Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3?

**jAZ** · 02-12-2009, 11:37 PM

We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them.

If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one.

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-12-2009, 11:40 PM

They are saying that because to people that understand positional value, the only OL position worth taking in the top half of the 1st round is a LT.

We already have our LT in Albert, so it would be a terrible value pick to take one of these guys and play him on the right side, or to take one of these guys and move Albert.

We definitely have a need for a RT, but that is a position that is generally filled in the middle or later rounds of the draft.

Ebolapox · 02-12-2009, 11:46 PM

smart gms don't tie up 100 mill into a 'two-player' position, for the most part. if you draft a LT, he gets 50 mill. to play RT (dumb move). then, after albert's rookie contract is up, he wants to be paid like a top LT. so, there's your 100 mill.

same goes for a top 3 DT. you drafted dorsey last year, gave him a ton of money, and some here want to draft a DT again. so, that would be 100 mill.

NickAthanFan · 02-13-2009, 12:20 AM

Either this is a requisite football post or someone knows even less about football than he does about policy.

**the Talking Can** · 02-13-2009, 05:11 AM

you don't spend consecutive top 5 picks on tackles....

does that really require explanation?

Demonpenz · 02-13-2009, 07:30 AM

I don't think it will happen, but I wouldn't mind it if it did happen. Best player out there thx

blaise · 02-13-2009, 08:06 AM

Albert wasn't a top 5 pick.

**the Talking Can** · 02-13-2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

Albert wasn't a top 5 pick.

correct...but i'd amend my comment to consecutive first rounders...it still doesn't make any sense and is not necessary to build a championship team

Brock · 02-13-2009, 09:21 AM

How many first round picks do you need on the offensive line?

**The Franchise** · 02-13-2009, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

They are saying that because to people that understand positional value, the only OL position worth taking in the top half of the 1st round is a LT.

We already have our LT in Albert, so it would be a terrible value pick to take one of these guys and play him on the right side, or to take one of these guys and move Albert.

We definitely have a need for a RT, but that is a position that is generally filled in the middle or later rounds of the draft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by H5N1

smart gms don't tie up 100 mill into a 'two-player' position, for the most part. if you draft a LT, he gets 50 mill. to play RT (dumb move). then, after albert's rookie contract is up, he wants to be paid like a top LT. so, there's your 100 mill.

same goes for a top 3 DT. you drafted dorsey last year, gave him a ton of money, and some here want to draft a DT again. so, that would be 100 mill.

These.

We were lucky enough to find our LToTF with the 15th pick. It would be dumb to either move him and draft another LT or draft a RT with the #3 pick. You can easily fix your line and get more value of it with two moves.

FA - Jason Brown C Ravens
Draft - Kraig Urbik OT Wisconsin in the 3rd round

Leave Albert at LT
Leave Waters at LG
Brown moves to C
Niswanger moves to RG
Urbik starts at RT

**The Franchise** · 02-13-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

How many first round picks do you need on the offensive line?

There are some teams that don't have ANY first round picks on their line.

**DaKCMan AP** · 02-13-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them.

If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one.

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

BigCatDaddy · 02-13-2009, 09:56 AM

I wouldn't totally rule it out. Carolina would have more $ invested in OT's this year then we would assuming we draft tackle and they were a top 5 team this year. So a case can be made.

**DaKCMan AP** · 02-13-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

I wouldn't totally rule it out. Carolina would have more $ invested in OT's this year then we would assuming we draft tackle and they were a top 5 team this year. So a case can be made.

No it can't be made. It's stupid.

BigCatDaddy · 02-13-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

No it can't be made. It's stupid.

Sure it can. These days a RT is about as important as a LT, especially with all the team running a 3-4 and moving the best pass rushed around to find the weak sport(Like Atlanta did against us). I don't know if I would do it, but I think it makes more sense then Crabtree.

02-12-2009, 11:37 PM
jAZ Supporter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Tucson, AZ Casino cash: $9847493	Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3? We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them. If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one. Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.
Posts: 24,799

02-12-2009, 11:40 PM	#2
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $4931115	They are saying that because to people that understand positional value, the only OL position worth taking in the top half of the 1st round is a LT. We already have our LT in Albert, so it would be a terrible value pick to take one of these guys and play him on the right side, or to take one of these guys and move Albert. We definitely have a need for a RT, but that is a position that is generally filled in the middle or later rounds of the draft.
Posts: 60,193

02-13-2009, 12:20 AM	#4
NickAthanFan Starter Join Date: Feb 2009 Casino cash: $10004900	Either this is a requisite football post or someone knows even less about football than he does about policy.
Posts: 217

02-13-2009, 05:11 AM	#5
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	you don't spend consecutive top 5 picks on tackles.... does that really require explanation? __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585

02-13-2009, 07:30 AM	#6
Demonpenz I got Rice cookin in the micro Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Apartment "G UNIT!" Casino cash: $3142136	I don't think it will happen, but I wouldn't mind it if it did happen. Best player out there thx __________________
Posts: 54,271

02-12-2009, 11:46 PM	#3
Ebolapox remember, remember Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: como Casino cash: $2109903	smart gms don't tie up 100 mill into a 'two-player' position, for the most part. if you draft a LT, he gets 50 mill. to play RT (dumb move). then, after albert's rookie contract is up, he wants to be paid like a top LT. so, there's your 100 mill. same goes for a top 3 DT. you drafted dorsey last year, gave him a ton of money, and some here want to draft a DT again. so, that would be 100 mill.
Posts: 26,428

02-13-2009, 08:06 AM	#7
blaise In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Plano, TX Casino cash: $9999900	Albert wasn't a top 5 pick.
Posts: 22,188

02-13-2009, 09:21 AM	#9
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	How many first round picks do you need on the offensive line?
Posts: 47,314

02-13-2009, 09:56 AM	#13
BigCatDaddy The Beast Inside Your Head Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $2039122	I wouldn't totally rule it out. Carolina would have more $ invested in OT's this year then we would assuming we draft tackle and they were a top 5 team this year. So a case can be made.
Posts: 25,858