Does having a true #1 WR protect Bradford??

[jrry32]

Is there any doubt that Bradford is the most important asset on the team?

Is a solid O line more important to his health than having a true #1 WR?

Yes. And anyone who argues otherwise is nuts unless we're talking about Calvin, Moss, Rice, etc.

But an OL is comprised of 5 players. A #1 WR is one player. So the real question is...will that one OL make a greater difference than a potential #1 WR? I think so. Can understand if others don't.

 

[tbux]

Yes. And anyone who argues otherwise is nuts unless we're talking about Calvin, Moss, Rice, etc.

But an OL is comprised of 5 players. A #1 WR is one player. So the real question is...will that one OL make a greater difference than a potential #1 WR? I think so. Can understand if others don't.

Thats the question- and people who say "whats more important Oline or #1 wr" are not asking a fair question. It isnt either or- if we take Watkins, we are still going to address the oline. Personally I think its tougher to find a #1 caliber wr later than it is a very good OG for eg. IT isnt either or here- we can do both. I think we will actually. Of course we want a stout oline- we also want a true reliable target for our QB- we can have both.

 

[jrry32]

Thats the question- and people who say "whats more important Oline or #1 wr" are not asking a fair question. It isnt either or- if we take Watkins, we are still going to address the oline. Personally I think its tougher to find a #1 caliber wr later than it is a very good OG for eg. IT isnt either or here- we can do both. I think we will actually. Of course we want a stout oline- we also want a true reliable target for our QB- we can have both.

I would disagree. I can count on one hand the number of elite/great OGs currently playing in the NFL. Right now, there's a real limited number when it comes to OLs. Don't know why but there aren't a lot of great OTs and OGs in the NFL right now.

But there are a lot of great WRs.(10+)

 

[tbux]

I would disagree. I can count on one hand the number of elite/great OGs currently playing in the NFL. Right now, there's a real limited number when it comes to OLs. Don't know why but there aren't a lot of great OTs and OGs in the NFL right now.

But there are a lot of great WRs.(10+)

I dont agree- just that OGs and OTs arent popular to talk about and WRs get all the shine. Look at the top 10 OGs - and where they were drafted. Look at the top 10 WRs- and where they were drafted.

 

[iced]

Yea and Bradford got pounded.

Not until week 3 or 4 - when everyone, not just the offensive line, decided to not block. Entering week 3 Bradford was the only QB who wasn't sacked in the whole league.


Not a surprise the Offensive line "suddenly started blocking better" when Drich and Jared cook were no longer involved in pass pro/run blocking. Believe actually there were more sacks on them than the o-line the first half of the season - i believe that was definitely the case weeks 3 and 4

 

[jrry32]

I dont agree- just that OGs and OTs arent popular to talk about and WRs get all the shine. Look at the top 10 OGs - and where they were drafted. Look at the top 10 WRs- and where they were drafted.

Ok. Name me 5 great OGs currently playing at that level.

And sorry but the whole "look at where they were drafted" logic just sucks to me. Tom Brady was a 6th round pick. Doesn't mean you're smart to try and find your franchise QB in the 6th round. Brandon Marshall was a 4th round pick, I doubt you're advocating we try to find a #1 WR in the 4th.

The higher you pick a player, the better the chances(typically) that he'll pan out. Simply saying top OGs can be found in the middle rounds doesn't mean anything if your team can't find them there.

Regardless, the whole OG non-sense is even more fundamentally flawed when it's pointed out that it's a misrepresentation of the actual point. You're not drafting an OG. You're drafting a LT. You're just playing him at OG for the immediate future due to Long.

Ravens drafted Bryant McKinnie and played him at OG as a rookie. Should they have passed on him to take some OG in the mid rounds since you can find them there or might they have had a strategic plan that considered beyond just one year?

 

[jrry32]

Not until week 3 or 4 - when everyone, not just the offensive line, decided to not block. Entering week 3 Bradford was the only QB who wasn't sacked in the whole league.


Not a surprise the Offensive line "suddenly started blocking better" when Drich and Jared cook were no longer involved in pass pro/run blocking. Believe actually there were more sacks on them than the o-line the first half of the season - i believe that was definitely the case weeks 3 and 4

Which is irrelevant because you can get pounded without being sacked. From the Arizona game:

 

[max]

I would disagree. I can count on one hand the number of elite/great OGs currently playing in the NFL. Right now, there's a real limited number when it comes to OLs. Don't know why but there aren't a lot of great OTs and OGs in the NFL right now.

But there are a lot of great WRs.(10+)

This is a trick question. It's hard to be just a great OG because if you are, then you usually try to play OT for the money. How many OGs have made the HOF the last 5 years? It's all about the OTs.

I just heard Mark Schlereth say that his coach always said, all I need is a great LOT and I can get a bunch of bums to do the job. Think about the GSOT. There was OP and pretty much a bunch of jags. Timmerman was a nice player, but really only OP was a special talent. It's an interesting thought. The Rams OL played well when Jake Long was playing well. And Saffold fed off that at OG. Saffold is not a quality LOT, he's tolerable when healthy. But he's stressed at LOT. When Long got hurt. The OL took a major drop in performance. It looked as bad as ever.

I guess I don't have enough confidence in Jake Long holding up over the next couple of years. I think we gotta take Matthews or Robinson.

One thing I have learned though, is that those guys on Sirius, like Bruce Murray, don't know any more than guys on this board. I would say less. And fans asking them there opinions are just wasting there time.

 

[jrry32]

This is a trick question. It's hard to be just a great OG because if you are, then you usually try to play OT for the money. How many OGs have made the HOF the last 5 years? It's all about the OTs.

I just heard Mark Schlereth say that his coach always said, all I need is a great LOT and I can get a bunch of bums to do the job. Think about the GSOT. There was OP and pretty much a bunch of jags. Timmerman was a nice player, but really only OP was a special talent. It's an interesting thought. The Rams OL played well when Jake Long was playing well. And Saffold fed off that at OG. Saffold is not a quality LOT, he's tolerable when healthy. But he's stressed at LOT. When Long got hurt. The OL took a major drop in performance. It looked as bad as ever.

I guess I don't have enough confidence in Jake Long holding up over the next couple of years. I think we gotta take Matthews or Robinson.

One thing I have learned though, is that those guys on Sirius, like Bruce Murray, don't know any more than guys on this board. I would say less. And fans asking them there opinions are just wasting there time.

I'd say that's not so true anymore. Game has changed enough to where OGs are much more important than they previously were mainly because the game has gone from deep drops and vertical passing to short drops, quick throws and spreading the field horizontally.

The OL very clearly played better when Long was in...but I think the biggest reason for that is that Jake Long is a much better LT than Saffold is and Saffold is a MUCH MUCH better OG than Shelley Smith is. So you downgraded at two positions. Which is obviously going to have a large effect on performance.

 

[max]

I'd say that's not so true anymore. Game has changed enough to where OGs are much more important than they previously were mainly because the game has gone from deep drops and vertical passing to short drops, quick throws and spreading the field horizontally.

The OL very clearly played better when Long was in...but I think the biggest reason for that is that Jake Long is a much better LT than Saffold is and Saffold is a MUCH MUCH better OG than Shelley Smith is. So you downgraded at two positions. Which is obviously going to have a large effect on performance.

I agree with you, jrry.

But I think we can find a pure OG that can be about as good as Saffold for a lot less money. The extra money for Saffold was due to his versatility. If we felt that Long could stay healthy then we'd be better off with a pure OG at a reasonable price than Saffold at 8 mil. Saffold is not worth 8 mil as a pure OG. I'd rather have Schwartz at 6 mil if I knew Long could stay on the field.

But now we have got to take an OT high. That's the point of all this.

 

[RamFan503]

Look at the Lions for your answer. Their OL is no better than ours the last two yrs. And Stafford had a monster yr w Calvin 2 yrs ago. He was inconsistent last yr, but that is what a goto everydown wr brings. Bradford has never had that luxury. Some qbs dont need it ala Brady Manning Rodgers. Some do ala Stafford Dalton Bradford and most others. If we get one Bradford and the offense will not be a problem.

Some assume Watkins = CJ. I don't.

BTW - a first rounder, a second rounder, and a third on that line and 4 of 5 of them played all 16 games.

 

[tbux]

Some assume Watkins = CJ. I don't.

BTW - a first rounder, a second rounder, and a third on that line and 4 of 5 of them played all 16 games.

I dont think anyone thinks Watkins is CJ- he is a freak that comes along once a generation. No he isnt, and neither anyone else.

 

[jrry32]

I agree with you, jrry.

But I think we can find a pure OG that can be about as good as Saffold for a lot less money. The extra money for Saffold was due to his versatility. If we felt that Long could stay healthy then we'd be better off with a pure OG at a reasonable price than Saffold at 8 mil. Saffold is not worth 8 mil as a pure OG. I'd rather have Schwartz at 6 mil if I knew Long could stay on the field.

But now we have got to take an OT high. That's the point of all this.

Eh, I'd rather not have Schwartz for $6 mil a year.

 

[RamFan503]

I dont think anyone thinks Watkins is CJ- he is a freak that comes along once a generation. No he isnt, and neither anyone else.

Yes you do.

 

[iced]

Which is irrelevant because you can get pounded without being sacked. From the Arizona game:

yea - he took some hits.. Every quarterback takes hits in this league. He also dropped back to pass 38 times without getting sacked. That's not some small number either. It's not realistic to expect 100% your QB to never take any hits - especially when they pass over 30 times

 

[Alan]

jrry32 with this:
Eh, I'd rather not have Schwartz for $6 mil a year.

Normally I'd agree with you jrry but seeing as how desperate we are and thinking about the lack of alternatives I'm willing to pay that much and even a little more. Do you have a plan B?

 

[max]

Normally I'd agree with you jrry but seeing as how desperate we are and thinking about the lack of alternatives I'm willing to pay that much and even a little more. Do you have a plan B?

This is FA. Saffold just got $8.5 mil. That's nuts.

I'm guessing Schwartz will get at least $5 mil. From either the Giants or Rams. That's what's happening today. It's a sellers market.

 

[Alan]

Emphasis on the "at least" I'd think max.

 

[jrry32]

Normally I'd agree with you jrry but seeing as how desperate we are and thinking about the lack of alternatives I'm willing to pay that much and even a little more. Do you have a plan B?

Desperation and Free Agency are not a good mix.

yea - he took some hits.. Every quarterback takes hits in this league. He also dropped back to pass 38 times without getting sacked. That's not some small number either. It's not realistic to expect 100% your QB to never take any hits - especially when they pass over 30 times

And the point I'm making is that it's irrelevant how many times he was sacked. Peyton Manning doesn't get sacked because he does such an amazing job of getting rid of the ball and working the pocket. That doesn't make his OL good.

Bradford's Arizona game was mastery. There were at least 3 occasions where a pocket passer like Sam SHOULD HAVE been sacked but he managed to avoid the pressure and get rid of the ball or scramble. In fact, Dahl badly blew two blitz pick-ups that left free rushers in his face almost immediately after receiving the snap.

The OL was not some dominant force in those games, the sack numbers are not representative of the OL's play.

 

[max]

Desperation and Free Agency are not a good mix.



And the point I'm making is that it's irrelevant how many times he was sacked. Peyton Manning doesn't get sacked because he does such an amazing job of getting rid of the ball and working the pocket. That doesn't make his OL good.

Bradford's Arizona game was mastery. There were at least 3 occasions where a pocket passer like Sam SHOULD HAVE been sacked but he managed to avoid the pressure and get rid of the ball or scramble. In fact, Dahl badly blew two blitz pick-ups that left free rushers in his face almost immediately after receiving the snap.

The OL was not some dominant force in those games, the sack numbers are not representative of the OL's play.

A worse mix is desperation on the OL and your QB coming off an ACL.