Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

UnOfficial Tank For Luke Joeckel Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Philadelphia Eagles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
oland11


Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 7716
Location: South Central PA
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remixxxxxxx wrote:
You should never tank for an offensive lineman.


So what if this OL is Walter Jones? Or Orlando Pace? Bob Brown? But when the top OL is worth a 7-15th pick...Thats when you shouldn't be tanking unless you know you're going to end up right in the middle of that.
_________________
Rock Climbing is life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5587
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OL is not a sexy position and I agree with the premise that you don't tank for one. I also agree that a stud QB will get you much farther than a stud OT. With that said, dingo is 100% correct, you draft the player, not the position. If there is no top QB available (or you don't need one), there is nothing wrong with drafting the most talented OL. They can help your impact players to have more impact.

The idea that Miami and Cleveland haven't won anything because they drafted OL high (to build around? No. Maybe the line, but not the entire offense) is patently absurd. It's because they failed to follow up those picks with impact skill players.

It's not the order you acquire the players in (though having a set OL can significantly help the development of a young QB - see David Carr), it's that you actually acquire those players.

All that said, the only guy I'd really be interested in using a top 5 pick on is Smith. If Foles continues to develop to the point where he looks like he could be the guy, then I don't mind winning games and getting a lesser pick. In that situation, in this draft trading down would be the answer.

Another thing people are ignoring here (mostly, anyway) is picking a CB. If Foles looks good or Smith is off the board, beefing up the lagging secondary could be a good move.

I wouldn't hate taking an OT in the 1st, but I'm with others on the opinion that the team needs depth/future starters on the OL rather than immediate ones with the injured players that should be back.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oland11


Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 7716
Location: South Central PA
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killdawabbit wrote:
OL is not a sexy position and I agree with the premise that you don't tank for one. I also agree that a stud QB will get you much farther than a stud OT. With that said, dingo is 100% correct, you draft the player, not the position. If there is no top QB available (or you don't need one), there is nothing wrong with drafting the most talented OL. They can help your impact players to have more impact.

The idea that Miami and Cleveland haven't won anything because they drafted OL high (to build around? No. Maybe the line, but not the entire offense) is patently absurd. It's because they failed to follow up those picks with impact skill players.

It's not the order you acquire the players in (though having a set OL can significantly help the development of a young QB - see David Carr), it's that you actually acquire those players.

All that said, the only guy I'd really be interested in using a top 5 pick on is Smith. If Foles continues to develop to the point where he looks like he could be the guy, then I don't mind winning games and getting a lesser pick. In that situation, in this draft trading down would be the answer.

Another thing people are ignoring here (mostly, anyway) is picking a CB. If Foles looks good or Smith is off the board, beefing up the lagging secondary could be a good move.

I wouldn't hate taking an OT in the 1st, but I'm with others on the opinion that the team needs depth/future starters on the OL rather than immediate ones with the injured players that should be back.


And this, my good friend, is why you win arguments with PE.

Hats off to you.
_________________
Rock Climbing is life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
babyatemydingo


Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 6877
Location: South Jersey
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killdawabbit wrote:
OL is not a sexy position and I agree with the premise that you don't tank for one. I also agree that a stud QB will get you much farther than a stud OT. With that said, dingo is 100% correct, you draft the player, not the position. If there is no top QB available (or you don't need one), there is nothing wrong with drafting the most talented OL. They can help your impact players to have more impact.

The idea that Miami and Cleveland haven't won anything because they drafted OL high (to build around? No. Maybe the line, but not the entire offense) is patently absurd. It's because they failed to follow up those picks with impact skill players.

It's not the order you acquire the players in (though having a set OL can significantly help the development of a young QB - see David Carr), it's that you actually acquire those players.

All that said, the only guy I'd really be interested in using a top 5 pick on is Smith. If Foles continues to develop to the point where he looks like he could be the guy, then I don't mind winning games and getting a lesser pick. In that situation, in this draft trading down would be the answer.

Another thing people are ignoring here (mostly, anyway) is picking a CB. If Foles looks good or Smith is off the board, beefing up the lagging secondary could be a good move.

I wouldn't hate taking an OT in the 1st, but I'm with others on the opinion that the team needs depth/future starters on the OL rather than immediate ones with the injured players that should be back.


You had me at, "dingo is 100% correct."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5587
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

babyatemydingo wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
OL is not a sexy position and I agree with the premise that you don't tank for one. I also agree that a stud QB will get you much farther than a stud OT. With that said, dingo is 100% correct, you draft the player, not the position. If there is no top QB available (or you don't need one), there is nothing wrong with drafting the most talented OL. They can help your impact players to have more impact.

The idea that Miami and Cleveland haven't won anything because they drafted OL high (to build around? No. Maybe the line, but not the entire offense) is patently absurd. It's because they failed to follow up those picks with impact skill players.

It's not the order you acquire the players in (though having a set OL can significantly help the development of a young QB - see David Carr), it's that you actually acquire those players.

All that said, the only guy I'd really be interested in using a top 5 pick on is Smith. If Foles continues to develop to the point where he looks like he could be the guy, then I don't mind winning games and getting a lesser pick. In that situation, in this draft trading down would be the answer.

Another thing people are ignoring here (mostly, anyway) is picking a CB. If Foles looks good or Smith is off the board, beefing up the lagging secondary could be a good move.

I wouldn't hate taking an OT in the 1st, but I'm with others on the opinion that the team needs depth/future starters on the OL rather than immediate ones with the injured players that should be back.


You had me at, "dingo is 100% correct."



You sexy beast, you.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BBIB


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 8771
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remixxxxxxx wrote:
You should never tank for an offensive lineman.


Normally you shouldn't tank for an Olinemen. But if the Eagles land with the top pick they aren't like most horrible teams that are completely rebuilding that get that pick

Eagles could really just be a few pieces away. With Luke Joeckel added to Jason Peters, Herremans and Kelce the Eagles all of a sudden have a top notch Oline

And with the skill players they have offensive with DeSean Jackson, Maclin, Celek, McCoy, and Bryce Brown that's one of the most amazing offenses in the NFL. You wouldn't even need an elite QB with a squad like that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EaglesFan5-36-81


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 14558
Location: Sky is the limit and Space is the place
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BBIB wrote:
Remixxxxxxx wrote:
You should never tank for an offensive lineman.


Normally you shouldn't tank for an Olinemen. But if the Eagles land with the top pick they aren't like most horrible teams that are completely rebuilding that get that pick

Eagles could really just be a few pieces away. With Luke Joeckel added to Jason Peters, Herremans and Kelce the Eagles all of a sudden have a top notch Oline

And with the skill players they have offensive with DeSean Jackson, Maclin, Celek, McCoy, and Bryce Brown that's one of the most amazing offenses in the NFL. You wouldn't even need an elite QB with a squad like that


If you re-sign Jake Scott, all of a sudden your 2013-14 OL next is:

Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Scott-Herremans

Meaning Joeckel would be a backup. You don't draft depth in the first round, and especially in the top 10. Its a poor premise at its core and makes absolutley no sense. Even if he's not re-signed, Kelly has looked solid at RT, and you can line up Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Herremans-Kelly.

Drafting Joeckel at this point is dumb, especially when what you need is a developmental guy, and there are plenty from round 3 on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5587
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EaglesFan5-36-81 wrote:
BBIB wrote:
Remixxxxxxx wrote:
You should never tank for an offensive lineman.


Normally you shouldn't tank for an Olinemen. But if the Eagles land with the top pick they aren't like most horrible teams that are completely rebuilding that get that pick

Eagles could really just be a few pieces away. With Luke Joeckel added to Jason Peters, Herremans and Kelce the Eagles all of a sudden have a top notch Oline

And with the skill players they have offensive with DeSean Jackson, Maclin, Celek, McCoy, and Bryce Brown that's one of the most amazing offenses in the NFL. You wouldn't even need an elite QB with a squad like that


If you re-sign Jake Scott, all of a sudden your 2013-14 OL next is:

Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Scott-Herremans

Meaning Joeckel would be a backup. You don't draft depth in the first round, and especially in the top 10. Its a poor premise at its core and makes absolutley no sense. Even if he's not re-signed, Kelly has looked solid at RT, and you can line up Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Herremans-Kelly.

Drafting Joeckel at this point is dumb, especially when what you need is a developmental guy, and there are plenty from round 3 on.


I'd say a couple of developmental guys. Peters, Mathis, and Herremans are all around thirty-ish and the Eagles' depth there is pretty awful (as we all have seen).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Remixxxxxxx


Joined: 06 Mar 2009
Posts: 12338
Location: E808 on the avi; P90 on the sig
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not saying not to draft Joeckel, but if you're going full tank mode for anyone besides a quarterback, you're doing it wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EaglesFan5-36-81


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 14558
Location: Sky is the limit and Space is the place
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killdawabbit wrote:
EaglesFan5-36-81 wrote:
BBIB wrote:
Remixxxxxxx wrote:
You should never tank for an offensive lineman.


Normally you shouldn't tank for an Olinemen. But if the Eagles land with the top pick they aren't like most horrible teams that are completely rebuilding that get that pick

Eagles could really just be a few pieces away. With Luke Joeckel added to Jason Peters, Herremans and Kelce the Eagles all of a sudden have a top notch Oline

And with the skill players they have offensive with DeSean Jackson, Maclin, Celek, McCoy, and Bryce Brown that's one of the most amazing offenses in the NFL. You wouldn't even need an elite QB with a squad like that


If you re-sign Jake Scott, all of a sudden your 2013-14 OL next is:

Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Scott-Herremans

Meaning Joeckel would be a backup. You don't draft depth in the first round, and especially in the top 10. Its a poor premise at its core and makes absolutley no sense. Even if he's not re-signed, Kelly has looked solid at RT, and you can line up Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Herremans-Kelly.

Drafting Joeckel at this point is dumb, especially when what you need is a developmental guy, and there are plenty from round 3 on.


I'd say a couple of developmental guys. Peters, Mathis, and Herremans are all around thirty-ish and the Eagles' depth there is pretty awful (as we all have seen).



Sure, but again, you don't draft a developmental OL in the first round. Especially when you can end up with Reid Fragel, Xavier Nixon, Earl Watford, and others from the 4th on who have a ton of upside. No need to draft Joeckel if he's not going to make an immediate impact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oland11


Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 7716
Location: South Central PA
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remixxxxxxx wrote:
I'm not saying not to draft Joeckel, but if you're going full tank mode for anyone besides a quarterback, you're doing it wrong.


I wouldn't say we're intentionally tanking the season. I think we gave up after the 7 loses. And we just kinda suck also.
_________________
Rock Climbing is life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5587
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EaglesFan5-36-81 wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
EaglesFan5-36-81 wrote:
BBIB wrote:
Remixxxxxxx wrote:
You should never tank for an offensive lineman.


Normally you shouldn't tank for an Olinemen. But if the Eagles land with the top pick they aren't like most horrible teams that are completely rebuilding that get that pick

Eagles could really just be a few pieces away. With Luke Joeckel added to Jason Peters, Herremans and Kelce the Eagles all of a sudden have a top notch Oline

And with the skill players they have offensive with DeSean Jackson, Maclin, Celek, McCoy, and Bryce Brown that's one of the most amazing offenses in the NFL. You wouldn't even need an elite QB with a squad like that


If you re-sign Jake Scott, all of a sudden your 2013-14 OL next is:

Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Scott-Herremans

Meaning Joeckel would be a backup. You don't draft depth in the first round, and especially in the top 10. Its a poor premise at its core and makes absolutley no sense. Even if he's not re-signed, Kelly has looked solid at RT, and you can line up Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Herremans-Kelly.

Drafting Joeckel at this point is dumb, especially when what you need is a developmental guy, and there are plenty from round 3 on.


I'd say a couple of developmental guys. Peters, Mathis, and Herremans are all around thirty-ish and the Eagles' depth there is pretty awful (as we all have seen).



Sure, but again, you don't draft a developmental OL in the first round. Especially when you can end up with Reid Fragel, Xavier Nixon, Earl Watford, and others from the 4th on who have a ton of upside. No need to draft Joeckel if he's not going to make an immediate impact.


Not arguing that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BBIB


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 8771
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EaglesFan5-36-81 wrote:

If you re-sign Jake Scott, all of a sudden your 2013-14 OL next is:

Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Scott-Herremans

Meaning Joeckel would be a backup. You don't draft depth in the first round, and especially in the top 10. Its a poor premise at its core and makes absolutley no sense. Even if he's not re-signed, Kelly has looked solid at RT, and you can line up Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Herremans-Kelly.

Drafting Joeckel at this point is dumb, especially when what you need is a developmental guy, and there are plenty from round 3 on.


Jake Scott? Did Jake Long change his name to Jake Scott? Because surely no guy right now named Jake Scott has done anything to warrant him being considered a starter over Luke Joeckel who is one of the best offensive line prospects in years. He is one of the main reasons for the phenomenon known as Johnny Football with the way he stonewalled elite pass rushers in the SEC


Linemen aren't sexy draft picks but they can be cornerstones of your franchise

Ask the Patriots about Matt Light and Vince Wilfork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oland11


Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 7716
Location: South Central PA
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BBIB wrote:

Linemen aren't sexy draft picks but they can be cornerstones of your franchise

Ask the Patriots about Matt Light and Vince Wilfork




Championship.
_________________
Rock Climbing is life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RandyMossIsBoss


Joined: 01 Jun 2012
Posts: 18772
Location: Can't talk
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BBIB wrote:
EaglesFan5-36-81 wrote:

If you re-sign Jake Scott, all of a sudden your 2013-14 OL next is:

Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Scott-Herremans

Meaning Joeckel would be a backup. You don't draft depth in the first round, and especially in the top 10. Its a poor premise at its core and makes absolutley no sense. Even if he's not re-signed, Kelly has looked solid at RT, and you can line up Peters-Mathis-Kelce-Herremans-Kelly.

Drafting Joeckel at this point is dumb, especially when what you need is a developmental guy, and there are plenty from round 3 on.


Jake Scott? Did Jake Long change his name to Jake Scott? Because surely no guy right now named Jake Scott has done anything to warrant him being considered a starter over Luke Joeckel who is one of the best offensive line prospects in years. He is one of the main reasons for the phenomenon known as Johnny Football with the way he stonewalled elite pass rushers in the SEC


Linemen aren't sexy draft picks but they can be cornerstones of your franchise

Ask the Patriots about Matt Light and Vince Wilfork


It's not as simple as just Jake Scott vs Luke Joeckel. Obviously anyone would rather have Joeckel, but the difficult question is would you rather have Scott AND 4th overall pick or just Luke Joeckel. Right now I'm leaning Joeckel but we'll see.
_________________


~Bird Watch 2014 | Nick Foles~
1,628 yards, 10 TDs, 7 INTs, 82.0 Passer Rating
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Philadelphia Eagles All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 9 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group