Do We Really Need Linebackers?

[Bob Sacamano]

I'd take an OLB because it will have more of an impact than an OT

I've never seen a playmaking OT before

and I don't want another Rob Pettiti situation at OT, next year, all the 1st round OT prospects outside of McNeil, who should go in the 2nd/3rd, are 310 lbs. or less, they're going to suffer from the same strength issues that Pettiti had, rather we sign Barry in FA, and draft a big OT w/ potential such as Ryan O'Callaghan in the 2nd/3rd, hell, Andrew Whitworth will be available in the 2nd, and he's a mauler

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yeah, I'd take LB with the first pick in a heartbeat, not only for QB pressure but to shore up coverage in short over the middle routes which was a weakness.

Bingo!

Huge weakness!

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Unless that #18 pick is the second coming of Anthony Munoz, I don't see how taking an offensive tackle will improve the offensive line right away. I think it would be best to look for a tackle in FA to compete with Petitti and Tucker and try and find a promising prospect in the later rounds.

Besides FS, drafting a LB would have the greatest immediate impact in 2006.

It won't.

Mike G. thinks "Munoz" is going to be there at #18 and he won't.

Take a LB or FS and then grab the best guy available in round 2.

 

[BigDFan5]

It won't.

Mike G. thinks "Munoz" is going to be there at #18 and he won't.

Take a LB or FS and then grab the best guy available in round 2.

Rd 1 Lawson
rd 2 Martin Nance
Rd 3 jason Allen

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I'd take an OLB because it will have more of an impact than an OT

I've never seen a playmaking OT before

and I don't want another Rob Pettiti situation at OT, next year, all the 1st round OT prospects outside of McNeil, who should go in the 2nd/3rd, are 310 lbs. or less, they're going to suffer from the same strength issues that Pettiti had, rather we sign Barry in FA, and draft a big OT w/ potential such as Ryan O'Callaghan in the 2nd/3rd, hell, Andrew Whitworth will be available in the 2nd, and he's a mauler

YES!

That's exactly right. All those people that want to grab a OT at #18 don't realize that a OT taken at that spot probably will not be any better than a year #2 Pettiti. And if that's the case I'm sticking with the less expensive guy.

 

[superpunk]

I'd take an OLB because it will have more of an impact than an OT

I've never seen a playmaking OT before

and I don't want another Rob Pettiti situation at OT, next year, all the 1st round OT prospects outside of McNeil, who should go in the 2nd/3rd, are 310 lbs. or less, they're going to suffer from the same strength issues that Pettiti had, rather we sign Barry in FA, and draft a big OT w/ potential such as Ryan O'Callaghan in the 2nd/3rd, hell, Andrew Whitworth will be available in the 2nd, and he's a mauler

I'm with ya. In our 3-4, you can NEVER have enough competent LBers. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see us take at least one on day 1 for the next three years. We get another OLB, and hopefully some more ILBs, and this defense can take off.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

1. Lawson
2. Nance
3. O'Callaghan



in response to BigD

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm with ya. In our 3-4, you can NEVER have enough competent LBers. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see us take at least one on day 1 for the next three years. We get another OLB, and hopefully some more ILBs, and this defense can take off.

I think we're set at ILB with James and Burnett, in the future, of course

but agree to agree

 

[Bob Sacamano]

YES!

That's exactly right. All those people that want to grab a OT at #18 don't realize that a OT taken at that spot probably will not be any better than a year #2 Pettiti. And if that's the case I'm sticking with the less expensive guy.

plus long overlooked fact on here, OT is one of the hardest positions, 2nd to QB IMO, to transition to, from college to the pros, hell, the 1st OT taken last year, at 16, Alex Barron, was still getting pushed around in wk. 17

 

[superpunk]

1. Lawson
2. Nance
3. O'Callaghan



in response to BigD

I'm with ya on 1 and 2, although I might rather have Parham if he's there when we select, but you're gonna have to educate me on O'Callaghan.

 

[Hostile]

True. I respectfully disagree though : .

Keep in mind, my thesis is placed knowing full well there will be no Dat, Glover, and Singleton. Also, we are both going to assume that the Tackle works out (not a bust) as well as your linebacker is not a bust. Let's just also assume that we dont get a Top Tackle in Free Agency.

Facts
*Rob Petitti gave up 13.5 Sacks last year and when Flozell Adams went down, Torrin Tucker gave up 12.5 in 11 Games.

*The offense struggled greatly when Flozell Adams went down because you had to protect your Right and Left Tackle.

*More than likely, the in-effectiveness of your offense may have put a strain on your defense ala field position, time on the field, etc etc.

*Jason Witten still had a nice year but his true destructive nature was never really unleased on the opposition because he was either kept in to block on the line or was at Fullback and was lead blocking or getting crack blocks before going out on routes.

*Bledsoe is one of the most immobile Quarterbacks in the game but can absolutely carve a Defense up for Thanksgiving Dinner if you give him the time.

*Having to always leave an extra blocker in to help your Tackle out limits some of your play calling and one weak Domino on the Offensive Line can be a negative chain reaction for the other comrades.

Benefits of Drafting a Tackle

*Any player can be a bust, Tackle, Quarterback, Linebacker etc etc, so there are always risks.

*If this Tackle pans out, you not only get Flozell Adams back, but you get the Right Tackle position finally settled for years. Which is a position that has plagued Parcells from Day 1, ala Ryan Young, Torrin Tucker and Robert Petitti.

*If this 1st Round pick works out, you Neutralize menaces like U and Strahan (they move these guys around alot) and Jevon Kearse, which is a serious blow to the teams these players play for.

*Now that you have good tackles, you can open up the offensive playbook, maybe Petitti and Johnson play better as the line has been upgraded and your Running Game has improved. I dont care which Tackle we get, but I know Mcneil's best asset is his runn blocking ability.

*This upgrade could keep the offense on the field longer, put up more points by keeping Bledsoe upright, possibly make the running game more effective, and all of this would improve the defense greatly.

Those are the reasons I want to draft a Tackle instead of a Linebacker. Me and you have went round and round on this for about a month now, you have a good thesis and I think I have a good thesis. I really dont think you can go wrong going either way.

But of course Hostile, I am willing to debate with you about anything and everything because you always bring good arguments to the table, facts, etc etc and you dont just respond with



and

:jerk:

When you dont agree with somebody : .

- Mike G.

Thanks. I actually enjoy the debates and how much they make me think. If someone is making me think it means they clearly aren't a stooge. I see no advantage to disrespecting a good debate.

Let's start with the "any player can be a bust" angle. Agreed, so it isn't worth bringing it up. I won't call your #1 hope a potential bust and you won't call my #1 hope a potential bust because all we are doing is basing our hopes on the potential we think they have by personal observation and study.

I am opposed to an OT in round for a few reasons. Now, when I say "opposed" I do not mean if we draft a RT I am going to hate it. I'm talking about balanced against the need to finish the Defense overall, and the LB corps in particular. Here are my reasons...

1. We are closer to a dominant Defense than we are to a top 10 Offense. The shortest distance between 2 points is still a straight line. Finish the D and we are a strong contender immediately, because even with Offensive troubles last year we stayed in all but 1 game. That means the offense is steady, even with guys who don't perform up to some standards. Give a steady offense a dominant Defense and good things can happen. Adding an OT is not going to give us a dominant offense.

2. We lost 4 LBs to injury last season. Dat Nguyen, Al Singleton, Kevin Burnett, and Michael Barrow. The last one is a non factor. The other 3 are not. One was our Defensive Captain and play caller. In a defensive scheme where a premium is placed on LB that is too much to overcome. We can't overcome something like that again and expect to take the next step.

3. This Draft is deep at LB and OT. LBs for a 3-4 scheme will be at a higher premium than OT. Especially if a team is looking to make the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4. Always place the higher value on the rarer gems.

4. The difference from OT to OT for the 1st 3 rounds is generally not that significant past the top guy. In this Draft that is D'Brickashaw Ferguson and I don't see us having a prayer of getting him. The difference in LBs is more significant as the rounds go by and they get smaller and smaller.

5. I still believe Rob Petitti will be fine. His run blocking grades were high. I think the coaching staff is quite happy with him even if the fan base is not. I see potential there and I hope we tap into it rather than sweep it aside just to start over.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm with ya on 1 and 2, although I might rather have Parham if he's there when we select, but you're gonna have to educate me on O'Callaghan.

O'Cally, big guy, a Parcells' trait for Olineman, but carries weight well, and so far in Senior Bowl workouts, is looking mighty nice, plus Cal has had some pretty prolific offensive attacks while he was their best Olineman

good value in the 3rd round

buyer beware: had surgery on both his shoulders a couple years ago

 

[Bob Sacamano]

5. I still believe Rob Petitti will be fine. His run blocking grades were high. I think the coaching staff is quite happy with him even if the fan base is not. I see potential there and I hope we tap into it rather than sweep it aside just to start over.

wow, I did not know that, thanks for bringing that up

and I agree with what you're saying

 

[MichaelWinicki]

plus long overlooked fact on here, OT is one of the hardest positions, 2nd to QB IMO, to transition to, from college to the pros, hell, the 1st OT taken last year, at 16, Alex Barron, was still getting pushed around in wk. 17

Exactly!

But many think a OT taken at #18 is going to be a finished product.

Not hardly.

 

[superpunk]

O'Cally, big guy, a Parcells' traight for Olineman, but carries weight well, and so far in Senior Bowl workouts, is looking mighty nice, plus Cal has had some pretty prolific offensive attacks while he was their best Olineman

good value in the 3rd round

Apparently Jonathan Scott has been kicking *** at the senior bowl practices, and Lawson has been destroying T's Winston and that other guy . Good picks at 1 and 2? Scott could be a mauler on the right, even though I'm inclined to just say leave the Oline the way it is, maybe just provide depth.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Apparently Jonathan Scott has been kicking *** at the senior bowl practices, and Lawson has been destroying T's Winston and that other guy . Good picks at 1 and 2? Scott could be a mauler on the right, even though I'm inclined to just say leave the Oline the way it is, maybe just provide depth.

I'm really liking Scott, but IMO, he's going to be the 3rd OT taken, late 1st, early 2nd

I'd rather sign Barry to play RT, and draft O'Cally, that's those 2, and Pettiti, battling for RT, the odds of finding a keeper improve dramatically, moreso than spending all our money on a 1st round pick

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Thanks. I actually enjoy the debates and how much they make me think. If someone is making me think it means they clearly aren't a stooge. I see no advantage to disrespecting a good debate.

Let's start with the "any player can be a bust" angle. Agreed, so it isn't worth bringing it up. I won't call your #1 hope a potential bust and you won't call my #1 hope a potential bust because all we are doing is basing our hopes on the potential we think they have by personal observation and study.

I am opposed to an OT in round for a few reasons. Now, when I say "opposed" I do not mean if we draft a RT I am going to hate it. I'm talking about balanced against the need to finish the Defense overall, and the LB corps in particular. Here are my reasons...

1. We are closer to a dominant Defense than we are to a top 10 Offense. The shortest distance between 2 points is still a straight line. Finish the D and we are a strong contender immediately, because even with Offensive troubles last year we stayed in all but 1 game. That means the offense is steady, even with guys who don't perform up to some standards. Give a steady offense a dominant Defense and good things can happen. Adding an OT is not going to give us a dominant offense.

2. We lost 4 LBs to injury last season. Dat Nguyen, Al Singleton, Kevin Burnett, and Michael Barrow. The last one is a non factor. The other 3 are not. One was our Defensive Captain and play caller. In a defensive scheme where a premium is placed on LB that is too much to overcome. We can't overcome something like that again and expect to take the next step.

3. This Draft is deep at LB and OT. LBs for a 3-4 scheme will be at a higher premium than OT. Especially if a team is looking to make the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4. Always place the higher value on the rarer gems.

4. The difference from OT to OT for the 1st 3 rounds is generally not that significant past the top guy. In this Draft that is D'Brickashaw Ferguson and I don't see us having a prayer of getting him. The difference in LBs is more significant as the rounds go by and they get smaller and smaller.

5. I still believe Rob Petitti will be fine. His run blocking grades were high. I think the coaching staff is quite happy with him even if the fan base is not. I see potential there and I hope we tap into it rather than sweep it aside just to start over.

Nice reply Hos.

I second everything that you said.

I just hope Charles shows up to tell us what you really meant by all this.

 

[superpunk]

I'm really liking Scott, but IMO, he's going to be the 3rd OT taken, late 1st, early 2nd

I'd rather sign Barry to play RT, and draft O'Cally, that's those 2, and Pettiti, battling for RT, the odds of finding a keeper improve dramatically, moreso than spending all our money on a 1st round pick

I was only thinking that if he fell a bit. I wish I had more confidence in Burnett, but that dude's got a history. Maybe he can get on the field and contribute, and if he does, I think he can be real good, but he's got to get out there first. If Parcells is satisfied with him, fine. But, I really think if Scott isn't there in the second, we should draft Kai Parham. Played for Al Groh, in a 3-4 defense, that would be a real safe pick for one of our ILB positions, less of a transition to make.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Thanks. I actually enjoy the debates and how much they make me think. If someone is making me think it means they clearly aren't a stooge. I see no advantage to disrespecting a good debate.

Let's start with the "any player can be a bust" angle. Agreed, so it isn't worth bringing it up. I won't call your #1 hope a potential bust and you won't call my #1 hope a potential bust because all we are doing is basing our hopes on the potential we think they have by personal observation and study.

I am opposed to an OT in round for a few reasons. Now, when I say "opposed" I do not mean if we draft a RT I am going to hate it. I'm talking about balanced against the need to finish the Defense overall, and the LB corps in particular. Here are my reasons...

1. We are closer to a dominant Defense than we are to a top 10 Offense. The shortest distance between 2 points is still a straight line. Finish the D and we are a strong contender immediately, because even with Offensive troubles last year we stayed in all but 1 game. That means the offense is steady, even with guys who don't perform up to some standards. Give a steady offense a dominant Defense and good things can happen. Adding an OT is not going to give us a dominant offense.

2. We lost 4 LBs to injury last season. Dat Nguyen, Al Singleton, Kevin Burnett, and Michael Barrow. The last one is a non factor. The other 3 are not. One was our Defensive Captain and play caller. In a defensive scheme where a premium is placed on LB that is too much to overcome. We can't overcome something like that again and expect to take the next step.

3. This Draft is deep at LB and OT. LBs for a 3-4 scheme will be at a higher premium than OT. Especially if a team is looking to make the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4. Always place the higher value on the rarer gems.

4. The difference from OT to OT for the 1st 3 rounds is generally not that significant past the top guy. In this Draft that is D'Brickashaw Ferguson and I don't see us having a prayer of getting him. The difference in LBs is more significant as the rounds go by and they get smaller and smaller.

Good response Hos, kind of funny though, how the Draft is full at Positions the Cowboys are in need of, except for Wide Receiver of course.

5. I still believe Rob Petitti will be fine. His run blocking grades were high. I think the coaching staff is quite happy with him even if the fan base is not. I see potential there and I hope we tap into it rather than sweep it aside just to start over.

The only comment I have is this quote right here. Since the Offseason going into 2004, I have been very leary of character guys and/or guys that didnt play well and the Staff was still high on. Parcells spent alot of his Press Conferences talking about how Delroy Stewart and Pete Hunter were very improved players. So right now, I am very suspect of players that have not performed well, that the coaching staff is very high on.

You made some good points and I am sure the Draft will go defensively, but doesn't mean it is the best thing for the Team .

BTW, went home for break and I got to see some of the practices and Greenway and Lawson look like they are going to make some team proud. And you are right about D'brickershaw Ferguson, he has had his way with every Rush End he has went up against, but no shot at getting him, probably will end up with the Jets.

- Mike G.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And you are right about D'brickershaw Ferguson, he has had his way with every Rush End he has went up against, but no shot at getting him, probably will end up with the Jets.

- Mike G.

Boise State Daryn Colledge has done pretty well for himself, could be a good option in the 2nd/3rd, perfect LT prospect, perfect