Lori Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 I'm not sure if people realize but over the last 6 drafts, we have drafted DL quite high, quite regularly.3rd round x2 2nd round x3 1st round x1 754929[/snapback] Don't forget Erik Flowers... In general, I'd agree with using high draft picks on DL. (Seems to have worked out fairly well for New England recently, wouldn't you say?) But before completely discarding the idea of drafting OL with #1s and #2s, let me dust off this post from last January: We need an impact player if we stay at #8. I wouldn't consider an O-lineman an impact player unless it was the one last missing piece that would make our line ROCK! We are several players away from that. Watch the Seattle & Pittsburgh O-lines. They tear people up. 582841[/snapback] Wonder what round those guys were drafted? Pittsburgh OL: LT #2, RT #3, both guards and C = #1 picks. Seattle: RT #3, RG #5, C UDFA, LG and LT #1 picks. Ten Super Bowl OL starters, and half of them were first-round picks. Hmmm... you could be onto something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Davin Joseph was by far the best guard in the draft. The Bucs are a solid team with the O-line the only area in need of an upgrade. The Bucs did not have any tackle on board as a first rounder after D'Brick. I think Jon Gruden knows a little more than you. You would take a tackle who is not worthy of a first round pick ( Mike Williams), or another player at another position the Bucs don't need and let him sit on the bench, rather than upgrading your O-line? If you watched the Bills at all last year you should know how important the interior of the line is. I guess you are a TD fan ( lets build the O-line with castoffs, 6th round picks, and overrated fat slobs). That works real well. 754936[/snapback] Actually no I was hoping for freeney in 2002. Yes Davin Joseph is a good guard. No I wouldnt have wanted the bills to draft him with their 2nd pick in the 1st rd. I was very happy with the McCargo pick. I thought and still think he was the 3rd best dt in that draft after bunkley and claude wrotten So I was happy with that pick. Yes the interior of our offensive line is horrible, but that doesnt mean you should reach for guards in the 1st rd when theres better talent at more important positions to be had. For the record I am not a fan of fat linemen on either side of the football, I also dont think you should so easily dismiss tutan reyes he's been a starter for a pretty good carolina team the past few years and is capable of getting to the 2nd level and blocking in space. Whether or not you or I or anyone else believes the oline is upgraded or not, if nothing else at least they're way more athletic then the previous group. Line play is far from a quick fix anyway you strike it. It takes time for an offensive line to gel. You can't just constantly mix and match parts and hope for success, which is why I believe it's better strategy to draft players in the 1st round who will have a more pronounced and quicker impact for your team. And contrary to popular belief some of it does fall on the qb, making the right reads getting the ball out quickly, moving to avoid the rush and stretching the ball down field will make your offensive line look good. 1st rounders at any position aren't a gurantee especially offensive linemen who probably take more time to develop then any other position on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Don't forget Erik Flowers... In general, I'd agree with using high draft picks on DL. (Seems to have worked out fairly well for New England recently, wouldn't you say?) But before completely discarding the idea of drafting OL with #1s and #2s, let me dust off this post from last January: Wonder what round those guys were drafted? Pittsburgh OL: LT #2, RT #3, both guards and C = #1 picks. Seattle: RT #3, RG #5, C UDFA, LG and LT #1 picks. Ten Super Bowl OL starters, and half of them were first-round picks. Hmmm... you could be onto something. 754937[/snapback] Yes, but if we look at the other 10(I'm ignoring FBs) super bowl starters from both teams we find another 5 1st round picks, 1 2nd & 3 3rds...& a 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 754937[/snapback] Yes, but if we look at the other 10(I'm ignoring FBs) super bowl starters from both teams we find another 5 1st round picks, 1 2nd & 3 3rds...& a 6th. 754964[/snapback] This is why this tiresomely posted "always draft OL high" theory makes as much sense as carrying water with a sieve. Every time someone posts statistical "analysis"(questionable) someone else posts contradictory "evidence"(also questionable). Should the Saints have drafted an O lineman instead of Bush? Here's a stat for ya: there were two O lineman drafted in the first round. And five, all tackles BTW, in the second. Does this mean that, other than Tampa and the Jets, the rest of the NFL front offices are retarded? Yeah, the Jets are geniouses! That's it - they are now going to win the division because neither the Patriots, Dolphins, or Bills took an O lineman until after the third round. My point should be clear. However, this does not mean that O lineman should never be drafted in the high rounds, and obviously skill players bust all the time - i.e. Ditka's abortion in 1999(Saints Ricky Williams draft). However drafting O lineman high is not the "absolute" guaranteed path to winning that some of you are representing. I am not inclined to believe either theory is correct and the "only way" as much as I am not inclined to believe that relying on absolutist thinking is a good way to go through life. (ask the Communists how that's working out) As Marv has said repeatedly "You either change with the game or the game will change you - you won't be around". Rather, situational thinking coupled with a good set of core values, rather than an instruction manual, is much better. What do I mean? (Well, consider yelling at Willis for not running between the tackles and trying to make something out of nothing - good plan ) Back on point - consider our last draft and the obvious holes we had/were going to have on D. IF drafting OL high is the "only way", then let's reverse the outcome. Assume we used our position to trade down and picked a 1st O lineman, and 2 2nd Olineman. Are all the O Line people saying that it would have been better to keep Milloy, Adams, etc., and not fix our D as immediately as we could? Better yet, are you guys saying that you "know" that Fowler and Reyes - who at minimum have already proved they can play in the NFL - are automatically substandard to a rookie who could be Orlando Pace, or just as easily Mike Williams, merely by virture of how high that rookie is drafted? How about this: do you "know" that Whitner, McCargo, and Youboty are busts even when we have evidence from camp/games that already points in the other direction? We are talking about people here right? Not equipment? The last time I checked, people tend to do things that you "know" they won't do - both good and bad. Situationally, this year we had to do something about the D with players that can/should start immediately or next year. We don't have the luxury of time to wait the ususal 2-3 years for a drafted O lineman to develop when we have much larger issues pressing us right now. On the flip side, if BillNYC, and the rest, are right and Marv starts drafting DBs next year high, unless something drastic happens injury wise, I will be the first to start yellin'. Hopefully we are set db wise. Also, we have a good enough O line unit right now to be competitive. The thing that keeps getting missed on these threads is keeping the line together should be our 1st priority, the 2nd prioity should be obtaining solid character, rookie backups at O line through the draft, and developing them into the scheme over time. This way we get them ready, don't let them get a big head, a fat ass, or both; and deliver them, 60% of the time(which is reasonable) ready to start - both physically and mentally. If it happens that we get a shot at the best or #2, #3 OL in the 1st round, we should take him. But only if we are set at QB, RB, and if there isn't an obvious WR or DL that is better pound for pound at his position, and if we aren't completely screwed at another position(like this year). I just hope that we don't find out that we are completely screwed at O line this year, too. Once and for all, hopefully , we played the O line revolving door game since 2000 and it has gotten us nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faderphreak Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Don't forget Erik Flowers... I was thinking the exact same thing as I was reading that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 ......I am not inclined to believe either theory is correct and the "only way" as much as I am not inclined to believe that relying on absolutist thinking is a good way to go through life. (ask the Communists how that's working out) As Marv has said repeatedly "You either change with the game or the game will change you - you won't be around".... 754970[/snapback] Excellent post....especially this bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Don't forget Erik Flowers... 754937[/snapback] Flowers was 7 years ago....so that would mean 3rd round x2 2nd round x3 1st round x2 in 7 years....cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJOSEPH Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 Honestly its going to be the o-line that can take us into the playoff race or have another sub 500 season. we seriously havent had a decent one since the superbowl years and isnt it ironic that was the last time we won big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROSCOE P. COE TRAIN Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Willis. Please. The guy can't outrun his own teardrops. He's a fraction of the guy he was at Miami. 754444[/snapback] I got to tell ya, on his long TD run a few weeks back, he looked slow as molassas. He looked like a wounded deer as he barely made it to the endzone. They claimed he was hungry. Give me a BREAK. He aint got the burst nor the break away speed or stamina. He looked injured on the run. Unless that run was an odd one and he was really hungry, he looked pretty sad and no where near the player he once was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 I got to tell ya, on his long TD run a few weeks back, he looked slow as molassas. He looked like a wounded deer as he barely made it to the endzone. They claimed he was hungry. Give me a BREAK. He aint got the burst nor the break away speed or stamina. He looked injured on the run. Unless that run was an odd one and he was really hungry, he looked pretty sad and no where near the player he once was. 755334[/snapback] He started out quick but almost died at the end. I'm going to take it as he was sick as there were reports he was throwing up on the sidelines I wouldn't say he looked slow, he did outrun a bunch of players to score that TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts