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

Why a franchise LT is nonsense

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by padre31, Apr 19, 2013.

  1. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    39,709
    21,347
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    And what about the 1st and 2 2nds the Patriots used on Oline from 1999-01? Why would the Pats need to use any more high picks on Oline when they already had a good one in place, especially after the 1st on Mankins? That makes no sense.

    The bold part is wrong by the way. They drafted Solder in the 1st in 2011.
    So from 2005-2011, Belichick used a 1st & 2nd on tackle and a 1st on guard.

    Seems to me that Belichick guy does prioritize Oline and doesn't hesitate to throw draft picks into it when it's needed.
     
    ssmiami and GMJohnson like this.
  2. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    And if you have a good QB and cannot protect him, then you are not going to get full value out of his abilities, and more likely get him hurt. The more times a QB gets hit or sacked, the higher the risk of his getting injured.
    Aaron Rodgers led the league in getting sacked, and even so the Packers were a playoff team, so the Padre followers could say getting sacked does not matter. But, if Rodgers were to have been in the median for number of sacks, which was 28, that means he'd have been able to attempt that many more passes, and completed 67% of them, or about 19. That would have created a snowball effect, leading to more sustained drives and even more attempts than he already had, but didn't because of the drives stalled by his getting sacked.
    Could that have led to a couple of more wins for the Pack, including in the playoffs? IMO, yes it could have.

    Edit: Also, the Pack has tried to improve Rodgers protection, evidenced by the drafting of Bulaga and Sherrod in the recent years. Due to injuries they have not gotten full value out of those draft picks, but that they even tried indicates they realize protecting the QB is very important. Now, you could say, yeah but they didn't draft them in the top half of the 1st round. Well, they didn't draft Rodgers that high either, but got lucky and had him fall into their laps in the 20s. Still not the most logical approach to getting that franchise QB either, though it happens sometimes.
     
    ToddPhin, DPlus47 and ssmiami like this.
  3. Aquafin

    Aquafin New Member

    4,738
    304
    0
    Jun 16, 2011
    the poor house
    Ok I think it s long past time for Miami fans to stop this nonsense of passing on skill players and overpaying a left tackle double what a wide receiver or tailback or qb. we were bad the last ten years because we paid one man a man who doesn't touch the ball more then what the best skill players make and result was lame and unproductive in my opinion . Jake was the highest paid player and Miami was dumb for paying him that much money. we could have had 3 really good wrs for the price we paid Jake Long . with Receivers like what we had the last 5 years its no wonder people hated watching Miami because there wasn't any fun in watching Miami's receivers not get into the end zone.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Well-Known Member

    14,014
    3,385
    113
    Jul 5, 2009
    I'm not sure what your point is.
     
  5. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic 30 years and counting Club Member

    25,958
    11,709
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    guess what? we just paid big $$$ for a WR, as well as a nice chunk of change for Hartline and Keller. We now have our QB of the future (hopefully).
    we still have a decent chunk of cap room to pay for a tackle too.

    This falacy that you have to either pay for skill positions or lineman is wrong. Yes, we sucked for the last several years. It wasn't because Jake Long wasn't worth the money, it's because the other positions we drafted sucked quite a bit. Championship caliber teams have high talent all over the place, not just WRs. How many playoff appearances have the Lions had with Calvin Johnson, one? He's the best WR in the league. How many years did the Texans make the playoffs in the beginning of Andre Johnson's career? When they beefed up their defense, RBs, offensive line, they became a playoff team.
     
    DPlus47 and ToddPhin like this.
  6. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    39,709
    21,347
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Yup, the key reason the Texans are a playoff team is b/c of stellar defense and a great offensive line that sets the entire tone for their offense. It's like some posters think defenses just fall over to allow Arian Foster all those yards and cut back lanes when in fact the Texans have had an exciting ground game and great play action b/c of an outstanding oline that allows Foster to do what he does.
     
  7. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Great post.

    Philbin's from Green Bay so people assume we're trying to be the Packers. Load up on skill position guys and have the QB sling it all over the field with or without a good offensive line. As exciting as it sounds, that's the real "nonsense". We don't have Aaron Rodgers so we can't use the model they use. We have a young, inexperienced QB and we should act accordingly.
     
  8. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Exactly. Though you'd have to stop watching the ball and focus on the the LOS to notice. A lot of people find that boring.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  9. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    39,709
    21,347
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    During the past 20 years, only 7 teams have picked in the top 5 and won a SB with those players (Reggie Bush, Jamal Lewis, AJ Hawk, Peter Boulware, Willie McGinnest, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, Orlando Pace, and Jonathan Ogden).

    Here's the breakdown:
    10 WR's drafted - 0 SB wins
    11 DE - 0
    7 DT- 0
    6 CB- 0
    2 S- 0
    24 QB- 2
    14 OT- 2
    12 RB- 2
    8 LB- 3

    As you can see, Offensive Tackle has seen the 2nd most Super Bowls and 3rd best SB success rate.
    So by default you're basically arguing it's an even bigger waste of resources to draft a WR, DE, DT, CB, or S in the top 5 since NONE of those have won a SB with their drafting teams.
     
    MrClean and mroz like this.
  10. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    39,709
    21,347
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    ... or just watch the results and realize that a "quality run" most likely = good initial blocking up front and/or at the 2nd level (unless it's Barry Sanders).
     
  11. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,157
    21,792
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I said name the last top grade LT on a Superbowl winning or contending team in the past 10 years and you had to go back 13-14 years to find them.
     
  12. ASOT

    ASOT New Member

    4,870
    306
    0
    Mar 29, 2013
    Coral Gables, FL
    I think that is more a reflection of how bad the QB class is in this draft, more than the LT's being off the charts.
     
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,157
    21,792
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I'm actually of the opinion WR is vastly overrated as well. I've been saying it since we longed for an elite WR when Chris Chambers was still playing here. Elite WRs don't win you Super Bowls either. Neither do elite corner backs and if the reports are true, the Bucs are paying Revis $15 million a year so throw that position into the overrated.

    There is QB, and everyone else. Over investing in one position is folly. For some reason, people believe LT is so important they should get resources comparable to very good QBs. And the LT is just one guy on a line of 5. I just don't agree with that. Nor am I comfortable with giving Mike Wallace that much money either, but I'm hella glad to have him here because he's exciting.

    I look at the Ravens and see a line that has one pro bowler. I firmly believe a team with a good QB can carry that team with just good to very good players all around, as long as there is no serious deficiencies. No elite WR. A very good RB. A very average defense. An average offense (top 10 in scoring however). But they don't have any major holes. Suggs is their highest paid non-QB which is probably a bit expensive IMO.
     
  14. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    47,933
    23,174
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    Oh really, we were bad the 5 years prior to Jake Long because our LTs made so much money? Yea, Vernon Carey (on his rookie contract as pick #19), Damien McIntosh, and rookie Wade Smith made soooo much money per year (note: all 3 made less than $4M per year when they played LT for us).

    And really, we could have had 3 good WRs for what we paid Jake Long? He made like $10-11M/yr on average. Well we just paid Hartline (a good WR) like $6M/yr (and some people complained it was too high), so how exactly would we have paid for 3 good WRs? Of course maybe we could have signed 3 good WRs if we had an UDFA at LT, I'm sure that would have led to much better results than what we had the past 5 years. Oh, maybe we could have taken a WR/skill player #1 instead of Long? Yea, he'd have made $10M/yr too and would have prevented us from signing 2 more good WRs too if Long's contract was such a holdup.

    We were bad the past 5 years (heck, we'll go to 10) primarily because of poor (or below average) QB play. While better skill players may have helped some they may have not been any more beneficial than Jake Long was.

    Criticizing the Jake Long contract as if we never should have gave it to him is silly, because that's how the draft was at the time. If we didn't want to pay someone $10M/yr then we would have had to let the clock lapse multiple times. Matt Ryan you could say should have been the pick I suppose, and in hindsight you're probably right, but it could be argued that even he wasn't worth what Long got, and even if he is, you'd still have the same contract "preventing" you from signing 3 good WRs.
     
  15. Playmaker76

    Playmaker76 New Member

    11
    10
    0
    Jul 19, 2011
    I cringe at the thought of using a top 10 pick on a Tackle. It would be ok if it was later in the 1st but you don't take oline in the top 10. No Super Bowl teams EVER do that in the modern football era. There isn't any difference between getting a good Tackle like Albert or a possibly great one like Joeckel regarding the impact they bring to the team. We might not be picking this high for a while so we need to make sure come away with a game changer with our 1st round pick. Right now we have the opportunity to have an elite secondary ( if Milliner, Rhodes or Hayden), an elite pass rush (if Carradine, Mingo or Ansah) or an elite passing game ( if Eifert or Austin). Lets not blow this opportunity by trading up for a Tackle. Like I said, we won't be picking this high for a while. Get Albert and use the first rd pick for a true game changer.
     
  16. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    47,933
    23,174
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    Orlando Pace and John Ogden say hi.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  17. Jaj

    Jaj Registered

    6,361
    1,671
    0
    Mar 23, 2008
    Los Angeles
    It's not complicated. If you have a terrible left tackle you have a massive hole on the left side. If you have a good to very good one the margin of improvement to a great one isn't enough to justify absurd amounts of resources. Brandon Albert has been a very good pass blocker for a while and he's fine as a run blocker. That's more than enough to get the job done.
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Well-Known Member

    14,014
    3,385
    113
    Jul 5, 2009
    Oh, for some reason I read past 20 years, not 10. I think Orlando Pace is within that time period, though.

    But, I still don't see why that matters. That doesn't justify anything. It's pointless.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  19. gamblerx

    gamblerx New Member

    894
    182
    0
    Sep 7, 2010
    Homestead, FL
    Yet many in this forum was okay with franchise LT couple months ago.
     
  20. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Eww, "massive" "horrible" "terrible"

    Uhm, 1.2 more pressures per game?

    And that is from "elite" to "mediocre"

    Why pay top dollar or resources?
     
  21. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    And they already had Andre Johnson et al
     
  22. Playmaker76

    Playmaker76 New Member

    11
    10
    0
    Jul 19, 2011
    I said the modern football era or did you miss that?
     
  23. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    47,933
    23,174
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    So the modern era is only the last 10 years? I'm sure most people would disagree with that being called the modern era.
     
    Conuficus, Fin-Omenal and ToddPhin like this.
  24. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    4,692
    3,050
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    I'd define the modern era of football as when the rules on DBs became significantly stricter sometime in 2003-2004 I believe? So yes, the past 8-10 years IMO are the modern era of football as the game had a significant change and shift in running to passing due to the rule change
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  25. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    By modern, he clearly means the fantasy football era.
     
    Fin-Omenal, ToddPhin and DPlus47 like this.
  26. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,157
    21,792
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    You must have missed the period where Peyton Manning cried about the Patriots after yet another playoff loss, the league changed the rules, and bam. All of Dan's records destroyed.
     
  27. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,157
    21,792
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Again. Nobody is saying you throw up an LT that will get your QB killed. You throw up an LT that might allow a few more sacks a year. We are saying, you need good to very good at LT. Not Elite let's pay him $12 million a year.

    Again, NOBODY IS SAYING YOU THROW COLUMBO AT LEFT TACKLE.

    Sorry for yelling but it seems that's what you guys keep running back to. Why not argue this from where the debate truly lies. We were ok with Vernon Carey level play at Left Tackle that one year. He graded out well. I'm not saying pencil in VC for 10 years (he was injured a few years later). But again, we're not talking about trash. We're talking pretty good at LT
     
  28. Playmaker76

    Playmaker76 New Member

    11
    10
    0
    Jul 19, 2011
    This. At least someone gets it.
     
  29. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    12,436
    5,035
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Bro, getting the type of LT you're describing is actually a lot more difficult than one would think. You're taking more of a risk and the odds are not as good of finding one in the later rounds. You can go that route and if the first one doesn't work out, which is a good possibility, it now sets the team and it's QB back for a couple of years. The windows for success closes a lot faster these days than in the past. You better hope you strike gold and find that gem later on, though the odds of doing so are not nearly as good.

    Again, some truly forget what it was like before we drafted Jake. Regarding the OL, you would really be happy going back to the days with Carey? Yikes. "That ONE year" ...exactly.
     
  30. DPlus47

    DPlus47 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    15,082
    1,947
    113
    Jul 14, 2008
    Is the argument that Hall of Fame tackles like Orlando Pace and Jonathan Ogden are somehow not worth it in today's game with the increased emphasis on passing?

    Where is the logic in that? Passing is the most important thing in today's game and it's a lot easier to do in today's game, so let's make sure of what, exactly? That we spend $150 million on wide receivers?

    In the modern era, I saw the Giants kick the living hell out of Brady and the Patriots. It was one of the best moments of my life as a sports fan. Do you think the Patriots needed another weapon for Brady, or do you think they needed better pass protection?

    This "modern era" stuff screams for skill at offensive and defensive lines. Wide receivers should be skilled, but they don't have to be great, because the rules are to their advantage. Corners, likewise, should be skilled, but don't break the bank, because the deck is stacked against your corners anyway, right?
     
    MrClean and Sceeto like this.
  31. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    This is the post that absolutely positively shoots down your theory old Padre. You got nothing to counter this info. Nothing that would make sense anyway.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  32. Playmaker76

    Playmaker76 New Member

    11
    10
    0
    Jul 19, 2011
    According to this logic picking a RB or a LB in the top 5 gives you the best chance to win a Super Bowl. That's why using that stat is meaningless.

    I am all for trading up for one of the 3 elite tackles in the draft but only as a last resort if we can't acquire Albert. Yes, LT is important but getting a "franchise" LT is not important at all. All you need at that position is a good LT, not necessarily great. Ask the SB winners of the last 10 years.
     
  33. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,731
    42,769
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I think there's room for both sides of this argument to agree on a course of action.

    While I agree that you need excellent talent on the offensive line to be a consistently good team we have a solution staring at us.

    Getting Albert for a 2nd should be a no brainer IMO. We're talking about a Top 10 tackle. To me it would be criminal to trade 3 high picks to get a rookie who MAY be better than Top 10. Again, I've learned that there is a quantifiable difference between an average tackle and an excellent tackle, but there is not 3 high picks difference between the #9 tackle and the #1 tackle...especially if that guy is a rookie and his #1 status is not a given.
     
    Springveldt likes this.
  34. Springveldt

    Springveldt Season Ticket Holder

    This is getting silly now. We can play this game with any position on the field.

    Example...

    [table="width: 500, class: grid, align: left"]
    [tr]
    [td]Player[/td]
    [td]Drafted[/td]
    [td]Touchdowns[/td]
    [td]Cap Hit[/td]
    [td]Cost per TD[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]Calvin Johnson[/td]
    [td]#2[/td]
    [td]5[/td]
    [td]$11.5M[/td]
    [td]$2.3M[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]James Jones[/td]
    [td]#78[/td]
    [td]14[/td]
    [td]$3.1M[/td]
    [td]$221K[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]Eric Decker[/td]
    [td]#87[/td]
    [td]13[/td]
    [td]$673K[/td]
    [td]$51K[/td]
    [/tr]
    [/table]

    So why waste all those resources to grab a "playmaker" when you can get decent ones later on?
     
    Stitches and Fin D like this.
  35. Springveldt

    Springveldt Season Ticket Holder

    Totally agree. Albert is a proven commodity and it should be a no brainer to get him. We have the cap space, we have the need and KC wants to deal him. Stop over valuing draft picks, hand over the #54 overall and don't look back.

    We still have 4 picks in the top 82, plenty of picks there to get cheap talent.
     
  36. GISH

    GISH ~mUST wARN oTHERS~

    19,894
    9,750
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Over Yonder
    Come on padre. 20 pressures can be the difference between 6-10 and 10-6. Games are lost on single plays.
     
    ToddPhin and brandon27 like this.
  37. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Which works both ways. If you are picking high and need a LT, there is no reason to avoid one just because it is too high, according to Padre, to take one. That goes for basically every position that is ever taken that high.
     
  38. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,157
    21,792
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Again, according to Padre, if you are picking high and need LT, pick him. But you need LT after you have a damn good QB and good weapons for that QB.

    Put it this way. If you are starved at QB, and starved at TE, RB and WR. And there are great QB, WR prospects, and you bypass them for a tackle, then you are making the wrong move.

    You guys keep missing the argument completely. We picked up a LT first, overall, paid him a ton of money, and missed badly on QB, and had Hartline and Bess running routes. Our own GM said we have 4s 5s and 6s, meanwhile our star LT is no longer on our team and we had to spend a gazillion dollars to get Mike Wallace in here, extend Hartline and pick up Gibson.

    You guys keep talking as if we are advocating ignoring the LT position altogether. Its ridiculous, and fits a strawman argument to a Tee. Who is talking about getting Tannehill killed? We're talking about ok he's not in the top 5 of protection but right outside of it. It's not about one or the other, it's prioritizing.
     
  39. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,157
    21,792
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    It is hard. Very hard. But you know what, GM is a hard job. No excuses for our GM because finding good players is hard.

    Not the best example bro. In that same game you saw Brady get beat up, you saw David Diehl who never started at LT through college or the NFL, play left tackle all year for the Giants. Oh yeah 2 super bowls (I believe he started in their second one as well but haven't checked). He never started at LT before, wasn't that great, and they still won. Imagine that. It starts with QB.

    First, why not ask our GM. How much did he pay Mike Wallace?

    Second, you take his number which is averaged out over many games over many seasons I presume, then take one year of stats and cherry pick them? with one guy on a rookie contract? You had to wait 5-6 years for that type of production from James, while AJ Green, Julio Jones and Calvin hit the ground running.
     
  40. Springveldt

    Springveldt Season Ticket Holder

    Are we now complaining about Ireland putting too much resources into a playmaker?
    How many chances have we had to draft a guy like that in the last 6 years? Can't draft what isn't there, all 3 of those guys had "can't miss" labelled onto them (maybe not so much Jones but definitely the other 2).
     

Share This Page