Clark Judge: Mike Pouncey the better Pouncey, best Center in the NFL.

It pretty much changes with the wind and our current situation.

 

and now Wade Smith is in the pro bowl and our two first rounders are injured and snubbed. There's gotta be a happy medium somewhere...


.


.


.


.




Found it!

 

Should probably wait until the Falcons aren't bounced out of the first round before they're referred to as successful, and Bill Polian was a superstar at failed higher round linemen(or for that matter, failed picks in general but whatevs)

 

Atlanta not to be considered a success yet?

Playoffs in 4 of 5 years with Matt Ryan, and homefield throughout the playoffs this year.

Are we serious here?

And how about the Giants lack of EVER drafting lineman high. Surely they can be considered successful, right?

 

The goal of the offense is to score TDs. The goal of the defense is to prevent TDs (if they score themselves than great).

When Defensive Tackles and Edge Rushers start to play on offense, then let's talk.

 

That's a bit ridiculous. They have been successful. Even though we had the #1 pick, Atlanta was seen as the more disastrous team over us in 2008 because of their record, Mike Vick, and Parcells snubbing them at the altar. They were a joke, while we were just a bad team. Well, turns out the joke is on us. Yes they haven't performed well in the playoffs. But they are getting there every year, and that's better than us. They're trending up, we're trending down ... but now kind of sideways.

In any event, there are plenty of teams that don't invest highly in oline that do quite well. Pittsburgh, New York who slid a guard over to the LT position, who graded out very poorly, and beat an 18-0 patriots team (Diehl).

And you guys are misrepresenting Padre's position. He isn't talking about specific picks, like Pouncey. So there is no use comparing Pouncey to available players in the draft. He liked the Pouncey pick and said so in this thread. He's talking about the general philosophy of ignoring skill players while focusing a lot of resources on Olinemen, like 2 first round picks in 4 years. So when Pouncey and Fields get snubbed, we're all fighting about them getting snubbed, while other teams are *****ing about their player getting snubbed ... but their players include Alfred Morris, CJ Spiller etc. (yeah I know Bills aren't a good comparison).

 

Yea, losing Mike Vick made them look worse then they actually were. They had a decent amount of talent but had a turmoil year.

 

Exactly.

It would be far far better IF we were arguing why Turner/Gates/Miller/Egnew et al were snubs for the pro bowl then it is to argue over Pouncey not making it.

Points win games, it is better to have your draft choices scoring points and being snubbed then it is to worry about your center not making the list.

 

call me crazy but i truly believe Ireland got the memo...he will draft playmakers and sign them in the offseason...

 

I'm talking about elite, Super Bowl winning teams. The Falcons have a good chance to get there, but that's not certainly them, yet.

We're so far away from the point it isn't funny. The idea that you don't spend high picks on offensive linemen is something that isn't something that is done in reality by actual professionals.

The Giants have not drafted a lot high, but they're almost certainly not against it either given Parcells influence.

 

So basically the only thing that's worthwhile in the draft is what, then?

 

This is one of the most ridiculous white-washing jobs I've ever heard in my entire life. The Dolphins barely won one game. The Falcons were 4-12 after a solid at worst run of several years.

 

Yes it is. You can keep saying that it's something teams or professionals don't practice. But you're wrong.

The Superbowl Champs subscribe to this philosophy. They are against drafting OL early. Here, see for yourself: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg/draft.htm

And this is despite having one of the worst pass blocking OL's in 2011 (they won the SB).

I'm curious. What will it take for you to admit you're wrong in this case? I've provided you with a clear example of a team (a very successful one) that doesn't draft OL early. Will your rebuttal again be: "It's a philosophy professionals don't subscribe to?" which will again be a wrong rebuttal

 

So that is why the Patriots lost? They drafted Nate Soldier?

 

Granting you that the Giants do not do this does not come remotely close to proving your point. It's one team, and is very easily belied by the Patriots, Packers, Steelers, and virtually every single other team to play in the Super Bowl in the last decade.

Nor are the Giants really all that great proof of that. Tom Coughlin is a Belichick guy, and he's held the same general "Planet Theory" behind team building. He's not the decision maker, but Jerry Reese is so much of a BPA guy that it doesn't really matter. I don't really think there's anything to suggest that the Giants would not draft an offensive linemen high if it came down to it.

If I'm wrong and Reese as said otherwise, fine. But my point still stands, your idea that you shouldn't draft linemen high is pretty much your own personal theory of dubious merits.

 

Sure it does. Stop saying that it's not practiced by professionals then.

Sure there is. I provided you the link proving they don't. They continue to have bad OL pass protection and still continue to neglect drafting OL high. You can pretend it's not proof and hide behind "well there weren't any OL worth drafting in those 20 situations" wall. But again, you'd be wrong.

And you are correct. Jerry Reese and Ernie Acorsi were driving the ship on draft day. Not Tom Coughlin.

This is not my belief or idea

My point is that it's not a ridiculous theory(not drafting OL early) to subscribe to and that there are teams, including successful ones, that do it.

 

The best was whoever made that PIT comment about how they won the SB etc with no OL.

Anyone remember what PIT's first 2 picks this year were?

 

What does this have to do with the New York Giants drafting strategies?

I never said, nor do I believe this is THE ONLY successful way to draft. But it has proven successful, nonetheless.

 

It's more than that- They've picked an entire offensive line(two tackles, two guards, and a center) in the first and second round in the last three drafts.

BORRRINNGGGGG. No wonder they're not in the playoffs this year.

 

So you're basing your proclamation on conjecture instead of actual draft history.

Strawman. Padre says to focus on oline at the expense of playmakers is folly. They're all worthwhile to focus on.

You're the one whitewashing. After our 1-15 season everyone forgot about us. The Falcons were a joke. Bill Parcells agreed to take that job and at the very last minute, no, it was AFTER the last minute, spurned him and chose our team. They flashed Arthur Blank's face on ESPN almost every day. Dog fighting, Vick in jail, Parcells spurned them. That GM position was quite possibly the most unattractive job in the NFL.

Patriots, Steelers and Giants. Winners of 7 of superbowls since 2001. Exactly how many 1st round picks did they use on OL at the time they won their superbowls? For the Patriots it was Logan Mankins in 2005. That's it. Zero for The Giants who slid the terrible David Diehl over for their amazing 2007 run. Steelers last 1st round pick on OL when they won the superbowl was Alan Faneca in 1998. It wasn't until Pouncey they drafted a lineman in the 1st. Ben Roeth famously ran around like a chicken with his head cut off. Two superbowls and lost another.

Owners of 7 of 11 superbowls and one first round OL among them. Logan Mankins. I'll even throw in Alan Faneca.

 

Yeah and what good has it gotten them? You want to talk about super bowl winners, or past super bowl winners?

 

they were rolling till ben got hurt as I recall. i think a lot of the pitt having a bad o line comments come from big bens style of play more then their actual play.

 

Along w their OL being battered.

 

Or you know on the back-ground of people involved.

That's not at all what has happened in reality.

The Dolphins were in way worse shape than the Falcons, period. You're talking about ESPN-style hype, which seems pretty characteristic but otherwise totally meaningless.

So wait... It doesn't actually count if the exact same people making the decisions have decided to do these things? Are you suggesting the Steelers have lost their way, fallen off the wagon, and made a serious of bad decisions resulting in them drafting offensive linemen? Is this why the Patriots can't seal the deal in the Super Bowl anymore?

 

I'm not quite sure what I treasure more at this point, that you guys are coming up with a dumb**** draft philosophy and trying to convince people it's legitimate and totally what professionals do IN REAL LIFE, GUYS, or this particular bit of moving goal-posts.

 

After 2008 Mike Tomlin declared they needed to get stronger and younger on both lines. They drafted just one lineman in 2008, in the 4th round Tony Hillis. Meanwhile they lost two starters on their oline early that year. Their Oline was in disarray. Doesn't matter. Chaaaaampionship.

 

You may want to consider writing them a sincere letter informing them of the error of their ways.

 

I love it. Professionals, which you are definitely not. Nobody moved the goalposts. We have 3 superbowl teams winner of 7 super bowls and one first round Olineman among them, two if you want me to be generous.

There are 32 "professionals" in the league and most of them aren't worth a damn. I look at successful teams and don't see a LOT of oline drafted at the expense of playmakers. Even with Pitt and New England, I see them stock their cupboards full of offensive playmakers and then they focused on the oline. Steelers have Wallace, Brown, Mendenhall, Ben.

 

They didn't score a lot of touchdowns. They had the total of 19 passing touchdowns.

So basically Miami should draft all linebackers and defense.

 

I would, but then they'd just tell me to kiss their 2008 ring. And I'd lose.

 

I'm cool with that. Playmakers. I want playmakers. On Defense too.

 

You've absolutely moved the goal-posts. We're talking about peoples philosophies, and you're trying to disqualify a large swath of teams that don't share your draft philosophy.

Just fyi, you might gain more traction with it if you come up with a name. The "Planet Theory", for example. How 'bout the "Fantasy Football Theory"? Millions of people play fantasy football and win games, they can't be wrong- Modeling your draft philosophy after them seems like a good idea.

Remove Brown, Mendenhall, add Miller.

What are you going to say when the Steelers end up with basically Miller and Brown and Roethlisberger, because they drafted so many offensive linemen?

 

No, YOU were the one saying that NOBODY drafted like what we described. I showed you 3. And then you say, oh ok their draft history doesn't show it but I'm sure they believe what I believe. And you cite Coughlin's Parcellian tree. Sure, he may want something doesn't mean his GM, you know the guy stocking the team, agrees.

My philosophy is you don't sacrifice the skill positions to only focus on the O line. I agreed with Padre there. If you disagree with that, then you must be of the school that thinks you need to only draft offensive lineman the other positions don't matter. I've said it over and over again, spending resources on Oline is ok, if you are not sacrificing the other positions. And you don't need to spend inordinate amounts of resources on the Oline to win. If you kick *** drafting skill positions and playmakers on defense, the Oline can be crappy.

What really screws us is if we focus on the Oline, and fail at that, while ignoring skill positions. Then you don't have anything.

. 7-11 Theory. 7 of the past 11 super bowl winners

Not sure what you mean with this hypothetical.

 

Still pretending the Giants don't subscribe to the philosophy of not drafting lineman early? I'm not surprised.

You made a bold remark stating that "professionals" don't practice this strategy.
Your remark was wrong.
You won't admit it.

At this point you've totally lost this argument and are doing everything possible to pretend like you didn't.

But hey, Tom Coughlin once coached with Bill Belichick, who has drafted a lineman in the first round before, so therefore Tom Coughlin believes in drafting Lineman in the first round, which means so does Jerry Reese, which means so do the Giants....................even though they NEVER do, despite poor individual OL play.

Keep trying though. Eventually you may convince me in the face of historical evidence.

 

I don't understand this post. There is no joke. Not possible!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Never does, as if it does not matter how much that strategy fails, it is conventional wisdom (or was) so it must be dogmatically stuck to regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Now what those franchises will tend to do is if they have late rd 1 picks, they will use them on OL who offer good value.

The other issue here is "timing", you can make those picks when you have your playmaking/creating positions filled, but not before hand.

This is one of the things Ireland/Parcells did not seem to grasp and just followed a blue print from the mid 90's.

Interesting that Peyton/Loomis did not follow that blue print upon arrival in NOLA they just found guys like Nicks and Bushrod.

 

Exactly. If I had a roster full of playmakers, sure, spend a high picks on lineman. But when the cupboard is empty ...

 

Apparently you fill it with goods from the scratch and dent carts found in the UDFA/Late Rd market..

 

What I said was this:

Most all. The Giants possibly do not, but I severely doubt it.

And I'm saying it's irrelevant that you have a philosophy, without even getting into what it is.

Also, no one in league history has ever done what you're suggesting.

So wait, what you're telling me is that all those teams that won Super Bowls without 1st round offensive linemen on the roster actually changed their belief systems?

 

What I said is that virtually all of them have drafted a linemen high recently, and am saying that the ones who have not are almost certainly willing to.

Not complicated.