Fasano instead of marcus mcneil... why?

[Angus]

I think I'll defer to Jeff Ireland on the basis of track record and superior knowledge. Madden experts are very good at make-believe games and often come to believe that their expertise extends to other realms, but choosing players for real teams is a job best done by those who get paid to do it. Madden experts arguing with each other over the best way to play Madden (and the best players to do it with) have relevance because the arguments are between decision makers for the game, but fans arguing about who should a real team select (or have selected) instead of someone else is a useless exercise having no effect on the outcome, now or in the future.

 

[Vintage]

That's not the whole ledger.

Fasano & Petitti or Marcus McNeil?

I'll take 2 potential starters over 1.

Sorry Hos, but I disagree with this logic. Its too simplified.

Would you rather have, say LT (one potential starter) or, say JJ and Rob Pettiti (2 potential starters).

The only way Fasano and Pettiti are better than Marcus McNeil is if Fasano or Pettiti become better at their relative position than McNeil does at his.

IOW, if Fasano becomes, say, a top 15/top 10 TE and McNeil becomes nothing more than a serviceable RT.

Or if Pettiti becomes as good as McNeil, anything gained by Fasano becomes "gravy."

If we thought McNeil would be a better RT than Fasano a TE, we screwed up. If not, we are fine.

 

[wileedog]

If we thought McNeil would be a better RT than Fasano a TE, we screwed up. If not, we are fine.

Or if we just didn't want to draft a guy with a potential back problem. After Rogers, I can understand being a little gunshy on McNeil.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Fasano would of been there in the third, McNeil wouldn't of been.

Actually, this is not true. New England, who I believe held the 52nd pick in the 2nd round, planned to take Fasano. New England like Fasano for all the same reasons we did. He would not have been there for us in the third, had we waited.

I do believe that the player rated hightes on our board in the 2nd round was Colledge but once he was gone, I think Fasano was the pick all along.

JMO on the last but the Fasano to New England was a certainty as I understand it.

 

[Charles]

You can't be great at all positions at all times. We can't start a first round pick at all 22 spots and special teams.

So realizing that, you need to prioritize and define what kind of value you can afford to lock up at each position.

In a 3-4 defense the success or failure of the defense against the pass falls on the ability to do two things. First to provide for a dependable pocket colapsing (your front 3 guys) and second to have OLBs that can rush the passer with dependable success. We addressed most of those issues in last years draft and FA, but still had one glaring problem. We didn't have a second OLB on the roster that could be expected to provide a credible pass rushing threat and still hold up against the run. Without that, teams were free to always account for Ware as a rusher on every play. They shifted the LT directly at Ware and didn't allocate a lineman to the opposite OLB. They felt, accurately, that the back could adequately block whomever was rushing from that side, outside of the DE. Because of that, Ware was limited in reaching his full ability and our pass defense was forced to rely on excellent coverage. Long pass plays (a la Santana Moss) don't happen when you have a reliable pass rush. Therefore, OLB was a need position.

Second, there is an issue of draft position value. All teams, and coaches, value different positions according to their own standard. BP clearly places a strong value on interior lineman compared to tackles. While this might seem in direct conflict with the rest of the league, it makes sense in the same way that using the 3-4 makes sense when the rest of the league is playing a 4-3. The cost of a tackle is much higher than the cost of an interior lineman. Other teams might have superior tackles and substandard gaurds and centers. In this scheme they will likely need to account for any pass rush by either allocating a back to block any interior rushers or forcing the line to squeeze the pocket inwards to reduce space. This method suffers from a few flaws. It creates a lot of traffic in the interior of the line and it places a back as an important blocking element to a much much larger lineman. On the other hand, placing the emphasis on the interior allows you to draft better players for less money (overall across the line) while instead having to account for edge rushers. BP uses TEs to account for edge rushers thus creating a more favorable match up. Much larger TEs (compared to backs) blocking relatively small DEs (compared to DTs). It also puts the potential weapon (either the back or TE) closer to the line of scrimage and thus closer to becoming a real outlet in the pass play. It does have some problems. If both tackles are weak then you end up using two TEs where on the interior you could have used just one back. However, BP lucked into having a very good LT already on roster. It also means that the QB will recieve more presure the further he extends out of the pocket. But when was the last time that Bledsoe went out of the pocket on his own volition? If I had McNabb or Brunell in my backfield, I might want to leave the idea of heading out of the pocket as a possibility by having better and more athletic tackles. Likewise I wouldn't worry as much about the slower interior rush that my QB could probably avoid.

In the end it's about cost. You can only tie up so much money (FA contracts) and resources (high draft picks) into the unit (O-Line). Parcells feels he can find top rate OG and OC talent in the second round but only second rate (or worse) tackle talent in the same position.

As for last year, the plan was foiled for two reasons.

First, Adams went down meaning that both tackles needed TE protection.

Second, keeping both TEs in to help with coverage meant using only two recievers and one back. Those two recievers (Glenn and Keyshawn) were not able to reliable be a threat against the coverage they faced. Glenn was always pulling a safety over the top and Key couldn't seperate from man coverage. This would have been helped if a TE was free to split the coverage, but they were needed to at least chip a blocker at the line after Flozell went down.

Bill address both issues this year. He gets Adams back and he got better depth than we had last year at OT. He also signed a better second reciever that can get seperation from man coverage in case he does have to keep in more TE help. This year will be telling to see if this plan works.

As for drafting according this this plan with our first pick... that would mean either getting a guard, center, or TE. We didn't have pressing need along the inside of the line. KC Joyner breaks down our interior lineman and found that all (including Kyle) had fairly good years. Drafing a player in the first in those positions is reserved for guys that are going to start right away. We just didn't have as pressing a need there. As for TE, it's generally difficult to get a dual purpose TE in the first. Most first round TEs are pass catchers (Todd Heaps) and not blockers. Those guys are generally only average at both skills and fall accordingly to the second or third rounds.

Wow Great Post!!!! :starspin :starspin :starspin

 

[Hostile]

Sorry Hos, but I disagree with this logic. Its too simplified.

Would you rather have, say LT (one potential starter) or, say JJ and Rob Pettiti (2 potential starters).

The only way Fasano and Pettiti are better than Marcus McNeil is if Fasano or Pettiti become better at their relative position than McNeil does at his.

IOW, if Fasano becomes, say, a top 15/top 10 TE and McNeil becomes nothing more than a serviceable RT.

Or if Pettiti becomes as good as McNeil, anything gained by Fasano becomes "gravy."

If we thought McNeil would be a better RT than Fasano a TE, we screwed up. If not, we are fine.

I don't remember us being on the clock to draft LT, so it's hard for me to grasp the concept here Vintage.

We were switching to a base 2 TE set and had already let Campbell go. In addition we decided to use the 2nd TE for more than just max protect or blocking. We now know this is a given in the game plan of the Cowboys.

Do we draft a TE in the 1st round, 2nd round, or 3rd round becomes the only question? The argument presented and now refuted is that Fasano would have been there in the 3rd thus making McNeil the more logical pick.

I simply don't agree with that because the brass also wanted Hatcher in the 3rd so now we move TE to either the 1st round or the 4th. If the 1st roung, who do we take? Reach for Marcedes Lewis? Can't see it.

The Draft was deep at OT and if we were going to acquire one it was NOT going to be on Day 1 because the team saw something in Petitti that a lot of fans do not like acknowledging. Thus the desire to replace him.

 

[AbeBeta]

Actually, this is not true. New England, who I believe held the 52nd pick in the 2nd round, planned to take Fasano. New England like Fasano for all the same reasons we did. He would not have been there for us in the third, had we waited.

I do believe that the player rated hightes on our board in the 2nd round was Colledge but once he was gone, I think Fasano was the pick all along.

JMO on the last but the Fasano to New England was a certainty as I understand it.

Colledge was the guy. Smart move to drop back a few spots - seems like we are always grabbing guys that NE would take (and vica versa). NE was rumored to have wanted Fasano, Canty, and Hatcher. NE took TEs in the 3rd and 4th instead.

Had we taken McNeil -- who I was never sold on -- we would have had to take a guy like Dominque Byrd in the 3rd. That's a serious drop off. Fasano can come in here and contribute. McNeil would be stuck on the bench.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Colledge was the guy. Smart move to drop back a few spots - seems like we are always grabbing guys that NE would take (and vica versa). NE was rumored to have wanted Fasano, Canty, and Hatcher. NE took TEs in the 3rd and 4th instead.

Had we taken McNeil -- who I was never sold on -- we would have had to take a guy like Dominque Byrd in the 3rd. That's a serious drop off. Fasano can come in here and contribute. McNeil would be stuck on the bench.

I agree. I liked Fasano a lot before the draft. I was as surprised as anybody that we took him with our 2nd. I figured maybe our 3rd but when I saw what NE was doing, I understood why. I had concerns about McNeil. If not for that injury, he was a 1st round talent, no question in my mind. I'll tell you, the guy I really coveted was Joseph. I really liked that guy.

 

[cowboyfreak]

You can't be great at all positions at all times. We can't start a first round pick at all 22 spots and special teams.

So realizing that, you need to prioritize and define what kind of value you can afford to lock up at each position.

In a 3-4 defense the success or failure of the defense against the pass falls on the ability to do two things. First to provide for a dependable pocket colapsing (your front 3 guys) and second to have OLBs that can rush the passer with dependable success. We addressed most of those issues in last years draft and FA, but still had one glaring problem. We didn't have a second OLB on the roster that could be expected to provide a credible pass rushing threat and still hold up against the run. Without that, teams were free to always account for Ware as a rusher on every play. They shifted the LT directly at Ware and didn't allocate a lineman to the opposite OLB. They felt, accurately, that the back could adequately block whomever was rushing from that side, outside of the DE. Because of that, Ware was limited in reaching his full ability and our pass defense was forced to rely on excellent coverage. Long pass plays (a la Santana Moss) don't happen when you have a reliable pass rush. Therefore, OLB was a need position.

Second, there is an issue of draft position value. All teams, and coaches, value different positions according to their own standard. BP clearly places a strong value on interior lineman compared to tackles. While this might seem in direct conflict with the rest of the league, it makes sense in the same way that using the 3-4 makes sense when the rest of the league is playing a 4-3. The cost of a tackle is much higher than the cost of an interior lineman. Other teams might have superior tackles and substandard gaurds and centers. In this scheme they will likely need to account for any pass rush by either allocating a back to block any interior rushers or forcing the line to squeeze the pocket inwards to reduce space. This method suffers from a few flaws. It creates a lot of traffic in the interior of the line and it places a back as an important blocking element to a much much larger lineman. On the other hand, placing the emphasis on the interior allows you to draft better players for less money (overall across the line) while instead having to account for edge rushers. BP uses TEs to account for edge rushers thus creating a more favorable match up. Much larger TEs (compared to backs) blocking relatively small DEs (compared to DTs). It also puts the potential weapon (either the back or TE) closer to the line of scrimage and thus closer to becoming a real outlet in the pass play. It does have some problems. If both tackles are weak then you end up using two TEs where on the interior you could have used just one back. However, BP lucked into having a very good LT already on roster. It also means that the QB will recieve more presure the further he extends out of the pocket. But when was the last time that Bledsoe went out of the pocket on his own volition? If I had McNabb or Brunell in my backfield, I might want to leave the idea of heading out of the pocket as a possibility by having better and more athletic tackles. Likewise I wouldn't worry as much about the slower interior rush that my QB could probably avoid.

In the end it's about cost. You can only tie up so much money (FA contracts) and resources (high draft picks) into the unit (O-Line). Parcells feels he can find top rate OG and OC talent in the second round but only second rate (or worse) tackle talent in the same position.

As for last year, the plan was foiled for two reasons.

First, Adams went down meaning that both tackles needed TE protection.

Second, keeping both TEs in to help with coverage meant using only two recievers and one back. Those two recievers (Glenn and Keyshawn) were not able to reliable be a threat against the coverage they faced. Glenn was always pulling a safety over the top and Key couldn't seperate from man coverage. This would have been helped if a TE was free to split the coverage, but they were needed to at least chip a blocker at the line after Flozell went down.

Bill address both issues this year. He gets Adams back and he got better depth than we had last year at OT. He also signed a better second reciever that can get seperation from man coverage in case he does have to keep in more TE help. This year will be telling to see if this plan works.

As for drafting according this this plan with our first pick... that would mean either getting a guard, center, or TE. We didn't have pressing need along the inside of the line. KC Joyner breaks down our interior lineman and found that all (including Kyle) had fairly good years. Drafing a player in the first in those positions is reserved for guys that are going to start right away. We just didn't have as pressing a need there. As for TE, it's generally difficult to get a dual purpose TE in the first. Most first round TEs are pass catchers (Todd Heaps) and not blockers. Those guys are generally only average at both skills and fall accordingly to the second or third rounds.

Easily one of the best posts I've ever read at the Zone!
:clap2: :worthy: