| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
oland11
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 7271
Location: "This ****ing game is over!" - Chuck Bednarik
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
killdawabbit
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5580
Location: Somewhere you're not.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
oland11
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 7271
Location: "This ****ing game is over!" - Chuck Bednarik
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babyatemydingo
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 5913
Location: South Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
killdawabbit
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5580
Location: Somewhere you're not.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
BBIB
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 7414
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
EaglesFan5-36-81
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 14000
Location: Sig by Eagles_808
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
killdawabbit
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5580
Location: Somewhere you're not.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Remixxxxxxx
Joined: 06 Mar 2009
Posts: 9941
Location: E808 on the avi; P90 on the sig
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
EaglesFan5-36-81
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 14000
Location: Sig by Eagles_808
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
oland11
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 7271
Location: "This ****ing game is over!" - Chuck Bednarik
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
killdawabbit
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5580
Location: Somewhere you're not.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
BBIB
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 7414
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
oland11
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 7271
Location: "This ****ing game is over!" - Chuck Bednarik
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RandyMossIsBoss
Joined: 01 Jun 2012
Posts: 8153
Location: Peppers90 on the sig, Kiltman on the avy
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Chip...Chip...Chipadelphia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
