What to do with LG

[Malapropismic Depository]

38 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

 

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. 53 was hauling ass!

 

Their 53 runs exactly like our 53

[OVCChairman]

20 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. 53 was hauling ass!  I'd guess he had blown his assignment on Grant or in the flat.  

 

Looking at our roster, I don't see much competition for Lauvao.  Every year we want an upgrade and every year no one can beat him out. I do think Alex Smith is going make to all our OL look better by being strong in the pocket.

And hopefully Chase being more comfortable with the alignment of the line and setting it up

[RandyHolt]

6 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

And hopefully Chase being more comfortable with the alignment of the line and setting it up

Yep. Last year injuries wrecked everything, but the alignment seemed ok??

 

IIRC you and I were both clamoring for Chase early in the year. Great minds!  They must like him a lot as I don't see much competition in camp for him, at least those listed as C's.  I hope and expect Chase and Alex will be spending an awful lot of time together, to get on the same page.

[OVCChairman]

13 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

Yep. Last year injuries wrecked everything, but the alignment seemed ok??

 

IIRC you and I were both clamoring for Chase early in the year. Great minds!  They must like him a lot as I don't see much competition in camp for him, at least those listed as C's.  I hope and expect Chase and Alex will be spending an awful lot of time together, to get on the same page.

 

 

Admittedly my clamoring for Chase was more because I was HOPING with all my being that he was better than Spencer Long lol.  I would imagine they're already working together.  I freely will agree that LG is our biggest hole, but with the neutral level of production that Lauvao had when he was healthy, and the development of Chase in the middle... It may be a need that can be masked.   Looking at what he have on offense I'm actually encouraged about what we can do.  If you were to ask me 4 years ago that a 1st round talent RB would be running behind 2 pro bowlers, both who we drafted, and we had also drafted our C and RT... I think we all would have been elated to hear that information.  

 

Gruden and Callahan appeared to not be AGAINST Lauvao playing, likely because they had to trot SOMEONE out there, but who knows.  Now I am hoping that the speculation and rumors that he wasn't at 100% last year are accurate, and the brain melting things I saw were a product of that.  I'm not sold on the guy and I really want us to upgrade the position, but I know the bullets in the gun are limited before you have to reload.  Can't kill 11 guys with 10 bullets without needing to reload. 

[Malapropismic Depository]

Just in retrospect, wouldn't Spencer Long have been a better option at LG than Lauvao or Arie ?

Does anyone know the real reason Long left ?

[Morneblade]

9 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

Just in retrospect, wouldn't Spencer Long have been a better option at LG than Lauvao or Arie ?

Does anyone know the real reason Long left ?

 

I don't know. He was pretty decent playing both for us.

[Malapropismic Depository]

Thought this was an old article when I first saw it.

But it sounds like a repeat of incidents, of sorts.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/21/richie-incognito-arrested-for-disorderly-conduct-threats/

 

 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

On 8/14/2018 at 1:17 PM, Malapropismic Depository said:

Just in retrospect, wouldn't Spencer Long have been a better option at LG than Lauvao or Arie ?

Does anyone know the real reason Long left ?

 

I thought it was a money thing. Already have Trent and Moses signed to big contracts and (I assume) they want to make sure they can sign Scherff to a LTD. I dont think its feasible to have 2 paid guards in addition to Trent and Moses.

 

If they end up letting Scherff walk after this year ... then I dont know what the plan was.

 

Long was a luxury and I think the FO wanted to stay flexible.

[volsmet]

It seems odd that the problem we can’t solve, year in & year out, is a guard. I wish we had drafted James Daniels & been done with it, but that’s easier to say after losing Guice.

[Wildbunny]

18 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

If they end up letting Scherff walk after this year ... then I dont know what the plan was.

If they truly do this, then I will really question the overall plan. Letting Scherff walk after Cousins story would be tough to swallow.

[redskinss]

7 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

If they truly do this, then I will really question the overall plan. Letting Scherff walk after Cousins story would be tough to swallow.

I just don't see it happening. 

Our biggest rival has 5 superstars on their line all signed up and we're gonna let one of our two (maybe three)  walk?

Not that the skins haven't tripped over their dicks plenty lately but this would be epic failure. 

[Sandy Monk]

22 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

If they truly do this, then I will really question the overall plan. Letting Scherff walk after Cousins story would be tough to swallow.

 

Not a concern for this year and next. I'm expecting an early draft pick IOL for the 2019 draft either way. With Scherff, much may depend on whether they begin to see 2020 as a true time for rebuilding. 

[redskinss]

Plus how do you justify using the 5th pick in the draft on a guard if you're going to let him walk after becoming a perennial pro bowler. 

It would make no sense at all to let him walk. 

[OVCChairman]

57 minutes ago, Sandy Monk said:

 

Not a concern for this year and next. I'm expecting an early draft pick IOL for the 2019 draft either way. With Scherff, much may depend on whether they begin to see 2020 as a true time for rebuilding. 

 

 

I would imagine that Scherff's extension happens early next league year.  Somewhere shortly before the season starts.... he's due to make $12.25 next season with the option we picked up, and I don't think they pick up that option at that number unless they're planning on re-signing him.  I would imagine, they did that to give them a year to see about Crowder / Smith and see how much money they will have to spend for Scherffs big payday.  It wasn't to buy time, it was to get more info regarding the $$ books.  

[CTskin]

On 8/14/2018 at 1:17 PM, Malapropismic Depository said:

Just in retrospect, wouldn't Spencer Long have been a better option at LG than Lauvao or Arie ?

Does anyone know the real reason Long left ?

Because he got $7.1M/yr... Knowing the guys we'll need to re-sign, we couldn't take that plunge.

 

Just for kicks:

Scherff:

Moses:

TW:

3 hours ago, redskinss said:

I just don't see it happening. 

Our biggest rival has 5 superstars on their line all signed up and we're gonna let one of our two (maybe three)  walk?

Not that the skins haven't tripped over their dicks plenty lately but this would be epic failure. 

For the record, they have three studs, not five. La'el has been straight up bad and they have a rookie at LG...

 

EDIT- thanks for the correction @redskinss, I wrote Cowboys C, but meant LG.

[redskinss]

1 hour ago, CTskin said:

Because he got $7.1M/yr... Knowing the guys we'll need to re-sign, we couldn't take that plunge.

 

Just for kicks:

Scherff:

Moses:

TW:

For the record, they have three studs, not five. La'el has been straight up bad and they have a rookie at C...

For the record Travis Frederick is a four time pro bowler. 

But I see your point they really only have three superstars. But they do have what is considered one of if not the best offensive lines in football. 

And without scherff we'll be a laughing stock compared to them. 

[CTskin]

38 minutes ago, redskinss said:

For the record Travis Frederick is a four time pro bowler. 

But I see your point they really only have three superstars. But they do have what is considered one of if not the best offensive lines in football. 

And without scherff we'll be a laughing stock compared to them. 

 

Misspoke, meant LG, not C.

 

If you compare anyone to the Cowboys they'd be a "laughing stock." Good thing is that the team with the best OL isn't crowned the champ before the year starts.

 

I'm not a fan of letting Scherff walk, but I can see a scenario where we'd be better off to do so. Currently, we have a good amount invested in this OL yet we are consistently below average in rushing. I'm pretty sure that I saw a stat where we were one of the worst rated teams at yards-before-contact. I know that many believe the problems are due to our RBs' lack of vision and talent, but I think its an OL issue. It becomes obvious to me on 3rd or 4th and shorts when we get pushed off the line and stuffed. I think it's hard for many to understand or believe that our OL isn't great because we have some big names and an apparent "great" OL coach, but the truth is that we aren't seeing the translation on the field. My point in this ramble is that I may not have a problem with letting Scherff walk if we do it correctly- use a high draft pick on IOL, and use the Scherff savings on upgrading the black hole which is Luavao... Also, comp picccck! (kidding). If all goes according to plans, we'd have an upgrade at LG and a pretty good RG, which I'd consider an overall upgrade. The OL needs to work as a whole, the less amount of broken links in the chain, the better the results. 

 

If Catalina or Kalis or any young buck for that matter take over LG and play well, then scratch all of above and sign up Scherff long term. 

[bowhunter]

4 minutes ago, CTskin said:

 

Misspoke, meant LG, not C.

 

If you compare anyone to the Cowboys they'd be a "laughing stock." Good thing is that the team with the best OL isn't crowned the champ before the year starts.

 

I'm not a fan of letting Scherff walk, but I can see a scenario where we'd be better off to do so. Currently, we have a good amount invested in this OL yet we are consistently below average in rushing. I'm pretty sure that I saw a stat where we were one of the worst rated teams at yards-before-contact. I know that many believe the problems are due to our RBs' lack of vision and talent, but I think its an OL issue. It becomes obvious to me on 3rd or 4th and shorts when we get pushed off the line and stuffed. I think it's hard for many to understand or believe that our OL isn't great because we have some big names and an apparent "great" OL coach, but the truth is that we aren't seeing the translation on the field. My point in this ramble is that I may not have a problem with letting Scherff walk if we do it correctly- use a high draft pick on IOL, and use the Scherff savings on upgrading the black hole which is Luavao... Also, comp picccck! (kidding). If all goes according to plans, we'd have an upgrade at LG and a pretty good RG, which I'd consider an overall upgrade. The OL needs to work as a whole, the less amount of broken links in the chain, the better the results. 

 

If Catalina or Kalis or any young buck for that matter take over LG and play well, then scratch all of above and sign up Scherff long term. 

So many interesting thoughts here. Realistically I don't see a situation where letting Scherff go would lead to an upgrade overall. Good guards cost money, and his absence would leave us with two holes to fill. 

I strongly agree with the Callahan mystery. I like him here, but great coaches have the ability to make forests out of seedlings. With the exception of maybe Moses, I really haven't seen that return yet. But who knows, maybe Chases development is a direct result of Callies touch.

[JSSkinz]

On 8/14/2018 at 1:17 PM, Malapropismic Depository said:

Just in retrospect, wouldn't Spencer Long have been a better option at LG than Lauvao or Arie ?

Does anyone know the real reason Long left ?

They didn't think he was worth the $6.5M per year.

[redskinss]

31 minutes ago, CTskin said:

I'm not a fan of letting Scherff walk, but I can see a scenario where we'd be better off to do so.

Although I just don't see many scenarios where letting scherff walk makes us better i see the logic behind it. 

But I think it would take more of a blowing up of the offensive line and using multiple high picks in consecutive years kinda like we did with the defensive side. 

I do sometimes wonder about how good of a coach or how good our offensive line actually is because despite all the hype, you're right it never seems to translate. 

Gotta wonder if callahan is so good why he isn't still with the cowboys. 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

26 minutes ago, CTskin said:

 

Misspoke, meant LG, not C.

 

If you compare anyone to the Cowboys they'd be a "laughing stock." Good thing is that the team with the best OL isn't crowned the champ before the year starts.

 

I'm not a fan of letting Scherff walk, but I can see a scenario where we'd be better off to do so. Currently, we have a good amount invested in this OL yet we are consistently below average in rushing. I'm pretty sure that I saw a stat where we were one of the worst rated teams at yards-before-contact. I know that many believe the problems are due to our RBs' lack of vision and talent, but I think its an OL issue. It becomes obvious to me on 3rd or 4th and shorts when we get pushed off the line and stuffed. I think it's hard for many to understand or believe that our OL isn't great because we have some big names and an apparent "great" OL coach, but the truth is that we aren't seeing the translation on the field. My point in this ramble is that I may not have a problem with letting Scherff walk if we do it correctly- use a high draft pick on IOL, and use the Scherff savings on upgrading the black hole which is Luavao... Also, comp picccck! (kidding). If all goes according to plans, we'd have an upgrade at LG and a pretty good RG, which I'd consider an overall upgrade. The OL needs to work as a whole, the less amount of broken links in the chain, the better the results. 

 

If Catalina or Kalis or any young buck for that matter take over LG and play well, then scratch all of above and sign up Scherff long term. 

 

I want to take advantage of drafting guys and having them play above their rookie deal cap hit. You cant do that if you draft an IOL in the top 10. You are not getting a cap benefit imo.

 

The slot at 5 where Scherff was taken made him a highly paid G right away. I have no problem taking an IOL after the top 10 picks. For top 10, Id use it on the more expensive positions like QB, DL, T, CB, WR, LB, S .. on that scale.

 

G Quentin nelson was taken 6th overall with a slot of 24M/4 yrs w 15M guaranteed. That already makes him a high paid G. 

 

C Frank Ragnow was taken 20th overall with a slot of 11.9M/4 yrs with 6.7M guaranteed.

 

That is a much better cap hit for a IOL imo.

 

We can always pay a top tier FA IOL 6-8M if we need to add a stud.

[OVCChairman]

1 hour ago, CTskin said:

 

Misspoke, meant LG, not C.

 

If you compare anyone to the Cowboys they'd be a "laughing stock." Good thing is that the team with the best OL isn't crowned the champ before the year starts.

 

I'm not a fan of letting Scherff walk, but I can see a scenario where we'd be better off to do so. Currently, we have a good amount invested in this OL yet we are consistently below average in rushing. I'm pretty sure that I saw a stat where we were one of the worst rated teams at yards-before-contact. I know that many believe the problems are due to our RBs' lack of vision and talent, but I think its an OL issue. It becomes obvious to me on 3rd or 4th and shorts when we get pushed off the line and stuffed. I think it's hard for many to understand or believe that our OL isn't great because we have some big names and an apparent "great" OL coach, but the truth is that we aren't seeing the translation on the field. My point in this ramble is that I may not have a problem with letting Scherff walk if we do it correctly- use a high draft pick on IOL, and use the Scherff savings on upgrading the black hole which is Luavao... Also, comp picccck! (kidding). If all goes according to plans, we'd have an upgrade at LG and a pretty good RG, which I'd consider an overall upgrade. The OL needs to work as a whole, the less amount of broken links in the chain, the better the results. 

 

If Catalina or Kalis or any young buck for that matter take over LG and play well, then scratch all of above and sign up Scherff long term. 

 

 

I think injuries was left out of this equation.  Trent was playing on essentially a dislocated knee cap, and Moses had 2 hurt ankles last year.  They were not 100%.  That itself with hinder their ability.  Chase was a completely green rookie who started 7 games and played in 13.  We were signing guys off the street last year.  We were one of the worst teams at running the ball, but it's hard to grade an O-line when it's not actually out there.   

As far as Callahan's greatness... we were signing guys on Monday and playing them on Sunday.  I already mentioned Chase, and he also helped in the transition of taking Scherff from LT in college (he played 7 games at LG his freshman year, LT the following 3) to RG where he made a pro-bowl in his second season.  Moses also looked TERRIBLE for the beginning of his career starting 1 game as a rookie and playing in 8.  He's started every game since Callahan has been here (Moses' 2nd season). 

 

The dude is FINALLY getting talent along the line and it's all been hurt.  I'd LOVE to see what a Callahan led line could do for 10 straight games, let alone 16.  Last year we didnt have the starting O-line together after week 6 (we were avg 122.8 ypg rushing going into that week 6 game vs Philly)... including 3 consecutive games of 100 more rushing yards in week 2 / 3 / 4.  

[carex]

3 hours ago, CTskin said:

 

Misspoke, meant LG, not C.

 

If you compare anyone to the Cowboys they'd be a "laughing stock." Good thing is that the team with the best OL isn't crowned the champ before the year starts.

 

I'm not a fan of letting Scherff walk, but I can see a scenario where we'd be better off to do so. Currently, we have a good amount invested in this OL yet we are consistently below average in rushing. I'm pretty sure that I saw a stat where we were one of the worst rated teams at yards-before-contact. I know that many believe the problems are due to our RBs' lack of vision and talent, but I think its an OL issue. It becomes obvious to me on 3rd or 4th and shorts when we get pushed off the line and stuffed. I think it's hard for many to understand or believe that our OL isn't great because we have some big names and an apparent "great" OL coach, but the truth is that we aren't seeing the translation on the field. My point in this ramble is that I may not have a problem with letting Scherff walk if we do it correctly- use a high draft pick on IOL, and use the Scherff savings on upgrading the black hole which is Luavao... Also, comp picccck! (kidding). If all goes according to plans, we'd have an upgrade at LG and a pretty good RG, which I'd consider an overall upgrade. The OL needs to work as a whole, the less amount of broken links in the chain, the better the results. 

 

If Catalina or Kalis or any young buck for that matter take over LG and play well, then scratch all of above and sign up Scherff long term. 

 

we have our top picks next year, LG will likely be an early pick, we have four or five years of rookie contract and we re-sign Scherff

[dswerdlw]

I expect the FO to be looking closely at interior linemen cut by other teams.  

[KillBill26]

2 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

I want to take advantage of drafting guys and having them play above their rookie deal cap hit. You cant do that if you draft an IOL in the top 10. You are not getting a cap benefit imo.

 

The slot at 5 where Scherff was taken made him a highly paid G right away. I have no problem taking an IOL after the top 10 picks. For top 10, Id use it on the more expensive positions like QB, DL, T, CB, WR, LB, S .. on that scale.

 

G Quentin nelson was taken 6th overall with a slot of 24M/4 yrs w 15M guaranteed. That already makes him a high paid G. 

 

C Frank Ragnow was taken 20th overall with a slot of 11.9M/4 yrs with 6.7M guaranteed.

 

That is a much better cap hit for a IOL imo.

 

We can always pay a top tier FA IOL 6-8M if we need to add a stud.

I understand what you are saying, those cap hits for top 10 draft picks are pretty steep, and in a perfect world need would meet BPA at a more premium position such as cb or pass rusher. 

 

But the colts are a perfect example of when taking the og as high as 6 overall is a good move.  Their o line has been terrible, and with a franchise qb coming off a major injury, they made protecting him a top priority.  I would rather take a sure fire prospect at 6 overall over someone lower on my board, especially when it fills a high priority need.  And when looking at cap numbers, would you rather have Spencer long at 7 aav, or nelson at 6 aav?  

 

And the reason the scherff pick was such an excellent pick for the skins was because it elevated three positions for us with one pick: rg, rt (Moses taking off was no coincidence) and QB (because it allowed us to get a better read on our QBs, and it turned out we had a pretty good one). 

 

So while I understand your point being in perfect world you would find an effective guard later in the draft for a lesser cap figure, I think there are situations where a guard in the top 10 is the best move, and I feel scherff and nelson are two prime examples.  If nelson can positively impact his position, the tackle next to him elevates his game, and luck is able to stay clean and do his thing, then the colts will be very happy with that pick. And I feel much more confident nelson will have that effect than long having that effect at a similar cap hit. 

 

Also, while the colts may have wanted to trade back and get a ragnow / price / Daniels a little later on, it takes two to tango and it rarely works out. And nelson has been regarded as one of the best interior o line prospects in awhile, none of the other three i mentioned are regarded as on his level.  And if the colts passed on nelson at 6 due to him playing iol, and luck got the snot knocked out of him all year and ended up on ir, wouldn't you look back and say man I wish we took nelson at 6.

 

And as far as your last sentence goes, you aren't getting a stud at iol for 6 to 8 aav, you are getting Spencer long.  Studs such as andrew norwell are going for 13 aav, and free agents will be commanding even more than that by the third and fourth year of Nelson's rookie deal.