So you want to draft an OT in the first round huh?

[MichaelWinicki]

Some one needs to stop that socialist weasel!!

ROFL!!!!

 

[Redball Express]

Like I posted in another thread I'm starting to think we may go "guard" in round two rather than "tackle".

The reason being that while everybody seems to be concerned with last year and the problems we saw..

That's going to be nothing compared to what happens when Dallas cuts LA shortly.

I just don't see them paying LA his $7.5 mil this year and I don't see them paying him a bonus, reworking his deal and extending his contract another couple of years that will saddle the team with big cap problems at that time for a guy probably worth half that.

I just don't think that was the plan.

After a couple of years ago and the problems they had with LA, the buzz was that until this year, they couldn't afford to let LA go and nobody would trade for him because his cap hit didn't equal his performance.

So I'm not sure much has changed, except now they have ridden out the last two years and arrived at the departure time b/w LA and Dallas.

Dallas has certainly paid LA well and overall, the team has gotten it's money's worth over the entire time, but from here on out..it would seem a negative move to retain him and his big contract..figuring he's going to go downhill rapidly at some point over another contract time period.

And take a big slice of the cap with him.

So barring a love-in b/w the parties where Dallas offers a lower deal and LA signs it just to retire a Cowboy and be charitable..

..that leaves us with nobody at LG to replace LA.

That's got to give everybody pause around here.

We could be heading into April's draft needing BOTH an OT and a LG. And that's not addressing the C issue if there is one.

What does this do to us..other than the obvious that we free up some cap monies in letting LA go..?

I pretty much felt they had brought Rivera here to eventually replace LA after '05 as the leading OL guy and OL leader. But due to injuries on the OL and especailly to Rivera and him not playing all that well..

..one has to wonder. And now with Flo injured and recovering, things get compounded if LA is cut.

Do we have a G that can step in for LA..? Guerode is testing FA and he's not been consistant.

Are there less expensive FA G's out there that can be pursued..? If so, can we afford to wait until later in FA to go after one while we wait on LA and his situation to unfold..?

Do we plan on drafting one in the draft..? Is there one that is good enough to step in and get it done..? Would we use a #18 on him if we were under the gun to replace LA..?

Our track record on hitting on OL in the past drafts has been terrible to date..(i.e. Rogers and Peterman). Can either of those guys step up and play LG..?

I've got alot of questions here, but very few answers..folks.

Now possibly Torrin Tucker could be moved to LG, which I believe was his original college position. But you'd have to assume until he would prove otherwise, that Tucker is not starter material yet for 16 games.

At any position.

Or would you move Rivera to LG and then look for a RG in FA and/or the draft..?

I'm not really clear how this would all work out.

Who's got some answers..?

parcellswaterboy

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The reason being that while everybody seems to be concerned with last year and the problems we saw..

That's going to be nothing compared to what happens when Dallas cuts LA shortly.

I just don't see them paying LA his $7.5 mil this year and I don't see them paying him a bonus, reworking his deal and extending his contract another couple of years that will saddle the team with big cap problems at that time for a guy probably worth half that.

I just don't think that was the plan.

After a couple of years ago and the problems they had with LA, the buzz was that until this year, they couldn't afford to let LA go and nobody would trade for him because his cap hit didn't equal his performance.

So I'm not sure much has changed, except now they have ridden out the last two years and arrived at the departure time b/w LA and Dallas.

Dallas has certainly paid LA well and overall, the team has gotten it's money's worth over the entire time, but from here on out..it would seem a negative move to retain him and his big contract..figuring he's going to go downhill rapidly at some point over another contract time period.

And take a big slice of the cap with him.

So barring a love-in b/w the parties where Dallas offers a lower deal and LA signs it just to retire a Cowboy and be charitable..

..that leaves us with nobody at LG to replace LA.

That's got to give everybody pause around here.

We could be heading into April's draft needing BOTH an OT and a LG. And that's not addressing the C issue if there is one.

What does this do to us..other than the obvious that we free up some cap monies in letting LA go..?

I pretty much felt they had brought Rivera here to eventually replace LA after '05 as the leading OL guy and OL leader. But due to injuries on the OL and especailly to Rivera and him not playing all that well..

..one has to wonder. And now with Flo injured and recovering, things get compounded if LA is cut.

Do we have a G that can step in for LA..? Guerode is testing FA and he's not been consistant.

Are there less expensive FA G's out there that can be pursued..? If so, can we afford to wait until later in FA to go after one while we wait on LA and his situation to unfold..?

Do we plan on drafting one in the draft..? Is there one that is good enough to step in and get it done..? Would we use a #18 on him if we were under the gun to replace LA..?

Our track record on hitting on OL in the past drafts has been terrible to date..(i.e. Rogers and Peterman). Can either of those guys step up and play LG..?

I've got alot of questions here, but very few answers..folks.

Now possibly Torrin Tucker could be moved to LG, which I believe was his original college position. But you'd have to assume until he would prove otherwise, that Tucker is not starter material yet for 16 games.

At any position.

Or would you move Rivera to LG and then look for a RG in FA and/or the draft..?

I'm not really clear how this would all work out.

Who's got some answers..?

parcellswaterboy

I don't disagree with you. LA could get cut. I wouldn't be shocked.

What would we do?

I'm thinking we might just grab Jean-Gilles at #18 out of necessity in order to have some sort of depth at guard.

 

[Hostile]

If we take a OT in the first round I'll snap.

I won't if it's D'Brick. I'd rather wait until round 2 and get Latui for OG than an OT.

 

[Hostile]

lol ya we all know how bright the future is for Tucker, Columbo and Rogers. They're all garbage. Tucker is even worse than Petitti. Fabini is another old overpaid free agent, something we don't know. When will people learn that expensive past their prime free agents just don't work out that much.

No one, not one single living breathing soul on this forum is opposed to fixing the O-line. We disagree on how to do it and accomplish the other upgrades needed. That is the difference.

 

[BigDFan5]

If we take a OT in the first round I'll snap.

I'll be right there with you Miki

 

[BigDFan5]

Some one needs to stop that socialist weasel!!

I think this may be the first thing you said that i agree with lmao

 

[big dog cowboy]

What is the big deal with fixing our HORRIBLE HORRIBLE Oline? Why are people so opposed to it.

No one breathing air is opposed to fixing the O-line. It's pretty obvious it is the weak link of our team. But to automatically draft a OT at 18 and think that is going to solve all the problems is going to be in for a surprise.

 

[dbair1967]

If we take a OT in the first round I'll snap.

why? I would never take an interior OL in the first rd (especially where we're picking or higher) but if we draft a really quality tackle at 18 and he becomes a 10 yr starter and probowl regular isnt that worth it?

this isnt a particularly good draft IMO, especially at other positions we need help at...they should just take the BPA and at 18 if its a tackle that can start from day one thats what they should do...if its also a guy who could play LT or RT, thats even better

David

 

[dbair1967]

The "gimme" FG was over 40 yards lol

and we wouldnt blame the kicker if the kicker wasnt the reason for the problems we had

the gimme fg was 41yds I believe, and at Texas Stadium thats the equiv of a gimmee IMO...

again, people can blame the kicker if they want but the kicker wasnt on the field when the game was decided...the defense should have finished off Washington and Seattle but didnt...they should have finished off the Giants (game one that went to OT) and KC but didnt...they allowed an almost uncontested TD to Denver in OT to lose...they were horrible at Washington in that blowout loss

the kciker wasnt good this yr and needs to be upgraded, but there are other issues here as well...no consistent pass rush has been a problem for years and still is, our OL is horrendous, especially the RT and C...we dont have a true NT for the 3-4 and the run defense isnt where it needs to be...

David

 

[dbair1967]

When are you going to lay some blame on the quarterback David?

From 36 sacks to 50 wasn't all the offensive line.

it pretty much was...the OL blocker far better for VT than they did for Bledsoe

David

 

[dbair1967]

I won't if it's D'Brick. I'd rather wait until round 2 and get Latui for OG than an OT.

and where's he gonna play if we do? unless they are cutting Allen or Rivera, taking a guard in the 1st or 2nd rd is a total waste of a pick IMO, especially when the tackles (other than Adams, who si coming off ACL tear) are so bad

David

 

[MichaelWinicki]

it pretty much was...the OL blocker far better for VT than they did for Bledsoe

David

Oh come'on David!

Gesus cut the offensive line hate...

Yeah, the offensive line was below average in many areas but to not lay a single "blame" on Bledsoe is shear folly. I've always respected your opinion on stuff but you're almost "blinded" on this one. And I'm not sure why.

To think that an oline consisting of Adams, LAllen, Johnson, Gurode and Tucker was loads better than an oline of Adams/Tucker, LAllen, Johnson, Rivera and Pettiti is just so wrong that it defies description.

 

[burmafrd]

The line was certainly worse this year. The run blocking pretty much stank all year long- it was decent last year. Vinny is a little more mobile then Bledsoe- but not much. And Bledsoe was getting hit just about the same time he set up a lot this year; VInny had more time last year. Anyone trying to claim that the line was NOT worse this year is a blind bledsoe hater. Or just plain stupid.

 

[Natedawg44]

I think we are the only two people on the board that want McNeil with the 18th pick.

Make me three. I read somewhere that he never gave up a sack at Auburn. Don't know if its true or not. I'm too lazy to look it up. But he was impressive in workouts. He's as talented as anyone in this draft. He may not be there at 18.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The line was certainly worse this year. The run blocking pretty much stank all year long- it was decent last year. Vinny is a little more mobile then Bledsoe- but not much. And Bledsoe was getting hit just about the same time he set up a lot this year; VInny had more time last year. Anyone trying to claim that the line was NOT worse this year is a blind bledsoe hater. Or just plain stupid.

People resort to name calling and implying stupidity when they lack good information to support their argument.

 

[burmafrd]

then show some EVIDENCE to show the line was worse in 2004 then 2005. Can't find any, can you?

 

[dbair1967]

People resort to name calling and implying stupidity when they lack good information to support their argument.

the evidence is in watching the games MW...

by no means do I think Bledsoe was great, but he was far from the problem with the offense last yr...there were just way too many jail break plays (pass and run) where our guys didnt have a chance

in my 30 years of watching this team that was the worst OL play I have ever seen for a 16 games season...other than a couple of games early in the season it was putrid at best

David

 

[Hiero]

the evidence is in watching the games MW...

by no means do I think Bledsoe was great, but he was far from the problem with the offense last yr...there were just way too many jail break plays (pass and run) where our guys didnt have a chance

in my 30 years of watching this team that was the worst OL play I have ever seen for a 16 games season...other than a couple of games early in the season it was putrid at best

David

How anyone can even wonder if the OL play was worse in 2005. We had no Flozell, Tucker and Petitti starting, Larry another year older, Rivera played like crap because he was hurt, Johnson was getting manhandled by DT's. It was an all around bad OL. When both of your tackles are #1 and#2 in sacks given up that's a pretty good sign the OL needs some upgrades.

 

[kiheikiwi]

Make me three. I read somewhere that he never gave up a sack at Auburn. Don't know if its true or not. I'm too lazy to look it up. But he was impressive in workouts. He's as talented as anyone in this draft. He may not be there at 18.

I'll go for #4, I don't get all the resistance here. I'd much rather take one of the tackles, preferably Mcneil then say, WR, or Safety at 18.Why can't people get that a 1st or 2nd rounder Should be better than a 6th? (Pettiti)