PDA

View Full Version : Browns prepared for Joe Thomas holdout


art vandelay
06-24-2007, 10:33 PM
Just saw this on SportsCenter...what does this mean for the rest of the draft picks when trying to determine the appropriate salary? Will it take other rookies longer to negotiate contracts and get into camp on time?

The Dynasty
06-24-2007, 10:45 PM
Well i know Brady Quinn was also going to holdout as well. So thats not good to hear for the browns.

umphrey
06-24-2007, 11:20 PM
Brady Quinn would be a lot more likely...if he still considers himself an elite prospect, he isn't going to like late first round money.

frogstomp
06-24-2007, 11:31 PM
Rookie holdouts are such ********. You've proved absolutely nothing, but feel like you deserve more money? Shut the **** up, and get on the field.

stl9erfan
06-24-2007, 11:53 PM
the fact that both these supposed holdouts are for the browns is interesting... Is Cleveland just trying to be a bit cheap here? Or is it just a coincidence?

Acreboy
06-24-2007, 11:53 PM
Saints still waiting for Meachem. He's the only unsigned rookie left.

LarryJohnson27
06-24-2007, 11:59 PM
the fact that both these supposed holdouts are for the browns is interesting... Is Cleveland just trying to be a bit cheap here? Or is it just a coincidence?

Well Quinn was expected, due to him being a QB that could of went top 5 or top 10.

Acreboy
06-25-2007, 12:00 AM
Well Quinn was expected, due to him being a QB that could of went top 5 or top 10, but I didn't think Thomas was going to be a problem, so I'm not sure.
Did the pack have a problem like this with AR?

LarryJohnson27
06-25-2007, 12:10 AM
Did the pack have a problem like this with AR?


I wasn't sure, so I looked it up and found this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050728/ai_n14831911

Sveen
06-25-2007, 12:26 AM
Saints still waiting for Meachem. He's the only unsigned rookie left.

I saw on Rotoworld that we are waiting to see what Bowe gets from the Chiefs before negotiations starts up with Meachem.

Flyboy
06-25-2007, 12:47 AM
Did the pack have a problem like this with AR?

If Quinn is anything like Leinart was last year... oh vey.

Addict
06-25-2007, 01:22 AM
is he gonna holdout or is he going fishing until preseason?

BlindSite
06-25-2007, 04:22 AM
They kind of have to hold out, every whines about players being selfish etc, but front offices are far, far worse than any player could ever be when it comes to getting blood out of a stone money wise.

niel89
06-25-2007, 05:11 AM
is he gonna holdout or is he going fishing until preseason?

worked good last time

nvot9
06-25-2007, 06:48 AM
Who woulda thought that a guy who passed up such an advertised event as the NFL draft, is now going to be holding out for more money? He's the last prospect I expected to do this to be honest, but it IS a business, do what ya gotta do...

Contr0versy
06-25-2007, 09:22 AM
If I were the Browns GM, I'd cut Brady Quinn if he tried to hold out for more money. He hasn't proven anything to demand a lot of money, and from the reports of mini camp, he's not looking that good to begin with. I'd try and work with Joe Thomas, but Quinn demanding more money is hilarious. Dude was ALWAYS overrated. . .

Flyboy
06-25-2007, 10:10 AM
If I were the Browns GM, I'd cut Brady Quinn if he tried to hold out for more money. He hasn't proven anything to demand a lot of money, and from the reports of mini camp, he's not looking that good to begin with. I'd try and work with Joe Thomas, but Quinn demanding more money is hilarious. Dude was ALWAYS overrated. . .

Yeah... cut the player that you spent a 2008 first round draft pick to acquire.

draftguru151
06-25-2007, 10:16 AM
Who woulda thought that a guy who passed up such an advertised event as the NFL draft, is now going to be holding out for more money? He's the last prospect I expected to do this to be honest, but it IS a business, do what ya gotta do...

From the report on ESPN it seems that Cleveland is the one causing the hold out and offering Thomas less than what the previous 3 #3 overall picks earned because of his position. It's pretty ridiculous to expect him to sign for less than that when everyone else in the draft will be getting more or the same as the year before.

And for the people complaining about rookie hold outs, just stop because if you were in that position you'd be trying to get every penny you could, the same thing happened with Bush last year and every one trashing him, just shut it because it's a business and it would be dumb for a player to not get as much as the can.

JK17
06-25-2007, 10:16 AM
If I were the Browns GM, I'd cut Brady Quinn if he tried to hold out for more money. He hasn't proven anything to demand a lot of money, and from the reports of mini camp, he's not looking that good to begin with. I'd try and work with Joe Thomas, but Quinn demanding more money is hilarious. Dude was ALWAYS overrated. . .

That's a great idea, trade away future draft choices so you can cut a guy who may be the future of the franchise.....
Calvin Johnson, Gaines Adams, all these guys haven't proved anything yet either, not one rookie has, should they all be cut for trying to holdout?

On another note though, both sides here should really be working to get Quinn signed. Quinn isn't going to want to holdout and lose his shot at starting this season, or for the next couple of years if for some reason Frye takes off as a QB. It may not seem plausible with how Frye plays, but take a look at Drew Brees up until Phil Rivers showed up, it was horrible, then he turned it around and became one of the best in the league. On the other side, the Browns want to get him in there too, so they can get their franchise QB molded and ready to take over the league as one of the premeir guys.

Flyboy
06-25-2007, 01:07 PM
And for the people complaining about rookie hold outs, just stop because if you were in that position you'd be trying to get every penny you could, the same thing happened with Bush last year and every one trashing him, just shut it because it's a business and it would be dumb for a player to not get as much as the can.

The whole Bush thing from last year was completely hilarious. "OMG BUSH IS GOING TO SIT OUT AND RE-ENTER THE DRAFT~!!"

Good times.

Contr0versy
06-25-2007, 01:10 PM
Brady Quinn. . . The future of the franchise? You guys really think highly of this man. Lol.

Okay, maybe cutting him is a bit extreme, but I still wouldn't give in to his demands, especially if they're outrageous at that. IMO, Quinn is not a franchise QB, and won't be that great in the NFL. He's just another Casey Bramlet at best. So I don't see the point in paying him an outrageous sum of money for his mediocre talent. . .

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
06-25-2007, 01:16 PM
It may not seem plausible with how Frye plays, but take a look at Drew Brees up until Phil Rivers showed up, it was horrible, then he turned it around and became one of the best in the league. On the other side, the Browns want to get him in there too, so they can get their franchise QB molded and ready to take over the league as one of the premeir guys.

The thing is, with Drew Brees, he would have been a sure-fire first round pick had it not been for the whole height issue. I think it's mere coincidence that Brees picked up his play after they drafted Rivers; he was entering his third season as a starter, the time when you can really start to tell if a QB is for real or not. I absolutely would not hold my breath with Charlie Frye.

frogstomp
06-25-2007, 01:19 PM
From the report on ESPN it seems that Cleveland is the one causing the hold out and offering Thomas less than what the previous 3 #3 overall picks earned because of his position. It's pretty ridiculous to expect him to sign for less than that when everyone else in the draft will be getting more or the same as the year before.

And for the people complaining about rookie hold outs, just stop because if you were in that position you'd be trying to get every penny you could, the same thing happened with Bush last year and every one trashing him, just shut it because it's a business and it would be dumb for a player to not get as much as the can.

Actually, no. At my job, Im making $15.00 and hour. If I wanted to, I could ***** and moan for more money. In fact, Ive been told to my face I could make more from my boss. The thing is, I have class, and see that if I make more money, then the people I work for have less hours (I work for CFS, and each family has a limited budget. I make more, they get less time for their children). I make sacrifices for other people.

These rookies, they dont care about anyone else. They dont look and say, "If I ask for a few million less, we could sign another starter." They say, "Im going to get every cent out of this, even though in the end, Im going to be a multimillionaire anyways." Forget the fact that a new contract will come along in a couple of years, and if theyve proven themselves, theyll cash in all over again.

Anybody thats even moderately smart with money would be able to retire after the money you make from an NFL career.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
06-25-2007, 01:26 PM
Actually, no. At my job, Im making $15.00 and hour. If I wanted to, I could ***** and moan for more money. In fact, Ive been told to my face I could make more from my boss. The thing is, I have class, and see that if I make more money, than the people I work for have less hours (I work for CFS, and each family has a limited budget. I make more, they get less time for their children). I make sacrifices for other people.

These rookies, they dont care about anyone else. They dont look and say, "If I ask for a few million less, we could sign another starter." They say, "Im going to get every cent out of this, even though in the end, Im going to be a multimillionaire anyways." Forget the fact that a new contract will come along in a couple of years, and if theyve proven themselves, theyll cash in all over again.

Anybody thats even moderately smart with money would be able to retire after the money you make from an NFL career.

If I was the #3 pick in the draft, and I saw that the #3 pick from the previous year got $26 million guaranteed, I would not settle for very much less. Doing so would just be stupid.

Blame the NFL for not creating a rookie wage scale. I'd want what the guy in the same spot the previous year got.

PoopSandwich
06-25-2007, 01:30 PM
Thomas told his agent he wants to be in camp on time... Might be a hold out, I don't see why its being reported now seeing as we still have over a month until training camp.

High Roller
06-25-2007, 02:31 PM
Rookie holdouts are such ********. You've proved absolutely nothing, but feel like you deserve more money? Shut the **** up, and get on the field.

Completely true...they're still getting tens of millions

Contr0versy
06-25-2007, 02:44 PM
If I was the #3 pick in the draft, and I saw that the #3 pick from the previous year got $26 million guaranteed, I would not settle for very much less. Doing so would just be stupid.There's no comparison. . . The #3 draft pick last year was a franchise QB (Vince Young). QBs have the most important role on a football team, therefore an offensive lineman should NEVER think that he is equal to that of a franchise QB, regardless if they were both the #3 draft pick. QBs impact the game/team/league FAR MORE than an offensive lineman. . .

princefielder28
06-25-2007, 02:47 PM
Thomas told his agent he wants to be in camp on time... Might be a hold out, I don't see why its being reported now seeing as we still have over a month until training camp.

Joe is a quality individual and trust me he isn't the one causing the problems; it's browns management

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
06-25-2007, 02:53 PM
There's no comparison. . . The #3 draft pick last year was a franchise QB (Vince Young). QBs have the most important role on a football team, therefore an offensive lineman should NEVER think that he is equal to that of a franchise QB, regardless if they were both the #3 draft pick. QBs impact the game/team/league FAR MORE than an offensive lineman. . .

Let's take a look at the contracts signed by the past three #3 overall draft picks:

Larry Fitzgerald - 6 years, $60 million, $20.4 million guaranteed
Braylon Edwards - 5 years, $40 million, $18.5 million guaranteed
Vince Young - 6 years, $58 million, $25.74 million guaranteed

Now why shouldn't Joe Thomas' contract be in that ballpark, again?

Flyboy
06-25-2007, 02:56 PM
Edwards really got a "crappy" deal.

draftguru151
06-25-2007, 02:57 PM
The whole Bush thing from last year was completely hilarious. "OMG BUSH IS GOING TO SIT OUT AND RE-ENTER THE DRAFT~!!"

Good times.

HAHA, that was pretty funny. Everyone was freaking out.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
06-25-2007, 02:59 PM
Edwards really got a "crappy" deal.

Yeah I suppose he did in comparison, but $18.5 million guaranteed on a 5 year deal is not bad at all.

Joe Thomas will get $20 million + guaranteed, I... uhh... guarantee it.

Flyboy
06-25-2007, 03:30 PM
HAHA, that was pretty funny. Everyone was freaking out.

It was essentially that topic that made me post here on a regular basis rather than just lurking.

OhioState
06-25-2007, 03:46 PM
the browns need to stop being cheap, if they can pay eric steinbach 7 mil or whatever they can pay Joe Thomas, a potential franchise tackle the same.

marks01234
06-28-2007, 07:36 PM
And for the people complaining about rookie hold outs, just stop because if you were in that position you'd be trying to get every penny you could, the same thing happened with Bush last year and every one trashing him, just shut it because it's a business and it would be dumb for a player to not get as much as the can.

One could easily argue that it may be worth more to come into camp and earn your starting spot. Most of these contracts are laced with incentives and your much more likely to get advertising money if your playing.

Komp
06-28-2007, 07:46 PM
Yah sometimes I wonder if sitting out hurts contract negotiations more than it helps. Attending preseason/training camp is sort of like extending the olive branch, and it also gives you the chance to show that you deserve that big of an investment.

Smooth Criminal
06-28-2007, 09:07 PM
If I was Thomas I'd be lobbying for a contract bigger than the one Fergueson got last year. I think his was only 5 years and I expect Thomas to be signed to 6 so infact it could be alot more.

draftguru151
06-28-2007, 09:46 PM
are you implying an offensive lineman stands to gain a lot from endorsement deals?

He is actual in the UA commercials already. But I seriously doubt he gets any more endorsement deals, and if he does I doubt they will be because he got into camp on time and took a smaller contract.

Smokey Joe
06-28-2007, 10:06 PM
This is why the NFL (and NBA for that matter) need the arbitration system.

johbur
06-29-2007, 11:47 PM
Did the pack have a problem like this with AR?

Not a problem with him, but it took a long time for his agent and our capologist to work out a deal. He is paid like a back-up the first three years without having a large cap and received a signing bonus equal to his slot. He has large escalators and if he had started two years ago or last year would have received very large bonuses. Quinn is not sitting behind Brett Favre, so he'll likely be having a contract closer to the Skins' QB.

BlindSite
06-30-2007, 07:47 PM
One could easily argue that it may be worth more to come into camp and earn your starting spot. Most of these contracts are laced with incentives and your much more likely to get advertising money if your playing.

You'll get both if you hold out when being low balled.

Contr0versy
07-01-2007, 11:14 AM
Let's take a look at the contracts signed by the past three #3 overall draft picks:

Larry Fitzgerald - 6 years, $60 million, $20.4 million guaranteed
Braylon Edwards - 5 years, $40 million, $18.5 million guaranteed
Vince Young - 6 years, $58 million, $25.74 million guaranteed

Now why shouldn't Joe Thomas' contract be in that ballpark, again?Because Joe Thomas won't impact a team's record the same way an offensive player (QB, RB, WR, TE) would. Don't get me wrong, offensive lineman are important to a team, but it's not as important as the other offensive positions that will actually put points on the score board. . . This is not to say Joe Thomas doesn't deserve a nice contract, but in no way should it be comparable to that of a franchise player at a different offensive position.

Fitzgerald, Edwards, and Young impact their teams way more than Joe Thomas ever could. . . That's just the reality of it.

draftguru151
07-01-2007, 11:17 AM
Yea WR more valuable than a LT, right.

Contr0versy
07-01-2007, 11:38 AM
Yea WR more valuable than a LT, right.Yup!

If you think a Joe Thomas will impact a team more than a Chad Johnson, then you're smoking some good ****. . . A good WR will always be more valuable than a good LT.

frogstomp
07-01-2007, 11:53 AM
Yup!

If you think a Joe Thomas will impact a team more than a Chad Johnson, then you're smoking some good ****. . . A good WR will always be more valuable than a good LT.

See: Houston Texans.

Contr0versy
07-01-2007, 11:59 AM
See: Houston Texans.David Carr is partly to blame for that, too. It took him 20 seconds just to throw the ball. . .

Words from Andre Johnson:

"When you look at, the differences that I see is that with David (Carr) you had to wait on the ball a little bit more," Johnson said. "With Matt, he's pretty decisive with what he's doing. He's going to get back in his drop and let the ball go. When you're in your route, you don't have to wait on the ball or anything like that."

frogstomp
07-01-2007, 12:01 PM
We'll see when the season starts how Schaub does.

Games are decided in the trenches, however. That's football 101.

Primetime21
07-01-2007, 01:53 PM
Yup!

If you think a Joe Thomas will impact a team more than a Chad Johnson, then you're smoking some good ****. . . A good WR will always be more valuable than a good LT.

QB, and LT are pretty much the highest paid positions(CB not to far behind) so it isnt outragous that he should be pretty close to VY money. Especially if Thomas looks like he could be starting day one.

MasterShake
07-01-2007, 02:07 PM
Yup!

If you think a Joe Thomas will impact a team more than a Chad Johnson, then you're smoking some good ****. . . A good WR will always be more valuable than a good LT.

1. Raiders - Randy Moss - Robert Gallery
2. Lions - Roy Williams - Jeff Backus
3. Browns - Braylon Edwards - Kevin Shaffer
4. Bucs - Joey Galloway - Anthony Davis? who?
5. Cardinals - Fitz and Boldin! - Leonard Davis
8. Texans - Andre Johnson - Ephraim Salaam


Lotta good recievers on that list....also lotta mediorce to bad LT's.

Coincidentally also the ordering of the 2007 NFL Draft....

CC.SD
07-01-2007, 11:45 PM
WTF people are smoking crack in this thread! LT>WR every time. If you disagree, you are a ball watcher.

Mr. Stiller
07-02-2007, 12:16 AM
1. Raiders - Randy Moss - Robert Gallery
2. Lions - Roy Williams - Jeff Backus
3. Browns - Braylon Edwards - Kevin Shaffer
4. Bucs - Joey Galloway - Anthony Davis? who?
5. Cardinals - Fitz and Boldin! - Leonard Davis
8. Texans - Andre Johnson - Ephraim Salaam


Lotta good recievers on that list....also lotta mediorce to bad LT's.

Coincidentally also the ordering of the 2007 NFL Draft....

Yea.

It's not physically impossible to complete 200+ Passes with no blindside protection.

Primetime21
07-02-2007, 12:46 AM
1. Raiders - Randy Moss - Robert Gallery
2. Lions - Roy Williams - Jeff Backus
3. Browns - Braylon Edwards - Kevin Shaffer
4. Bucs - Joey Galloway - Anthony Davis? who?
5. Cardinals - Fitz and Boldin! - Leonard Davis
8. Texans - Andre Johnson - Ephraim Salaam


Lotta good recievers on that list....also lotta mediorce to bad LT's.

Coincidentally also the ordering of the 2007 NFL Draft....

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a54/Jeebuspotpie/ownage.jpg

+rep for own of the day.

mqtirishfan
07-02-2007, 01:30 AM
Yup!

If you think a Joe Thomas will impact a team more than a Chad Johnson, then you're smoking some good ****. . . A good WR will always be more valuable than a good LT.

You sound like a person who has never played organized football.

Sniper
07-02-2007, 04:04 AM
Yup!

If you think a Joe Thomas will impact a team more than a Chad Johnson, then you're smoking some good ****. . . A good WR will always be more valuable than a good LT.

Mr. Contr0versy, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

That was seriously one of the dumbest posts I have ever had the misfortune of coming across. A great LT is infinitely more valuable to a team than a great WR. Without a great LT, a great WR becomes a good WR.

MasterShake
07-02-2007, 09:18 AM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a54/Jeebuspotpie/ownage.jpg

+rep for own of the day.

Haha Thanks.

KCJ58
07-02-2007, 01:15 PM
1. Raiders - Randy Moss - Robert Gallery
2. Lions - Roy Williams - Jeff Backus
3. Browns - Braylon Edwards - Kevin Shaffer
4. Bucs - Joey Galloway - Anthony Davis? who?
5. Cardinals - Fitz and Boldin! - Leonard Davis
8. Texans - Andre Johnson - Ephraim Salaam


Lotta good recievers on that list....also lotta mediorce to bad LT's.

Coincidentally also the ordering of the 2007 NFL Draft....


1. Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce - Orlando Pace!


you forgot about him

Primetime21
07-02-2007, 01:21 PM
1. Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce - Orlando Pace!


you forgot about him

If you actually read his post you would have seen its the 5 worst teams in the NFL otherwise known as ordering of the 2007 draft.

KCJ58
07-02-2007, 01:29 PM
edit: forget this post

Contr0versy
07-02-2007, 07:43 PM
WTF people are smoking crack in this thread! LT>WR every time. If you disagree, you are a ball watcher.:rolleyes:

Contr0versy
07-02-2007, 07:45 PM
You sound like a person who has never played organized football.:rolleyes:

Contr0versy
07-02-2007, 07:50 PM
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.You sure you weren't already dumb before reading it? Just a thought. . . :D

That was seriously one of the dumbest posts I have ever had the misfortune of coming across. A great LT is infinitely more valuable to a team than a great WR. Without a great LT, a great WR becomes a good WR.So explain to me the GREATNESS of Cris Carter & Randy Moss in Minnesota? Did they ever have a GREAT, future Hall of Fame LT on their team? Iíll let you ponder on that for a minute, ole wise one. . .

Now please explain to me how the Vikings could have two GREAT WRs without a GREAT LT, since according to you, and I quote, ďwithout a great LT, a great WR becomes a good WR.Ē (Now thatís the most idiotic thing Iíve ever heard on here) So you see, Mr. Sniper, it doesnít take a GREAT LT in order for a WR to be a GREAT. It doesnít even take a great LT for a QB to be a great (See Dan Marino, especially in í84), nor does it take a great LT for a team to have a winning season and become Superbowl contenders (The 2002 Raiders proved that when they led the league in total passing yards & ranked 2nd in total yards all without a GREAT LT). All it takes is a DECENT LT. How many teams have won Superbowls WITHOUT having GREAT LTs? All you need is a decent LT to get the job done. . . Youíre acting like Michael Irvin wouldnít have been GREAT if it werenít for Erik Williams and Nate Newton. Irvin would have been great regardless.

Back to Joe Thomas. . .

IMO, no LT, especially an unproven rookie, is worth the same amount of money as a GREAT/GOOD/FRANCHISE QB, WR, RB, etc. They just do not impact the game the same way a QB, WR, and RB does. Once again, and this is for those who have poor reading comprehension skills, Iím not saying an LT role is unimportant, because it is, but they donít put points on the board. Iíll take a decent LT and a great WR any day over a great LT and a decent WR. Average to decent WRs come up short (See Reche Caldwell) in big games, but decent LTs can hold their own when need be.

Flyboy
07-02-2007, 07:53 PM
1. Raiders - Randy Moss - Robert Gallery
2. Lions - Roy Williams - Jeff Backus
3. Browns - Braylon Edwards - Kevin Shaffer
4. Bucs - Joey Galloway - Anthony Davis? who?
5. Cardinals - Fitz and Boldin! - Leonard Davis
8. Texans - Andre Johnson - Ephraim Salaam


Lotta good recievers on that list....also lotta mediorce to bad LT's.

Coincidentally also the ordering of the 2007 NFL Draft....

.... Oh, tag.

mqtirishfan
07-02-2007, 09:43 PM
You sure you weren't already dumb before reading it? Just a thought. . . :D

So explain to me the GREATNESS of Cris Carter & Randy Moss in Minnesota? Did they ever have a GREAT, future Hall of Fame LT on their team? Iíll let you ponder on that for a minute, ole wise one. . .

Now please explain to me how the Vikings could have two GREAT WRs without a GREAT LT, since according to you, and I quote, ďwithout a great LT, a great WR becomes a good WR.Ē (Now thatís the most idiotic thing Iíve ever heard on here) So you see, Mr. Sniper, it doesnít take a GREAT LT in order for a WR to be a GREAT. It doesnít even take a great LT for a QB to be a great (See Dan Marino, especially in í84), nor does it take a great LT for a team to have a winning season and become Superbowl contenders (The 2002 Raiders proved that when they led the league in total passing yards & ranked 2nd in total yards all without a GREAT LT). All it takes is a DECENT LT. How many teams have won Superbowls WITHOUT having GREAT LTs? All you need is a decent LT to get the job done. . . Youíre acting like Michael Irvin wouldnít have been GREAT if it werenít for Erik Williams and Nate Newton. Irvin would have been great regardless.

Back to Joe Thomas. . .

IMO, no LT, especially an unproven rookie, is worth the same amount of money as a GREAT/GOOD/FRANCHISE QB, WR, RB, etc. They just do not impact the game the same way a QB, WR, and RB does. Once again, and this is for those who have poor reading comprehension skills, Iím not saying an LT role is unimportant, because it is, but they donít put points on the board. Iíll take a decent LT and a great WR any day over a great LT and a decent WR. Average to decent WRs come up short (See Reche Caldwell) in big games, but decent LTs can hold their own when need be.

Good lord, you really have no clue. You don't need Ogden/Pace to be the best team in the NFL. For every decent LT you name me from a good team, I can name you a decent but not great QB/RB/WR. There really isn't a position where you absolutely need a future HOFer. You need the right blend of talent. However, the best teams generally have a good O-line. Case in point: The Baltimore Ravens in the same year as that great Vikings team. Their defense was the best part of their team, but offensively, they had a great line. But you know, I bet Jermaine Lewis was the true impact player on the Ravens offense.

JK17
07-03-2007, 12:11 AM
So explain to me the GREATNESS of Cris Carter & Randy Moss in Minnesota? Did they ever have a GREAT, future Hall of Fame LT on their team? Iíll let you ponder on that for a minute, ole wise one. . .

Yeah, its not like that Vikings offense was one of the best ever or anything...of course there can be good WRs, but its more important your QBs blind side is protected then he have good WRs to throw to, and if you don't think that you play a little too much Madden or only watch the highlight reels. Or put it this way....Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are both having incredible years. The Left Tackle screws up, Peyton is out for the season, and now Jim Sorgi is in there. Do Harrison and Wayne do as good? Was it more important to have a good WR, or ensusre the protection of multiple offensive players, who are at the center of the scheme?

Now please explain to me how the Vikings could have two GREAT WRs without a GREAT LT, since according to you, and I quote, ďwithout a great LT, a great WR becomes a good WR.Ē (Now thatís the most idiotic thing Iíve ever heard on here) So you see, Mr. Sniper, it doesnít take a GREAT LT in order for a WR to be a GREAT. It doesnít even take a great LT for a QB to be a great (See Dan Marino, especially in í84), nor does it take a great LT for a team to have a winning season and become Superbowl contenders (The 2002 Raiders proved that when they led the league in total passing yards & ranked 2nd in total yards all without a GREAT LT). All it takes is a DECENT LT. How many teams have won Superbowls WITHOUT having GREAT LTs? All you need is a decent LT to get the job done. . . Youíre acting like Michael Irvin wouldnít have been GREAT if it werenít for Erik Williams and Nate Newton. Irvin would have been great regardless.

Wow, you could just as easily say all it takes is a great LT and decent WRs.

Flat out, WRs are not as important as LT's. WR's are more easily replaced, more dependent on other positions, do not protect other positions, and are not even an overwhelming aspect of the game without the help of others.

Back to Joe Thomas. . .

IMO, no LT, especially an unproven rookie, is worth the same amount of money as a GREAT/GOOD/FRANCHISE QB, WR, RB, etc. They just do not impact the game the same way a QB, WR, and RB does. Once again, and this is for those who have poor reading comprehension skills, Iím not saying an LT role is unimportant, because it is, but they donít put points on the board. Iíll take a decent LT and a great WR any day over a great LT and a decent WR. Average to decent WRs come up short (See Reche Caldwell) in big games, but decent LTs can hold their own when need be.

First of all, average to decent WRs do not always come up short, and citing one example of that proves nothing. 2000 Baltimore Ravens. 2001 New England Patriots. 2003 New England Patriots. 2004 New England Patriots. Where were the "great WR's" on those teams.

Also, I get your not saying its unimportant, but none of those positions are much of anything without a LT. Your QB is under constant pressure without protection from the LT. How many instances are there of QBs not being able to do anything without solid protection....Couch, Carr, Harrington for rookies and up, but then even good QBs who moved to different places, like Jeff Garcia going from San Fran, until he landed in Philly was horrible. It's not like he just lost it either, look what he was able to do last season. Or QBs who weren't anything special until they had time to throw the ball. LT protects those players on every single play, and ensures the safety of the team's leader. QB is more important then a LT, so I'm not gonna argue that anymore, but RB and WR are so interchangable, to think one of them could be more important is ridiculous. Good RBs and WRs are a dime a dozen whereas a good LT is much harder to find.

wogitalia
07-05-2007, 04:45 AM
I can't believe anyone would ever argue that WR is more important than LT. Just cant see it. I cant see WR over any part of the OL to be honest. Sounds like something someone who has never played at any level would say. As someone who has played both offense and defense with and without a good line, the line makes all the difference. A good line is the difference between a good team and a bad team. The other parts around them dictate whether the team is great or just good still. For instance the Colts put great WRs and a QB around a great line and are a great team. The Vikings have 3/5 of a great line but they surround it with nobodies and are a poor team.

Football starts with the big guys in the trenches. Always has, always will.

Sniper
07-05-2007, 05:11 AM
You sure you weren't already dumb before reading it? Just a thought. . . :D

So explain to me the GREATNESS of Cris Carter & Randy Moss in Minnesota? Did they ever have a GREAT, future Hall of Fame LT on their team? Iíll let you ponder on that for a minute, ole wise one. . .

Now please explain to me how the Vikings could have two GREAT WRs without a GREAT LT, since according to you, and I quote, ďwithout a great LT, a great WR becomes a good WR.Ē (Now thatís the most idiotic thing Iíve ever heard on here) So you see, Mr. Sniper, it doesnít take a GREAT LT in order for a WR to be a GREAT. It doesnít even take a great LT for a QB to be a great (See Dan Marino, especially in í84), nor does it take a great LT for a team to have a winning season and become Superbowl contenders (The 2002 Raiders proved that when they led the league in total passing yards & ranked 2nd in total yards all without a GREAT LT). All it takes is a DECENT LT. How many teams have won Superbowls WITHOUT having GREAT LTs? All you need is a decent LT to get the job done. . . Youíre acting like Michael Irvin wouldnít have been GREAT if it werenít for Erik Williams and Nate Newton. Irvin would have been great regardless.

Back to Joe Thomas. . .

IMO, no LT, especially an unproven rookie, is worth the same amount of money as a GREAT/GOOD/FRANCHISE QB, WR, RB, etc. They just do not impact the game the same way a QB, WR, and RB does. Once again, and this is for those who have poor reading comprehension skills, Iím not saying an LT role is unimportant, because it is, but they donít put points on the board. Iíll take a decent LT and a great WR any day over a great LT and a decent WR. Average to decent WRs come up short (See Reche Caldwell) in big games, but decent LTs can hold their own when need be.

Wow cool 12 year old response. You're awesome. If you can legitimately think that a great WR is more valuable to a team than a great WR, you are truly smoking some incredible ****. Basic point was if your QB has no protection, how the **** is he supposed to get your WR the ball? So you're saying the Cowboys incredible offensive line didn't help Irvin at all? No, I guess Aikman was able to drop back and avoid every single pass rusher on his own and fire bullets to Irvin right? By the way, what great WRs did the Pats have in their run recently? Average to decent WRs come up short like Reche Caldwell? Reche Caldwell ******* SUCKS! Tell Bill Belichick he needs great wideouts to win a Super Bowl and see what he tells you. Funny you ask about how many SB teams have won without a great LT, considering every team you listed other than the Cowboys (Vikings, Raiders, Dolphins) didn't win a Super Bowl with their high powered offenses and great receivers.

Caddy
07-05-2007, 05:31 AM
Wow cool 12 year old response. You're awesome. If you can legitimately think that a great WR is more valuable to a team than a great WR, you are truly smoking some incredible ****. Basic point was if your QB has no protection, how the **** is he supposed to get your WR the ball? So you're saying the Cowboys incredible offensive line didn't help Irvin at all? No, I guess Aikman was able to drop back and avoid every single pass rusher on his own and fire bullets to Irvin right? By the way, what great WRs did the Pats have in their run recently? Average to decent WRs come up short like Reche Caldwell? Reche Caldwell ******* SUCKS! Tell Bill Belichick he needs great wideouts to win a Super Bowl and see what he tells you. Funny you ask about how many SB teams have won without a great LT, considering every team you listed other than the Cowboys (Vikings, Raiders, Dolphins) didn't win a Super Bowl with their high powered offenses and great receivers.

I agree with your point about LT > WR, but Bill Belichick did have a pretty good receiver in Deion Branch during his super bowl runs with Branch even taking out MVP honors.

Sniper
07-05-2007, 06:54 AM
I agree with your point about LT > WR, but Bill Belichick did have a pretty good receiver in Deion Branch during his super bowl runs with Branch even taking out MVP honors.

Yeah but you would never say Branch is a GREAT WR would you? Branch is pretty good, like you said, but he's not great as in the same way that Torry Holt, Steve Smith etc.... are.