson Jackson - they will make the edge rushers maybe 10% better just by their abilities to push the pocket from inside - neither Soliai nor Jackson are big pass rushers but they can occupy blockers to free up other guys like Mass, Bierrman, Osi and whomever we draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just the general level of competancy is better in the interior with Soliai and Tyson Jackson - they will make the edge rushers maybe 10% better just by their abilities to push the pocket from inside - neither Soliai nor Jackson are big pass rushers but they can occupy blockers to free up other guys like Mass, Bierrman, Osi and whomever we draft.

We can only hope.. I'm sick of having a bad defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly how I feel. I have much more faith in some of the younger guys on D like Mass stepping up than I do for let's say Holmes.

not just that, but we added TWO significant player on defensive line(Soliai/Jackson) and only one on offensive line(Asamoah).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are not realizing what Tony was doing for our offense. I think this is going to be a retooling or re make of our offense, because without Tony it changes a lot. We were really spreading out the defenses with these players, without all 3 of them the teams are going to attack us differently. They will go after the QB and take more chances with getting hands on Ryan. We know we are going to switch some things up with more inline TEs and going back to more traditional pro style offense, with relying on running game and blocking and forcing teams to try and beat us rather than us finessing them to death. We tried with the finesse way and almost got there, and thats a great testament to our recievers, but this game is still won at the core of the lines. I think we are going to go back for that, and ****, we can find tons of reasons why we should get clowney, wont be this high in draft again, etc etc. Can get tackle in later rounds, all of this is true, but I think our offense is nowhere near what it was without Tony, and the coaches know this, so we are going to have to retool as much as possible, while getting CLowney can def change the defense and how we play on that side of the ball, I think we just need too many players on the Off than we think we do, probably several more. I am not against getting the Clown, and really want to see him on our team, but I just think the offense will sputter if we do not focus on the running game and stop putting so much pressure on Julio and Roddy. Julio is not that durable and we need him healthy. We have to run the ball and we need FB another RB and probably another guard in the later rounds plus a top tackle.

If we keep all of our picks, we have 4 in top 100, which if you look at top 100 players can def get 4 starters here if you are lucky and draft well, I think you will see us draft 2 Olineman a FB and another RB/ inline TE. Tonys preformaance may not seemed like he was making that much of a diff but teams were playing us a different way than they will this year, they are going to attack us even more this year.

Tony was never a field-stretcher. Tony was good at winning his one-on-one matchups, which is all we really need from receiving options 3, 4, & 5. That's the essence of the pass attack. Toward the end of the season, the tackles looked bad because the (right) guards were just as bad, if not worse. They, so far, have remedied the guard play, in hopes that the terrible line play becomes better next year. I don't think that gets salvaged with Baker (even if he is healthy), but I think the FO does, and the contract he was given reflects that. Then, on the other side, they've loaded up with a school-bus full of people to compete at RT. I'm not saying they will, but if they add to this by drafting a tackle, it will be very confusing to me. In recent years, we have gotten by with mediocre to terrible line play, only to have the defense swiss cheese it up. this year, everyone was bad. That said, I think the more pressing need is on the D-Line, especially given that there is more talent there this year. All of the tackles are question marks in at least one aspect. I think it's easier to give Bryan Cox good talent than it is to have Tice and staff develop an aspect of a player's game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam Baker's cap hit is takeable next year without much damage to salary cap. If he gets hurt again this year, then he will be cut in 2015. Spoon may be allowed to walk next year - which means one of our players that was supposed to be an impact player(but wasn't) is also gone. On top of that, now our 2015 1st round pick is gone. That is a lot to potentially replace in 2015 without the benefit of a 1st round pick.

I dont see how everyone is so comfortable drafting a RT in the second/third round. We also drafted Konz and Holmes in the same rounds. Baker gets injured again and out starting tackles are Holmes and Schraeder once more.

If we trade for Clowney might as well not draft a tackle period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at this point, does not really matter what any of us think - we might have the #1 pick by next Friday. I am excited regardless which direction we go. If we end up with Clowney, Mack, Robinson, Matthews or Lewan - I will find the positive and move on.

The positive for me would be to still have our draft and future drafts intact after

we make the pick. The 6th pick in this draft should be able to help us and

with our other picks through the top 4 rounds we should be up to strength.

5th round on is where you can gamble on talent and hope to hit on a couple

keepers.

Edited by HOYLE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see how everyone is so comfortable drafting a RT in the second/third round. We also drafted Konz and Holmes in the same rounds. Baker gets injured again and out starting tackles are Holmes and Schraeder once more.

If we trade for Clowney might as well not draft a tackle period.

i dunno......if Juwuan James makes it to #3-068, he would be a great pick - played RT at Tennessee but the scouts think he is better than Antonio "Tiny" Richardson and says that James has "left tackle" feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dunno......if Juwuan James makes it to #3-068, he would be a great pick - played RT at Tennessee but the scouts think he is better than Antonio "Tiny" Richardson and says that James has "left tackle" feet.

a pipe dream really. I think Richardson has a better shot to be there at 68.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see how everyone is so comfortable drafting a RT in the second/third round. We also drafted Konz and Holmes in the same rounds. Baker gets injured again and out starting tackles are Holmes and Schraeder once more.

If we trade for Clowney might as well not draft a tackle period.

I'm torn between "Do we try to keep up with Brees/Payton...or do we try and get them off the field". I know it's not mutually exclusive, but dayum...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I would love to get Clowney and think he's worth a trade up, based on the status of the team, staying put and grabbing one of the OTs makes the most sense. I'm hoping it's Matthews, but would obviously like Robinson as well - Lewan is third on my list. We need help in a few starting positions, not to mention depth. However, I don't think TD will be keeping the 10 picks, in fact I don't think that's possible with his penchant for trading up. If we do trade up and lose picks, there is even more pressure that TD and company hits on the remaining selections, unlike previous years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree. I cant count how many times I have watched a Pats game and said out loud "If only Matt had that much time in the pocket." Unless you watch other teams, you really dont know how bad our O-line is.

Edited by Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think we need a tackle in the 1st. We could still draft a RT in the 2nd.

The key here is having that 2nd which would likely be gone if we trade up for Clowney. I'd have no problem with Mack at 6 and a OT with our second rounder. But if Mack isn't there, I'd go OT. Not sold on Barr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PokerSteve conclusion to G-Dawg Conclusion: G-Dawg seriously over-thought the situation and came to way-wrong conclusion.

We probably don't need an OT at all. We have OT's coming out the you-know-what. Baker is back. You remember Baker, don't you? The guy who is our starting LT under a large, long-term contract? The same Baker who has been GUARANTEED to return to his starting job by current Falcons HC Mike Smith? Yeah, that Sam Baker. And RT? We got so many RT's you can't swing a dead cat around on a short rope without hitting one of them. We're going to just write them all off en mass as busts, despite the fact some of the more promising candidates have yet to play their first down or attend their first practice with the team?

Does not compute. You want more OT's? Get another one or two in rounds 4-7 then. Pick up a couple more FA's after camp cuts, but don't blow our top pick of this year's draft on an offensive tackle! We have to have a legit pass rush, led by a player who is capable of double-digit sacks, who is capable of winning games single-handedly with his ability to disrupt plays, cause fumbles and destroy QB's. That's way more important to the overall success of this football team than getting another OT who might, MIGHT give Matt Ryan another half-second to complete a 2- or 3-yard pass, which is about the usual length of pass play we run with our no-score, grind-it-out offense. We don't need a #6 OT to provide an extra nano-second to get off a pass play that takes .000003 nanoseconds to complete anyway, dawg.

I anxiously await your next post/mock which indicates you have recovered the full use of your mental faculties and have irrevocably retracted your well-meant but misguided first-round OT conclusion.

Sincerely,

PokerSteve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PokerSteve conclusion to G-Dawg Conclusion: G-Dawg seriously over-thought the situation and came to way-wrong conclusion.

We probably don't need an OT at all. We have OT's coming out the you-know-what. Baker is back. You remember Baker, don't you? The guy who is our starting LT under a large, long-term contract? The same Baker who has been GUARANTEED to return to his starting job by current Falcons HC Mike Smith? Yeah, that Sam Baker. And RT? We got so many RT's you can't swing a dead cat around on a short rope without hitting one of them. We're going to just write them all off en mass as busts, despite the fact some of the more promising candidates have yet to play their first down or attend their first practice with the team?

Does not compute. You want more OT's? Get another one or two in rounds 4-7 then. Pick up a couple more FA's after camp cuts, but don't blow our top pick of this year's draft on an offensive tackle! We have to have a legit pass rush, led by a player who is capable of double-digit sacks, who is capable of winning games single-handedly with his ability to disrupt plays, cause fumbles and destroy QB's. That's way more important to the overall success of this football team than getting another OT who might, MIGHT give Matt Ryan another half-second to complete a 2- or 3-yard pass, which is about the usual length of pass play we run with our no-score, grind-it-out offense. We don't need a #6 OT to provide an extra nano-second to get off a pass play that takes .000003 nanoseconds to complete anyway, dawg.

I anxiously await your next post/mock which indicates you have recovered the full use of your mental faculties and have irrevocably retracted your well-meant but misguided first-round OT conclusion.

Sincerely,

PokerSteve

I anxiously await the names of these bad *** OT we decided not to use last year because we wanted to get our starting QB killed and an early draft pick.

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...