What do you guys think of Justin Blaylock?

[fanfromvirginia]

I think they'll leave Carpenter at OLB, and it sounds like Phillips believes Ellis is going to be back...

James will be fine with a better system, but I'd bet the farm he's only on the field on 1st and 2nd downs from now on

David

Agreed. If WP's system of making the position fit the player rather than BP's of making the player fit into the position is even half successful then we're pretty loaded at LB, even for the 3-4.

 

[stealth]

he looks really good at the combine and he is a smart kid, and can probably play any spot on the line save center. I don't know about taking him at 22 but I wouldn't complain about it.

 

[Alexander]

I just heard on the NFL Network that Blaylock scored 1170 (I think it was, but I know it was way over 1100) on his SAT in the 7th grade. Good and smart. Now that I like.

Nate Newton probably had a tough time making triples digits on his SAT and he was pretty good. We aren't asking them to deliver a dissertation.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

We've been over this before.................

Davin Joseph - #23 Stud, 1 year, 12 starts (camp injury)


Logan Mankins - #32 Stud. Super Bowl winner, 2 years, 32 starts


Chris Snee - #34 Stud, 3 years 43 starts


Eric Steinbach - #33 Stud, 4 years 62 starts, This year's prized possession OG in FA


Kendall Simmons - #30 Stud. Super Bowl winner, 5 years, 60 starts (missed 04)


Steve Hutchison - #17 Stud. Super Bowl, 6 years, 84 starts, 5 Pro Bowls


Mike Wahle - 2nd round comp pick Stud, 9 years, 112 starts, 1 Pro Bowl


Alan Faneca - #26 Stud. Super Bowl winner, 9 years, 137 starts, 7 Pro Bowls


Chris Naeole - #10 Stud, 10 years, 142 starts


Ross Verba - #30 Former stud LT and OG, 10 years, 107 Starts, morphing into Bison Dele


Pete Kendall - #21 Stud. 11 years, 156 starts (This is Eric Steinbach's future).


Jeff Hartings - #23 Stud. Super Bowl winner, 11 years, 160 starts, 2 Pro Bowls


Jermane Mayberry - #25 Very, very solid. Super Bowl. 11 years, 104 starts, 1 Pro Bowl


Shawn Andrews - #16 Stud. 3 years, 33 starts, 2 Pro Bowls

Ruben Brown - #14 Stud. 12 years, 173 starts, Super Bowl, 8 Pro Bowls

Matt O'Dwyer -#33 solid. 10 years, 105 starts, Jets 1998 AFC Title game member

And I'm sure this info will be ignored by the anti-OL crowd.

It's either get lucky in the later rounds because we believe we can, or pay now with a high draft pick on a guy who's believed to have a great chance to be successfuly, or pay later when on an FA.

OL is not that fundamentally different than other positions. You get what you pay for.

 

[stealth]

I just heard on the NFL Network that Blaylock scored 1170 (I think it was, but I know it was way over 1100) on his SAT in the 7th grade. Good and smart. Now that I like.

1120

I got a 1150 in the 8th grade, and I am a ******. just saying

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Nate Newton probably had a tough time making triples digits on his SAT and he was pretty good. We aren't asking them to deliver a dissertation.

Although if Nate were to write one, I'd be the first in line to download the PDF. :laugh2:

 

[fanfromvirginia]

bingo...and we actually had Brian Waters in our TC I believe...he was either a TE or FB I think at one time

but he grew, got great coaching and turned into a great OL

David

Oh, okay. Now I get it. So all we have to do to get great OL players without drafting them high is to find them in the draft, recognize their abilities enough to decide to keep them during training camp when they're still green and competing against better players, then coach them correctly and then Oila and Eureka! all is right in the kingdom. Is that about right? This is our plan to upgrade our biggest need during the year when Jerry and many others believe we're making a run at the Super Bowl?

 

[BourbonBalz]

And I'm sure this info will be ignored by the anti-OL crowd.

It's either get lucky in the later rounds because we believe we can, or pay now with a high draft pick on a guy who's believed to have a great chance to be successfuly, or pay later when on an FA.

OL is not that fundamentally different than other positions. You get what you pay for.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Some on here simply don't understand this fact. Some seem to think you can pull a guy off the street and plug him in at guard. Sure there are risks, but there are risks on first round picks at every position. How many busts have we taken on the DL in the past 1-12 years? I can name quite a few, but that doesn't stop teams from taking them. There are always diamonds in the rough that end up being Pro Bowlers and even Hall of Famers. However, those are usually luck picks. Give me a highly rated guy to begin with. They're almost always ready to contribute more quickly and for a longer period of time.

 

[The Realist]

And I'm sure this info will be ignored by the anti-OL crowd.

It's either get lucky in the later rounds because we believe we can, or pay now with a high draft pick on a guy who's believed to have a great chance to be successfuly, or pay later when on an FA.

OL is not that fundamentally different than other positions. You get what you pay for.

No reason Torrin Tucker shouldn't be Orlando Pace and Petiti be morped into Walter Jones to the anti OL crowd.

 

[Alexander]

No reason Torrin Tucker shouldn't be Orlando Pace and Petiti be morped into Walter Jones to the anti OL crowd.

Speaking only from my perspective, I do not quite understand this "anti-OL crowd" which you speak of.

We choose at 22. Nearly every example you have shown was picked below that.

I am not for ignoring the position. Far from it. But simply going into the first round with OG blinders on would be foolish. There isn't a guard in this draft that is worth that choice. Slide down a bit and then you might be speaking of value.

 

[The Realist]

Speaking only from my perspective, I do not quite understand this "anti-OL crowd" which you speak of.

We choose at 22. Nearly every example you have shown was picked below that.

I am not for ignoring the position. Far from it. But simply going into the first round with OG blinders on would be foolish. There isn't a guard in this draft that is worth that choice. Slide down a bit and then you might be speaking of value.

Where does Ben Grubbs go?

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Speaking only from my perspective, I do not quite understand this "anti-OL crowd" which you speak of.

We choose at 22. Nearly every example you have shown was picked below that.

I am not for ignoring the position. Far from it. But simply going into the first round with OG blinders on would be foolish. There isn't a guard in this draft that is worth that choice. Slide down a bit and then you might be speaking of value.

To be fair, a whole bunch of them were within 7 or 8 picks of 22.

On edit: 5 were higher and 6 were within 8 picks of 22. That's a fair number of guys above or reasonably close to 22.