1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Doesnt it suck knowing your team is going to draft a boring offensive lineman?

Discussion in 'SoapBox - Rants forum' started by yoge, May 7, 2014.

  1. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    So you don't think the constant harassment by the pass rush that Tannehill faced affected his ability to pass accurately?

    I don't advocate modeling our OL as for how they are acquired, after any particular team. What I saw last year was an OL that was holding the rest of the team back with their ineptitude. YMMV. Therefore, that is the area of the team where the most focus should be placed when it comes to upgrading. I think Hickey should have more strongly pursued and then signed one more proven starter for the OL. Then I'd feel much better about going in any number of directions in the early rounds.
     
  2. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    Because we did so well last year with free agent, and later round pick offensive lineman right???

    Do you remember giving up almost 60 sacks last year?? I sure do, and I'll tell you what, from a football standpoint... that sucks. I don't give a rats *** about us having an exciting time tonight during the 5-10 minutes that will be focused on us for our pick if it is indeed an OL.

    Amazing how short memories some people have
     
  3. Vertical Limit

    Vertical Limit Senior Member

    12,162
    5,057
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I can see us trading up for an offensive linemen..
     
  4. Phin5.0

    Phin5.0 New Member

    57
    23
    0
    Feb 16, 2014
    Okay. So we're apparently going to agree and to disagree, but I think ultimately we are on the same page.

    No, I don't. Because the dozen or so plays that I'm referring to are the same plays that both Tannehill and Wallace talked about after the season. These were plays when Tannehill had all the time he wanted in order to get comfortable with the throw and yet he still couldn't connect. Tannehill wasn't missing on those throws because of phantom pressure or anything. He just missed those throws because that is not something he is good at. He's good at a lot of things, he's great at some things, but deep accuracy is something he has always been bad at and that has nothing to do with our OL.

    So when you say if our OL was better we would have won more games, that's entirely possible. My point is that even with our OL as crappy as it was, when they did make their blocks and give Tannehill time to take the shot deep, Tannehill couldn't make it happen. I'd rather fix that issue, than the OL. Because the better OL is only going to serve the purpose of giving Tannehill more chances to take more shots deep and ultimately fail doing so. And we already called up more deep passes than most of the league (we averaged what? 3-4 a game? trying to get the ball deep to Wallace?), and our run/pass ratio was the most biased in the league in favor of passing.

    Here is where we agree. I like your opening sentence, because I feel the same way - how you acquire that great/good OL isn't the issue and there have been too many teams that have done it too many different ways to try to "prove" one way is better than the other. But we do both agree that you need a good OL to be successful. I also saw what you saw, that the OL was horrific last year and that the team really would have been much better if the OL would have been solid.

    We also both agree that we are replacing 4/5ths of our offensive line from last year, and that we did a good job of getting Albert to play LT and with Pouncey at OC, we can kinda build the rest of the line around those two keystones.

    But, like you, I'm SHOCKED and DISMAYED at the lack of free agent signings along the OL other than Albert and Smith. Sure, we also brought in Fox that has all the talent in the world but can't seem to stay healthy in the NFL (not a problem at UM) to play RT.

    Although maybe this is what they want to do? They've paid huge dollars to acquire a franchise LT, they already have a franchise OC, and in free agency they got Smith who was ranked just two years ago as the best run blocking guard in the entire league (or so I thought I read?), and they signed Fox who has all the talent in the world to be a franchise RT but hasn't been able to stay healthy.

    If Fox can stay healthy, we don't need a RT at all. If Smith can come in and a play at a starting caliber level, we now have 4/5ths of an OL with a bunch of players that we can plug in at that 5th hole.

    But I totally agree that I wouldn't be betting my job or success on the franchise on either Smith or Fox, and I would have been far more aggressive in FA in bringing in more than just them to make sure the OL was "fixed" prior to the draft so we weren't sitting here again with no choice but to draft a first round RT. Because the last time we did that, we drafted Vernon Carey and while he was solid for a number of years, we missed out on playmakers by drafting that position of need.
     
  5. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    Offensive lineman are boring to draft. The highlights are dull, and the 1st round of the draft is all about imaging one of the best 32 players coming out of college being added to your team. And when I imagine football, I imagine playmakers.

    With that said, it absolutely doesn't suck that our team will drafting a Lineman. I was happy to draft Jake Long, and I was happy to draft Pouncey. Long was an elite tackle. Pouncey is an elite 5 center. Matt Ryan is not elite. There isn't a single skill position player selected after Pouncey who has made a Pro Bowl.

    Lineman are boring, but picking one in the 1st round doesn't suck.

    *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
    IF THIS ISN'T MAKING SENSE
    IT DOESN'T MAKE IT LIES
     
  6. gunn34

    gunn34 I miss Don & Dan

    21,755
    3,475
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Oviedo FL
    I think if we had better coaching, we would have won two or three more games with the terrible OL we had.
     
    Aquafin and Phin5.0 like this.
  7. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    How would you propose fixing that issue? I doubt adding Beckham, Lee, et al to the receiving corps is going to cause Tannehill to suddenly become more accurate deep. I kind of think part of his problem was the number of hits he took. So even when he did have time to throw deep, he was a little skittish or even shell shocked. IMO, an improved OL can help him feel more comfortable in the pocket, and that could improve his accuracy. It is going to either come down to the old practice makes perfect adage whereby more and more reps and eventually he'll improve or else he'll never improve and if one wants to be more effective deep, replace him next year. This season will be the one he either needs to show significant improvement or looking for a replacement may need to be considered.
    The OL though wasn't just a problem on deep passes. Remember plays such as that sack/fumble late in the first Bills game that cost us the game. Tannehill wasn't trying to go deep. Just sustain a drive and burn clock. Or how about run blocking? How many times were we unable to convert a 3rd and short running ball because our line couldn't get any push? I don't have an exact number but it seems like more often than not.
    Granted we may find some diamonds in the rough late in the draft along the OL and I'd take one there no matter what happens early. But I don't want to have to count on a 3rd day draft pick as sufficiently addressing the remaining OL openings.
    If we were to look at the starting 22 right now today, by far the most glaring holes are RT and whichever guard that Smith does not play. IF sufficient upgrades can be made at those two spots, this is IMO a playoff team, baring injury to key players of course.
    I don't like how Hickey decided to sign an injury prone Delmas or a declining Finnegan in free agency rather than a proven guard like Geoff Schwartz or another tackle like Anthony Collins. If it was an either/or thing. I'd feel much better looking for a safety starter in this draft than a RT starter, considering where we are picking. Granted we needed to sign a corner, but Finnegan does not look like a wise investment when we see what guys like Tarell Brown and Walter Thurmond signed for. Or after 3 years of investment, in his 4th season Nolan Carroll was finally showing marked improvement. So we never even offered him a contract, according to Carroll himself, and he signed for a pittance comparatively with Philly.
    If I'd been doing it, I'd have kept Carroll and went hard after Schwartz and Collins in free agency to go with Albert and Smith. Then right now we'd be looking for safety and even if Ha Ha and Pryor are both gone, we'd still have fine options in Jimmie Ward and Deone Bucannon. Not to mention Terrence Brooks.
     
  8. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    The excitment of watching Tannehill behind a good line far exceeds any boredom I might have taking a lineman.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page