Elessar78 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Players know how to run a franchise?As a student of human nature, I'd bet that if you asked a O lineman his opinion, he'd say that you have to start building with the O line and a WR would tell you that you can't win without those big play makers at WR. Fans know how to run a franchise? If you had to make a decision about the Iraq war, who's advice would you take, some joe schmoe in Anywhere, USA or a soldier in Baghdad? The soldier's advice may not be accurate, but I'd give it a lot more credence than the other person's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 redman: Falcons - "it's not about one draft . . .", and they also took Justice in the first round with their second pick. The idea that a team can deliberately set out to build the lines first is unrealistic. The draft presents opportunities to improve your team which have to be seized. I think Miami blew it by passing on Ryan. In any case, JLC cant use Atlanta as a team that got better this year because they built their lines first. We've not drafted a first round OL since Samuels, and we haven't drafted one in the top three rounds since Dockery. Rinehart #3 in last draft..... but no they have used free agency to improve the lines. I have a feeling they'll do the same this year. Cardinals - they weren't one of the primary comparisons of the article, but I certainly like where they are right now a hell of a lot more than where we are, don't you? I'd like to have Fitzgerald, but I'm not awed by the rest of their talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Upper echelon linemen come at a premium in the NFL. Most teams that have them more often then not draft them and never let them go until they're in the twilight of their career. With that in mind, please tell us Oldfan, how would you acquire a young stud DE,DT,OT or OG(in their early to mid 20's) without giving away the majority of your draft or wrecking a team's salary cap if you were GM?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDevinThomas Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No, Follow the Lions! Number one draft pick! yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 BingoThis team needs to pull 5 lineman (3 OL, 2 DL) in every draft for the next 5 years to rebuild this rotting core on the o-line and d-line Those teams in the 80s had both, dominant o-line play and a stout d-line The chicken little's who hate drafting DE's and O-lineman would have a stroke if we did that. Wait, that's a good thing. This team needs a minimum of 5 draft picks per year, before compensation and all of it's 1st day picks. At least 1 O-lineman and 1-D-lineman need to be picked every year for depth. No excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 If all that stood between us and desperation for a DE was the oft-injured Daniels, why didn't we draft Merling with our first, or even Campbell with one of our three 2nd rounders? We'd have our DE of the future, and still have our #2 this year. Instead we have neither, and twice as many holes to fill. There is no excuse for a front office which passes up numerous starting OL/DL candidates in the draft, then has to trade a future #2 to land a semi-retired DE who doesn't even mildly fit our scheme. You know, with the way some people talk, you'd think that a pass rushing DE was all we needed to make this team a Superbowl team. Going into last offseason, we knew that while we felt reasonably good about our starters, we also knew that age was catching up at some positions and that we needed to work on the depth. So, collecting more picks was in order. In particular, being able to pick up a couple more 2nd round picks for our 1st (yes, I know the deal was more complicated than that, but that is basically what the deal was for) was something that needed to be done, especially when there are multiple players at 21 who could do the job and figure that some of those players will drop to 34, which at least one of those players did. I disagree with you that we have "twice as many holes to fill", because even drafting Merling doesn't really address the need for a DT. Sure, he could probably help there somewhat, but like Daniels it would be a band-aid for finding a stud at DT. Meanwhile, we did need serious help with the depth at WR, which we did address. We needed to start developing the replacement for Kendall, so we got him. We were pretty darn thin at safety, so we addressed that. We needed another developmental QB and we got that. Granted, we didn't address all of our needs in that offseason (additional youth on the OL, that stud DT that we need, depth at LB.) but you aren't always able to address everything in one offseason. Overall, the team did a lot to address their depth issues in last year's draft, with only a few positions of need. As for Taylor not fitting the scheme, how does he not fit a scheme where the DC adjusts the scheme for the talents that he has? If he didn't fit the scheme, why did he still take the majority of snaps at DE? It certainly wasn't because Blache felt obligated. We traded for Erasmus James as well, but he hardly played before he got cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 The chicken little's who hate drafting DE's and O-lineman would have a stroke if we did that.Wait, that's a good thing. This team needs a minimum of 5 draft picks per year, before compensation and all of it's 1st day picks. At least 1 O-lineman and 1-D-lineman need to be picked every year for depth. No excuses. Well, people had a cow when we drafted two WRs, thinking that was overkill. If that is where the best players were for us in the draft, more power to us. At the same time, we shouldn't pick a position for the sake of picking a position. I know it makes a lot of fans feel a whole lot better if they feel like the team is trying, but there is little difference between making a pick and having it fail and not making the pick. At least with the latter, you have a chance to get help at another position on the team. Just to say, "we should pick these positions every draft, no matter what" is no way to draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinzelwashington Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 i dont mean to judge a person by the cover. but scott campbell. do u see football in that man. dude looks like a total square Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jthor99 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Is JLC really wrong in this article? Don't many of the successful teams (yearly basis) draft OL, and DL on a year to year basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.