PDA

View Full Version : Mock draft with some possible trades


woodnick
12-15-2007, 05:20 PM
First and foremost I believe that McFadden is too valuable, especially seeing what Adrian Peterson, who McFadden is truly comparable too, has accomplished this year to not be the number 1 pick. With that being said I hope that teams are already contacting the Dolphins to judge what they want in return for him. Obviously 2 trades in the top 5 is very unlikely to occur, but both Miami and the Pats will be looking to draft lower and get better value. Trades are extremely difficult to predict so I tried to keep them at a minimum. Note, the Cowboys will have 2 picks in the first round and may look to move up if they have a target in mind, perhaps Phillips or Clady. Also, Giants fans, I know that trading out will not make most of you happy but it’ll allow them to pick up some extra picks to address their needs, and in all honesty it just fit for me for a place where a team would target to draft Brohm.

Round 1:

1) Falcons * Trade up with Miami: Top 3 Needs – QB, OL, DT
Selection: Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas – In the wake of the Vick debacle, the franchise tries to find their new face of the franchise in McFadden. The team has already said that they believe in Leftwich, who was signed to a multi-year deal, and after trying the west coast offense for so many years they’ll try for a more run orientated O in order to recapture their league leading run O from 2006. Gotta love the irony of trading up to #1 to forget about Vick.
Other Option: Miami keeps pick and drafts Dorsey

2) Chiefs * Trade up with the Pats: Top 3 Needs – OL, CB, WR
Selection: Jake Long, OT, Michigan – After getting a good bargain through the Pats because they don’t want to pay #2 in a cost/benefit move and unwilling to trade to Div. rivals, the Chiefs jump up and grab the big guy in an attempt to strengthen their OL to protect both LJ and Croyle.
Other Option: Pats or someone else through a trade draft McFadden if Dorsey goes 1

3) Rams: Top 3 Needs – OL, DL, DB
Selection - Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU – Still upset for missing out on Okoye in last years draft they continue the rebuilding of the D-Line by grabbing another great one. Dominant for LSU, will be able to contribute immediately.
Other Option: Jake Long

4) Dolphins * Trade with Atl: Top 3 Needs – youth throughout the D (NT), OT, OG
Selection: Chris Long, DE, Virginia – Disappointed that they missed out on their target Dorsey and their 2nd choice Jake Long, they keep their attention on fixing their D-Line and this move will allow the Dolphins to trade their disgruntled star Jason Taylor for more added picks or keep him and move Wright back to his natural DT position.
Other Option: Falcons stay put and draft Matt Ryan.

5) Jets: Top 3 Needs – DL, ILB, RT
Selection: Calais Campbell, DE, Miami – After putting on a show at his personal workouts teams will be drooling over him and with his size he should be able to hold up well against the run in the 3-4.
Other Option: would love to get Chris Long or McFadden here.

6) Patriots (F/SF) * trade with KC: Top 3 Needs – ILB, CB, OL
Selection: James Laurinaitis, ILB, Ohio State – Pats have the ability to load up on talent with this pick getting another dominant LB who will be able to learn behind Bruschi and the other vets while he prepares to take over.
Other Option: Malcolm Jenkins or possibly looking to trade again for more value.

7) Raiders: Top 3 Needs – OL, DL, WR
Selection: Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC – Ellis makes sense as the replacement for Sapp considering how often he’s compared to him, but this gives them some much needed depth on the inside of their d-line.
Other Option: Could try to trade up to get McFadden, very unlikely, or Ryan Clady.

8) Ravens: Top 3 Needs – QB, CB, LB
Selection: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College – Ryan is currently the highest rated QB by the pundits and has lots of upside. Ryan gets the nod here over Woodson due to Woodson’s questionable decision making and speculation that he’s a system QB in Kentucky.
Other Option: Malcolm Jenkins or Woodson or potentially Brohm

9) Panthers: Top 3 Needs – QB, DE, LB
Selection: Andre Woodson, QB, Kentucky – Probably still needs a little time before he’s ready and he should get it behind Delhomme, but obviously the Panthers need a better situation at QB which this would also be a long term solution.
Other Option: Kenny Philips or Dan Conner or Vernon Gholston

10) Bears: Top 3 Needs – QB, OL, RB
Selection: Kenny Philips, S, Miami – The Bears love drafting defense and neglecting their O in the first round and this year’s D was pretty disappointing for their high standards. They need to start by getting rid of their cancer named Archuleta.
Other Option: Ryan Clady or Brian Brohm

11) Bengals: Top 3 Needs – LB, DT, RT
Selection: Dan Connor, LB, Penn State – This is probably a little high for Connor, but their D needs a rugged LB who is a force, not to mention that the Bengals are still trying to stick to high character guys which Connor fits the bill.
Other Option: Keith Rivers, Philips, or Clady

12) Eagles: Top 3 Needs – S, CB, OT
Selection: Ryan Clady, OT, Boise State – Philly loves drafting linemen in the first rd. and after seeing Justice struggle against the Giants it’s obvious they need help. Would also probably love Phillips to still be around.
Other Option: Kenny Phillips or Malcolm Jenkins

13) Cardinals: Top 3 Needs – LT, DB, DL
Selection: Malcolm Jenkins, CB, Ohio State – Cards need another playmaker in their defensive backfield and without a LT worth this selection they decide to upgrade their defense.
Other Option: Clady, Sam Baker, or Gohlston

14) Saints: Top 3 Needs – LB, DB, DT
Selection: Keith Rivers, LB, USC – a versatile option who plays with a lot of aggression who will allow the Saints to upgrade their B-list linebacker corp.
Other Option: Malcolm or Mike Jenkins

15) Broncos: Top 3 Needs – OL, DT, S
Selection: Sam Baker, OT, USC – Broncos just got dominated by Mario Williams and have struggled with blocking all year long, Baker is more of a finesse type player but his athleticism fits the zone blocking scheme of the Broncos nicely.
Other Option: Jeff Otah or Frank Okam

16) Lions: Top 3 Needs – OT, CB, MLB
Selection: Jeff Otah, OT, Pitt – Otah is a fast rising physical tackle with tons of upside. Detroit should definitely be looking to upgrade their offensive line after seeing it allow so many sacks and QB pressures.
Other Option: Michael Oher, Vernon Gohlston, Mike Jenkins, & of course any WR

17) Redskins: Top 3 Needs – DE, S, WR
Selection: Vernon Gohlston, DE, Ohio State – Still needs to put on some bulk but did a real nice job against Jake Long and Michigan’s other T. Lots of upside and could create some pressure on opposing QBs, which the Redskins sorely lack.
Other Option: Derrick Harvey, DeSean Jackson

18) Texans: Top 3 Needs – DB, OL, RB
Selection: Mike Jenkins, CB, South Florida – Big DB who could probably play either S or CB. He has good speed and ball skills and will be a nice compliment to Robinson while Houston continues to upgrade their D.
Other Option: Felix Jones, Jonathan Stewart, Oher.

19) Titans: Top 3 Needs – WR, DL, DB
Selection: DeSean Jackson, WR, Cal – A playmaker who will be the deep threat that Vince Young has been missing. Will keep Defenses honest and unable to load on against the run. Also can be a major contribution to the return game if Pacman can’t turn things around.
Other Option: Limas Sweed, Harvey or Mike Jenkins

20) Bills: Top 3 Needs – CB, OLB, TE
Selection: Ali Highsmith, OLB, LSU – Will give the Bills a good young LB corp. once Poz. returns from injury. Highsmith should be a really good addition to an improving D.
Other Option: Aqib Talib, Limas Sweed

21) Vikings: Top 3 Needs – DE, S, OL
Selection: Derrick Harvey, DE, Florida – Gives the Vikings the pass rushing specialist their defense has been missing.
Other Option: Reggie Smith or Oher or Sweed

22) Cowboys (F/Cle): Top 3 Needs – S, OT, WR
Selection: Limas Sweed, WR, Texas – Address the need for a young reliable target to match up with TO and ultimately take over for him.
Other Option: Reggie Smith or Michael Oher

23) Bucs: Top 3 Needs – OT, CB, WR
Selection: James Hardy, WR, Indiana – After missing out on Calvin Johnson last year they finally address their need for a playmaker under the age of 35. Hardy is well built with tons of potential.
Other Option: Michael Oher or Aqib Talib

24) Chargers: Top 3 Needs – ILB, S, DE
Selection: Lawrence Jackson, DE, USC – Chargers look to address their struggling D and go for the BPA in a position of need. Jackson is a decent pass rusher but he holds up well against the run and should be a solid fit in the 3-4
Other Option: Rey Maualuga or Reggie Smith

25) Seahawks: Top 3 Needs – OL, S, RB
Selection: Felix Jones, RB, Arkansas – Jones has been over shadowed by McFadden but he possesses all the tools and speed needed to be an instant impact in a split role for the ‘Hawks.
Other Option: Chris Williams, Reggie Smith, or Jonathan Stewart

26) Steelers: Top 3 Needs – OL, S, WR
Selection: Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss – Fills out their O-line in an attempt to protect their young backfield. Will give Big Ben lots of blocking for years to come.
Other Option: Smith or Bowman

27) Bears *Traded with Giants: Top 3 Needs – QB, OL, RB
Selection: Brian Brohm, QB, Louisville – Bears pay the price to get back up in position to draft Brohm and stop his free fall. Brohm should be the anti-Grossman and that’s probably will be what excites the Bears.
Other Option: Giants stay and draft Talib or Reggie Smith

28) Jaguars: Top 3 Needs – WR, OLB, S
Selection: Sean Lee, OLB, Penn State – Jags get their OLB who continues the line of Penn State LBers to the NFL. Jags won’t waste another 1st round pick on a WR and they addressed their D-backfield last year
Other Option: Adarius Bowman or Doucet or Smith

29) Packers: Top 3 Needs – S, RB, OL
Selection: Reggie Smith, CB/S, Oklahoma – With Ryan Grant stepping up big time this pick is then directed to shoring up their D-backfield with a versatile asset.
Other Option: Stewart or Chris Williams

30) 49ers (F/Ind): Top 3 Needs – WR, OL, OLB/DE
Selection: Early Doucet, WR, LSU – San Fran is desperate for a weapon on the outside that’ll open things up for Gore and Davis and take some pressure off of Smith. Doucet’s stock has dropped a bit, but with a great 40 time he’ll jump back into the 1st round.
Other Option: Bowman, Williams, or Groves

31) Cowboys: Top 3 Needs - S, OT, WR
Selection: Chris Williams, OT, Vanderbilt – After selecting Sweed with their first pick they address protecting their budding star QB.
Other Option: Depends upon their first pick but could be Bowman or Loadholt

32) Patriots: FORFEITED

Traded out of First rd:
Giants: Top 3 Needs – OLB, DB, OT

bored of education
12-15-2007, 05:23 PM
Doubt that Chiefs trade up for an RT. then can stay put and maybe get long, clady, malcolm jenkins, sedrick ellis

KCJ58
12-15-2007, 05:25 PM
Rams take Jake Long, that's fine with me

woodnick
12-15-2007, 05:30 PM
I think Long will be a LT in the NFL, I'm assuming at least, and McIntosh seems like a better fit for RT. This would upgrade both positions. But, yes it would be pretty dicey for them to move up.

ATLDirtyBirds
12-15-2007, 05:32 PM
I understand wanting McFadden and all, because I really want him. When did we ever committ to Leftwich though?

BigJohn98
12-15-2007, 05:33 PM
28) Jaguars: Top 3 Needs – WR, OLB, S
Selection: Sean Lee, OLB, Penn State – Jags get their OLB who continues the line of Penn State LBers to the NFL. Jags won’t waste another 1st round pick on a WR and they addressed their D-backfield last year
Other Option: Adarius Bowman or Doucet or Smith


No defensive end as a need? Have you not seen how bad our pass rush is?

woodnick
12-15-2007, 05:42 PM
I understand wanting McFadden and all, because I really want him. When did we ever committ to Leftwich though?

Earlier in the year the Falcons' brass kept stating that they wanted Leftwich in there because they like his poise in the pocket and leadership in the huddle. Obviously they didn't have a lot of options, but they signed him to a 2yr. deal so he'll have an extended try out next year. This'll really depend on their new coaching choice. Has anybody heard who the early favorite is, other than Cowher? I know that NFL teams aren't alound to start the interviewing process until after the season is over but there's gotta be speculation right?

woodnick
12-15-2007, 05:44 PM
No defensive end as a need? Have you not seen how bad our pass rush is?

Yeah DE is a need, or at least a pass rusher, but that was just what I've read/seen was their 3 biggest needs. I could be wrong, but just my opinion. Jags look pretty smart with their pre-season decision on QBs don't they.

Tampa 2 4 life
12-15-2007, 05:46 PM
James Hardy is not a 1st round pick.

Geo
12-15-2007, 05:53 PM
JamesHardyIsABeast

ATLDirtyBirds
12-15-2007, 06:00 PM
Earlier in the year the Falcons' brass kept stating that they wanted Leftwich in there because they like his poise in the pocket and leadership in the huddle. Obviously they didn't have a lot of options, but they signed him to a 2yr. deal so he'll have an extended try out next year. This'll really depend on their new coaching choice. Has anybody heard who the early favorite is, other than Cowher? I know that NFL teams aren't alound to start the interviewing process until after the season is over but there's gotta be speculation right?


Right now speculation says that Mike Singletary is the leader. I know that the Falcons have some confidence in Leftwich. I think a big indicator will be what happens in these last few games.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 06:07 PM
Right now speculation says that Mike Singletary is the leader. I know that the Falcons have some confidence in Leftwich. I think a big indicator will be what happens in these last few games.

Singletary should be at/around the top of their list, he'd be a huge rallying guy for their team.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 06:09 PM
James Hardy is not a 1st round pick.

Hardy is a pimp. I don't know if you've watched him play, but he's got a lot of talent and always whoops on my Spartans. Yes, haha, which WR doesn't whip on Michigan State.

scar988
12-15-2007, 06:20 PM
Earlier in the year the Falcons' brass kept stating that they wanted Leftwich in there because they like his poise in the pocket and leadership in the huddle. Obviously they didn't have a lot of options, but they signed him to a 2yr. deal so he'll have an extended try out next year. This'll really depend on their new coaching choice. Has anybody heard who the early favorite is, other than Cowher? I know that NFL teams aren't alound to start the interviewing process until after the season is over but there's gotta be speculation right?
um, no. we never commited to leftwich and will be looking for a QB for the future here in Atlanta this draft as well. Also we won't trade up for McFadden we will stay at 4 or higher or lower and get the BPA between McFadden, QB, OT and Dorsey.

and the favorite is actually Singletary. Cowher denied us,

hugegmenfan
12-15-2007, 06:29 PM
horrible giants trade. that makes no sense to trade out of the 1st round. we need players who can start for us right away and make a big impact. give us reggie smith.

fenikz
12-15-2007, 06:35 PM
Put some spaces between the picks, as for the Cardinals that is the best option at the spot, but as for our needs D-line isn't one of them we have a lot of studs on the line already, our needs are 3-4 OLB, CB, OT, & FS

woodnick
12-15-2007, 06:37 PM
um, no. we never commited to leftwich and will be looking for a QB for the future here in Atlanta this draft as well. Also we won't trade up for McFadden we will stay at 4 or higher or lower and get the BPA between McFadden, QB, OT and Dorsey.

and the favorite is actually Singletary. Cowher denied us,

I never said that the Falcons have committed to Leftwich, I just said that they blieve that he's got some potential. QB is an option, but if the Falcons got McFadden and went back to their zone-blocking scheme they might have a pretty decent running attack and that might help solve their O-line situation a little. Get Flacco, or another QB, in rd 3 and let him learn for a year.

Also, I like Norwood a lot and think he'd be pretty dangerous as a full time back, but I don't know if he'd hold up for a full year.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 06:39 PM
Put some spaces between the picks, as for the Cardinals that is the best option at the spot, but as for our needs D-line isn't one of them we have a lot of studs on the line already, our needs are 3-4 OLB, CB, OT, & FS

Maybe Golhston would be a good fit there also, or they might be able to hope for Groves in rd. 2.

scar988
12-15-2007, 06:40 PM
I never said that the Falcons have committed to Leftwich, I just said that they blieve that he's got some potential. QB is an option, but if the Falcons got McFadden and went back to their zone-blocking scheme they might have a pretty decent running attack and that might help solve their O-line situation a little. Get Flacco, or another QB, in rd 3 and let him learn for a year.

Also, I like Norwood a lot and think he'd be pretty dangerous as a full time back, but I don't know if he'd hold up for a full year.

and again, Leftwich isn't that QB, Redman is more likely to stay then either Leftwich or Harrington for the year. Flacco? no thanks. but Brennan with one of our 2 2nd round picks would work. and I agree our OL would be better with say Art Shell as the OL coach (big fatty zone blocking run with big fatty man pass) and at least one pick i nthe first or 2nd on the OL. we need talent on the OL i nthe worst way. but we won't trad e up for McFadden. or anyone else for that matter. we will stay where we are or trade down. and we can get a spell back for Norwood or hell even keep Dunn as his spell back for next year. but we don't need to use a first unless Mcfadden somehow falls to 4.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 06:49 PM
Put some spaces between the picks, as for the Cardinals that is the best option at the spot, but as for our needs D-line isn't one of them we have a lot of studs on the line already, our needs are 3-4 OLB, CB, OT, & FS

I did some editing, I hope it makes it easier to read.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 06:52 PM
and again, Leftwich isn't that QB, Redman is more likely to stay then either Leftwich or Harrington for the year. Flacco? no thanks. but Brennan with one of our 2 2nd round picks would work. and I agree our OL would be better with say Art Shell as the OL coach (big fatty zone blocking run with big fatty man pass) and at least one pick i nthe first or 2nd on the OL. we need talent on the OL i nthe worst way. but we won't trad e up for McFadden. or anyone else for that matter. we will stay where we are or trade down. and we can get a spell back for Norwood or hell even keep Dunn as his spell back for next year. but we don't need to use a first unless Mcfadden somehow falls to 4. understand?

I understand, but that was just my opinion on what I'd like to see them do. Also, zone blocking schemes are generally done with smaller linemen, not fatty's. Thats why Atlanta's line was undersized when they switched back this past off-season.

T-RICH49
12-15-2007, 06:58 PM
Doubt that Chiefs trade up for an RT. then can stay put and maybe get long, clady, malcolm jenkins, sedrick ellis

I'd be thrilled to trade up to get Long.I see him a s a LT in the NFL not a RT.I'd take Long over Clady or any other OT out there

Babylon
12-15-2007, 07:15 PM
Dont think Calais Campbell is going to turn any heads at the combine to be truthful and i dont like Sweed in round 1 but nice mock. Sean Lee has given no indication that he's coming out and dont think he's 1st this year if he does.

scar988
12-15-2007, 07:23 PM
I understand, but that was just my opinion on what I'd like to see them do. Also, zone blocking schemes are generally done with smaller linemen, not fatty's. Thats why Atlanta's line was undersized when they switched back this past off-season.

I realize that. dude, I know a lot about my own team. in fact I know much more than you think I do. and I know a lot more about the schemes than you do. Zone Blocking schemes don't need smaller lineman. on the contrary they need Quick lineman. and if they are bigger they are better. if you have a guy who is 6'6" 330 and quick he is better for the scheme than a smaller lineman cause he holds up better in pass blocking.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 07:29 PM
I realize that. dude, I know a lot about my own team. in fact I know much more than you think I do. and I know a lot more about the schemes than you do. Zone Blocking schemes don't need smaller lineman. on the contrary they need Quick lineman. and if they are bigger they are better. if you have a guy who is 6'6" 330 and quick he is better for the scheme than a smaller lineman cause he holds up better in pass blocking.

Thats why teams put weight limits on their lineman when they play in the zone blocking scheme. Yes it is about quickness, but they want them under 300 lbs. for that reason not at 330.

You don't even know me, so why would you try to attck my knowledge of schemes. I understand that you feel you know schemes, but what gives you the right to judge me?

scar988
12-15-2007, 07:31 PM
Thats why teams put weight limits on their lineman when they play in the zone blocking scheme. Yes it is about quickness, but they want them under 300 lbs. for that reason not at 330.

You don't even know me, so why would you try to attck my knowledge of schemes. I understand that you feel you know schemes, but what gives you the right to judge me?
which is why GB puts the weight limit on their ZBS guys huh? no. not even close. nice try buddy.

and I'm telling you to not underestimate me, where did I attack you? I said I knew a lot more about the schemes than you do in reference to the Falcons. not overall. again, not an attack, just the truth.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 07:36 PM
which is why GB puts the weight limit on their ZBS guys huh? no. not even close. nice try buddy.

and I'm telling you to not underestimate me, where did I attack you? I said I knew a lot more about the schemes than you do in reference to the Falcons. not overall. again, not an attack, just the truth.

I think the Broncos are the standard for zone blocking and they do put weight limits ont their linemen. Also, the weight limits comment was directed to the Falcons because their linemen came out and said they were glad that Petrino was no longer going to put weight restrictions on them after they had it under Mora.

DLionALL
12-15-2007, 08:07 PM
Bad Eagles pick. I think people are taking the whole Winston Justice game too seriously. It's true that we do love drafting lineman, but I honestly hope we don't take Clady there, seems like a big reach. Much rather see Malcolm Jenkins or Vernon Gholston.

weasel
12-15-2007, 08:16 PM
Jake Long is a left tackle. He has played at left tackle for two years and has been voted the Big Ten lineman of the year for two years running while playing left tackle. That's correct, he was voted Big Ten lineman of the year over Joe Thomas who was drafted #3 overall last year as a left tackle. ONE MORE TIME FOR THE IMPAIRED AMONG YOU, JAKE LONG IS A LEFT TACKLE. ONE more moron states he is a right tackle and you don't draft right tackles this high and I am going to call a spade a spade and refer to you as a know-nothing-football-impaired-genius. For God's sake. They snap the ball to McFadden, is he a punter because he took a deep snap, or A QB because they snap the ball to him or a receiver because he lines up somewhere else? Jake Long has played LEFT TACKLE for two years what game are you watching.

fenikz
12-15-2007, 08:20 PM
Maybe Golhston would be a good fit there also, or they might be able to hope for Groves in rd. 2.

I'd go Jenkins over Gholston because we still have Berry and Okeafor under contract so they are serviceable starters, and with Jenkins we can move ROlle to FS and Green back to nickle where they fit best

woodnick
12-15-2007, 08:21 PM
Jake Long is a left tackle. He has played at left tackle for two years and has been voted the Big Ten lineman of the year for two years running while playing left tackle. That's correct, he was voted Big Ten lineman of the year over Joe Thomas who was drafted #3 overall last year as a left tackle. ONE MORE TIME FOR THE IMPAIRED AMONG YOU, JAKE LONG IS A LEFT TACKLE. ONE more moron states he is a right tackle and you don't draft right tackles this high and I am going to call a spade a spade and refer to you as a know-nothing-football-impaired-genius. For God's sake. They snap the ball to McFadden, is he a punter because he took a deep snap, or A QB because they snap the ball to him or a receiver because he lines up somewhere else? Jake Long has played LEFT TACKLE for two years what game are you watching.

Any team that drafts Long will play him where they want to play him, just look at Joe Staley or Levi Brown. But long term, I agree he'll man up on the QB blind side.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 08:23 PM
I'd go Jenkins over Gholston because we still have Berry and Okeafor under contract so they are serviceable starters, and with Jenkins we can move ROlle to FS and Green back to nickle where they fit best

Actually, that was my exact thinking with my original selection. If they choose to keep Rolle at cb, they could also slide Jenkins back to FS. No matter what it gives them flexibility and takes Holt out of the starting line up, two big pluses.

Bills2083
12-15-2007, 08:45 PM
I would rather have James Hardy or Limas Sweed.

WR is by far our biggest need.

Please explain why you dont think so...

Don Killuminati
12-15-2007, 08:51 PM
Raiders needs: DT, DT, DE, everything else.

Ellis is perfect with Dorsey and Chris Long off the board.

Don Killuminati
12-15-2007, 09:01 PM
I think the Broncos are the standard for zone blocking and they do put weight limits ont their linemen.

Source?

They drafted George Foster not that long ago, so this alleged weight limit must be something new they're trying.

ZBS isn't about how big a lineman is. It's about how well he moves. If Larry Allen had Walter Jones' feet, he'd be a ZBS stud.

Granted, most big men don't move as well as the 290-300 pounders. But many do.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 09:05 PM
I would rather have James Hardy or Limas Sweed.

WR is by far our biggest need.

Please explain why you dont think so...

Well, just by looking at the stats it looked like they need to fill out their linebacking corp. DiGiorgio seems like he's done well filling in for Poz, but he seems like more of a backup than starter, and they've gotten almost nothing out of Ellison or their 3rd linebacker. Jauron is a defensive coach, so it just seemed like a good fit.

As for WR, Reed has only a fewer catch on the season than Evans and they just locked up Parish on a long term deal. If anything my opinion of the Wr group would be to get Evans the ball more, but maybe that's from opposing teams rolling their coverage over to Evans and not having to respect any other WR, which would indicate your point. They seem to get less production out of their TE, which would be great in the seem for a deep threat like Evans, makes the S choose one or the other.

Cb also seemed like a need, just looks like they lack another playmaker on the other side of McGee and I thought Youboty would fill that need this year, but he's failed to make an impact.

I could be completely wrong with my assessment, and since you're a Bills fan than you should definately have more insight than me, but those were just my outside observations.

How bad of timing was it for Fairchild to leave, do you think it'll have a big impact on them down the stretch?

woodnick
12-15-2007, 09:09 PM
Source?

They drafted George Foster not that long ago, so this alleged weight limit must be something new they're trying.

ZBS isn't about how big a lineman is. It's about how well he moves. If Larry Allen had Walter Jones' feet, he'd be a ZBS stud.

Granted, most big men don't move as well as the 290-300 pounders. But many do.

Foster struggled with the scheme which is why he got shipped to Detroit and their current RT weighs 305. The Broncos have O-line has avg. less than 300lbs. for quite a while and have consitently been the lightest O-line in the league. Maybe it's just a coincedence though.

Go_Eagles77
12-15-2007, 09:41 PM
OT may be a need but I think the eagles go DE with Gholston there.

scar988
12-15-2007, 09:44 PM
I think the Broncos are the standard for zone blocking and they do put weight limits ont their linemen. Also, the weight limits comment was directed to the Falcons because their linemen came out and said they were glad that Petrino was no longer going to put weight restrictions on them after they had it under Mora.

the Broncos are the standard for that particular style of ZBS. The cut blocking ZBS needs smaller guys but a ZBS like what the packers use is good as long as you have quick guys. again, the ZBS is not about weight limits. it's about the quickness of the players and them moving together as a unit. nothing about the actual size. And the weight limits were Gibbs. even Denver doesn't have them anymore. again, I know what I'm talking about. a Zone Blocking run game can be achieved with big guys as long as they are quick. for instance, OT's who can be quick like TE's, OG's quick like OT's and C's who know the scheme.

Bills2083
12-15-2007, 10:20 PM
Well, just by looking at the stats it looked like they need to fill out their linebacking corp. DiGiorgio seems like he's done well filling in for Poz, but he seems like more of a backup than starter, and they've gotten almost nothing out of Ellison or their 3rd linebacker. Jauron is a defensive coach, so it just seemed like a good fit.

As for WR, Reed has only a fewer catch on the season than Evans and they just locked up Parish on a long term deal. If anything my opinion of the Wr group would be to get Evans the ball more, but maybe that's from opposing teams rolling their coverage over to Evans and not having to respect any other WR, which would indicate your point. They seem to get less production out of their TE, which would be great in the seem for a deep threat like Evans, makes the S choose one or the other.

Cb also seemed like a need, just looks like they lack another playmaker on the other side of McGee and I thought Youboty would fill that need this year, but he's failed to make an impact.

I could be completely wrong with my assessment, and since you're a Bills fan than you should definately have more insight than me, but those were just my outside observations.

How bad of timing was it for Fairchild to leave, do you think it'll have a big impact on them down the stretch?

We need a big, physical WR opposite of Evans, because we don't have any type of red-zone target. Robert Royal has terrible hands, so we cannot trust him in the redzone.

Maybe we could get John Carlson, Fred Davis, or Martin Rucker in the draft, and they could become our redzone guy.

Also, with Fairchild, we don't really have a system right now, so we dont need just small, speedy receivers anymore. We can go out, and get a big guy.

Right now, we don't have a player that can take the double-coverages off of Lee. Roscoe is a perfect slot receiver, so we have to keep him there. Price and Reed are not #2 guys.

I too am not a big fan of Ellison and DiGiorgio. OLB is one of our top needs.

I agree about the CB position. Youboty has not showed enough that he can become a starter in this league. I really want a player like Malcolm Jenkins, but I don't see him falling into the second half of round 1.

No, I do not think that the fact that Fairchild is leaving after the season will have any affect on our players. Dick won't let them get bothered by it. Every player in that locker room knows that we have to win tomorrow, and if they have other things on their mind, they will not win.

Don Killuminati
12-15-2007, 10:40 PM
Foster struggled with the scheme which is why he got shipped to Detroit and their current RT weighs 305. The Broncos have O-line has avg. less than 300lbs. for quite a while and have consitently been the lightest O-line in the league. Maybe it's just a coincedence though.
Point is, there's no imposed weight limit. That's pointless speculation with nothing to support it.

woodnick
12-15-2007, 10:43 PM
Point is, there's no imposed weight limit. That's pointless speculation with nothing to support it.

Players have openly talked about it and how they hate them because they end up concentrating on having to cut weight and not the game at hand, but you win, ok.

Don Killuminati
12-15-2007, 11:14 PM
Still looking for a source...

In any event, there's no mandated weight limit for ZBS linemen. Maybe Denver has one. Maybe not. But that really has little to do with any other ZBS team.

scar988
12-16-2007, 02:53 AM
Players have openly talked about it and how they hate them because they end up concentrating on having to cut weight and not the game at hand, but you win, ok.
yeah but Denver is the onyl team with it if ANY. and it was Atlanta guys talkign abotu ti cause Alex Gibsb is a psycho. We would bring in Art Shell who uses the ideas behind the scheme and not the weight limits.

bolts2388
12-16-2007, 10:16 AM
24) Chargers: Top 3 Needs – ILB, S, DE<--wrong
Selection:Lawrence Jackson, DE, USC – Chargers look to address their struggling D and go for the BPA in a position of need. Jackson is a decent pass rusher but he holds up well against the run and should be a solid fit in the 3-4
Other Option: Rey Maualuga or Reggie Smith

You do realize that we have Shawne Merriman and Shaun Phillips right?
Whats up with people making mocks having the chargers draft pass rushers and runningbacks? These are the needs S,RT,ILB

king2am
12-16-2007, 10:19 AM
I'll be pissed if Singletary goes to Atlanta.

woodnick
12-16-2007, 10:47 AM
You do realize that we have Shawne Merriman and Shaun Phillips right?
Whats up with people making mocks having the chargers draft pass rushers and runningbacks? These are the needs S,RT,ILB

DE doesn't specifically refer to pass rusher. Lawrence Jackson is a DE and Merriman and Shaun Phillips are OLBs. Jackson would be a good run stopper at the DE position, which is what the 3-4 generally wants and he'd also be able to bring in more pressure off the edge during passing situations. Much like Castillo who is their other end.

I understand that ILB and S are needs and thats why they were listed first 2 out of the three.

woodnick
12-16-2007, 10:55 AM
yeah but Denver is the onyl team with it if ANY. and it was Atlanta guys talkign abotu ti cause Alex Gibsb is a psycho. We would bring in Art Shell who uses the ideas behind the scheme and not the weight limits.

Maybe that's why the Raiders O-line dominated games last year, oh wait...

woodnick
12-16-2007, 11:30 AM
Still looking for a source...

In any event, there's no mandated weight limit for ZBS linemen. Maybe Denver has one. Maybe not. But that really has little to do with any other ZBS team.

Source: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=584305

And this is for the Packers, not Denver. Now can we just drop this issue. Who really cares?

scar988
12-16-2007, 12:17 PM
Maybe that's why the Raiders O-line dominated games last year, oh wait...

the Raiders had Shell as the HC... want a good idea of Shell as an OL coach, look at Atlanta's OL in 1998

scar988
12-16-2007, 12:25 PM
Source: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=584305

And this is for the Packers, not Denver. Now can we just drop this issue. Who really cares?

that's just for one player. BArry used to be near 400 poinds at some points.

Don Killuminati
12-16-2007, 09:23 PM
Maybe that's why the Raiders O-line dominated games last year, oh wait... They're doing pretty well this year in a Gibbs' style ZBS, and most of our guys are pretty damn big. As for your source, one team does it. Big deal. You make it sound like it's something all ZBS teams do, and that's simply not the case.

scar988
12-16-2007, 09:28 PM
They're doing pretty well this year in a Gibbs' style ZBS, and most of our guys are pretty damn big. As for your source, one team does it. Big deal. You make it sound like it's something all ZBS teams do, and that's simply not the case.

actually they're in more of a Cable style. which is do what works for you in the pass game and ZBS without as much cutting as the Gibbs style.

Don Killuminati
12-16-2007, 09:39 PM
actually they're in more of a Cable style. which is do what works for you in the pass game and ZBS without as much cutting as the Gibbs style.

Well, considering Cable is essentially Gibbs' illegitimate son... I think one reason we do less cutting is because Gallery is just too damn tall and awkward to do it effectively at this point. In any event, any system that makes Justin Fargas a 1000 yard rusher has to be frickin' good. Cable is my coach of the year. Barr none.

scar988
12-16-2007, 09:43 PM
Well, considering Cable is essentially Gibbs' illegitimate son... I think one reason we do less cutting is because Gallery is just too damn tall and awkward to do it effectively at this point. In any event, any system that makes Justin Fargas a 1000 yard rusher has to be frickin' good. Cable is my coach of the year. Barr none.actually Cable never really did much of the whole cut blocking thing. Gibbs was the guy wo stressed that and the weight limits... but Gallery isn't much of a cut blocker as is, he is a damn good zone blocker however,

Caddy
12-16-2007, 09:46 PM
Good positional Buc pick, but Hardy isn't the ideal player for the Buccaneers. But there were many worse picks you could have made so it isn't too bad.

BaLLiN
12-16-2007, 09:56 PM
Id like to see Reggie Smith there, but it depends on who is available. But Reggie Smith looks like a good pick for us at that point.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 03:48 PM
They're doing pretty well this year in a Gibbs' style ZBS, and most of our guys are pretty damn big. As for your source, one team does it. Big deal. You make it sound like it's something all ZBS teams do, and that's simply not the case.

And if I gave you two sources then you'd just say two teams do it, big deal. Just because they're over 310 doesn't mean that they aren't on wieght restrictions. I tell you what, if you really want to talk about sources we'll go source for source and you can start listing the sources of which ZBS teams don't have weight restrictions. 1-0 me

scar988
12-17-2007, 04:58 PM
And if I gave you two sources then you'd just say two teams do it, big deal. Just because they're over 310 doesn't mean that they aren't on wieght restrictions. I tell you what, if you really want to talk about sources we'll go source for source and you can start listing the sources of which ZBS teams don't have weight restrictions. 1-0 me

no it's 1-0 us. because the weight restriction was only about Kevin Barry who is regularly over 375 and had weight restrictions on him well before they switched to a ZBS.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 06:41 PM
no it's 1-0 us. because the weight restriction was only about Kevin Barry who is regularly over 375 and had weight restrictions on him well before they switched to a ZBS.

"McCarthy said the powerful Barry could play in the zone system if he got down to a prescribed weight." http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=584305

I think that specifically says that Barry is under a weight limit to play in the ZBS, which means 1-0 me. Also, the source said nothing about Barry being on a wieght restriction before the ZBS was installed so to believe you I'll have to have a source for that.

scar988
12-17-2007, 06:42 PM
"McCarthy said the powerful Barry could play in the zone system if he got down to a prescribed weight." I think that specifically says that Barry is under a weight limit to play in the ZBS, which means 1-0 me. Also, the source said nothing about Barry being on a wieght restriction before the ZBS was installed so to believe you I'll have to have a source for that.

no it really doesn't. Barry has always had weight issues. when your weight limit is 335 pounds it's not really a weight limit it's more of a health limit. like I've been saying he has been near 400 pounds before. but the reason why he has a a weight limit is because at his old weight he isn't quick enough for hte zone scheme. but to say that every team with zone schemes has a weight limit is ********.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 06:44 PM
yeah but Denver is the onyl team with it if ANY. and it was Atlanta guys talkign abotu ti cause Alex Gibsb is a psycho. We would bring in Art Shell who uses the ideas behind the scheme and not the weight limits.

Does this allude to Alex Gibbs, working for the Falcons, imposing weight restrictions on lineman? If it does can I use you as a source, making it 2-0 me?

woodnick
12-17-2007, 06:46 PM
yeah but Denver is the onyl team with it if ANY. and it was Atlanta guys talkign abotu ti cause Alex Gibsb is a psycho. We would bring in Art Shell who uses the ideas behind the scheme and not the weight limits.

Does this allude to Alex Gibbs, working for the Falcons, imposing weight restrictions on lineman? If it does can I use you as a source, making it 2-0 me?

scar988
12-17-2007, 07:18 PM
Does this allude to Alex Gibbs, working for the Falcons, imposing weight restrictions on lineman? If it does can I use you as a source, making it 2-0 me?
again, the weight restrictions were originally from Atlanta. and dude, it's not 2-0 you at all. not even close. and why no response to the post right bfore yours? again, you're not even close. you can't call 335 a true weight limit the way you meant it. (under 300) Also, Alex Gibbs is a psycho and ISN'T IN ATLANTA ANYMORE. so again, nice try but not even close.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 08:44 PM
again, the weight restrictions were originally from Atlanta. and dude, it's not 2-0 you at all. not even close. and why no response to the post right bfore yours? again, you're not even close. you can't call 335 a true weight limit the way you meant it. (under 300) Also, Alex Gibbs is a psycho and ISN'T IN ATLANTA ANYMORE. so again, nice try but not even close.

First of all I never said a weight limit has to be under 300 lbs. so don't put false meanings into my words, second how do you know Barry's weight restrictions were at 335 lbs? I'll need a source for that because you seem to be making up things with no evidence. Third, if Atlanta did put weight restrictions on their lineman then, dude, you're proving me right.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 08:48 PM
no it really doesn't. Barry has always had weight issues. when your weight limit is 335 pounds it's not really a weight limit it's more of a health limit. like I've been saying he has been near 400 pounds before. but the reason why he has a a weight limit is because at his old weight he isn't quick enough for hte zone scheme. but to say that every team with zone schemes has a weight limit is ********.

Sorry, I somehow missed this response when I posted earlier, but I'll happily address it, just for you though. I never said that every team that runs a ZBS has to have a wieght limit, but if you want me to take that side I will. Like I said provide a source to prove me wrong. And throw in a source that says where Barry weighs "near 400 pounds." And it's funny that you say that the reason for Barry's restriction is because at his old weight he isn't quick enough for te ZBS, which is what my original point is, but I made it a generalization for other lineman working in the scheme.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 08:54 PM
again, the weight restrictions were originally from Atlanta. and dude, it's not 2-0 you at all. not even close. and why no response to the post right bfore yours? again, you're not even close. you can't call 335 a true weight limit the way you meant it. (under 300) Also, Alex Gibbs is a psycho and ISN'T IN ATLANTA ANYMORE. so again, nice try but not even close.

It's kind of funny that you just criticize my reasoning, even if it is supported by just taking the easy way out by excusing "Alex Gibbs is a psycho" last time I checked he was making a lot of money by being a coach, but if he's a "psycho" then you should probably provide a source for that claim.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 09:35 PM
Source: http://www.kffl.com/player/14028/NFL

Let me guess this doesn't count because it's Gibbs right?

Vikes99ej
12-17-2007, 11:21 PM
Not too sure about Harvey right now. I'd take Reggie Smith instead.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 11:25 PM
Not too sure about Harvey right now. I'd take Reggie Smith instead.

Yeah, they've invested a couple of 1st round picks in DE in the last few years and their Safeties are getting up there in age, so I thought about it. I just didn't like the value of Smith their, but the more and more they win the better the value gets, in my opinion, for a guy like Smith.

Vikes99ej
12-17-2007, 11:28 PM
Yeah, they've invested a couple of 1st round picks in DE in the last few years and their Safeties are getting up there in age, so I thought about it. I just didn't like the value of Smith their, but the more and more they win the better the value gets, in my opinion, for a guy like Smith.

I think Smith would be the perfect guy for our defense. Play safety, and a little bit nickel or dime coverage.

woodnick
12-17-2007, 11:31 PM
I think Smith would be the perfect guy for our defense. Play safety, and a little bit nickel or dime coverage.

That defense is already pretty scary in my Lions eyes and he'd be great to learn behind/along side Sharper for a year or two. If their D-Ends could match the paash rush of their D-tackles they'd be deadly. Vikings D is killing in FFB for me already.

scar988
12-17-2007, 11:43 PM
First of all I never said a weight limit has to be under 300 lbs. so don't put false meanings into my words, second how do you know Barry's weight restrictions were at 335 lbs? I'll need a source for that because you seem to be making up things with no evidence. Third, if Atlanta did put weight restrictions on their lineman then, dude, you're proving me right.
cause I have sources within that Atlanta organization who talked about Barry when they were looking at bringing him in and that's what his weight limit was in GB. And in the beginning you only used the idea of weight limits for ZBS and smaller OL. nothing about quicker your exact quote:
I understand, but that was just my opinion on what I'd like to see them do. Also, zone blocking schemes are generally done with smaller linemen, not fatty's. Thats why Atlanta's line was undersized when they switched back this past off-season.
Also, I was the one who claimed about why the Falcons hated the ZBS Gibbs ran was weight limits when I suggested Shell who runs ZBS and said it was all abotu quickness. and how bigger guys are better cause they hold up better in pass blocking. guys like Joe Staley at 6'6" 325 isa better fit for the ZBS than a guy like Sam Baker at 6'5" 298 because he'll hold up better in pass blocking.

Sorry, I somehow missed this response when I posted earlier, but I'll happily address it, just for you though. I never said that every team that runs a ZBS has to have a wieght limit, but if you want me to take that side I will. Like I said provide a source to prove me wrong. And throw in a source that says where Barry weighs "near 400 pounds." And it's funny that you say that the reason for Barry's restriction is because at his old weight he isn't quick enough for te ZBS, which is what my original point is, but I made it a generalization for other lineman working in the scheme.
actually the quickness was MY original point. your's was always the weight limits. and it's from my sources within the Falcons when BArry was a FA on why they didn't want him is because they found out from GB guys that he would be around 400 at points during the year.
It's kind of funny that you just criticize my reasoning, even if it is supported by just taking the easy way out by excusing "Alex Gibbs is a psycho" last time I checked he was making a lot of money by being a coach, but if he's a "psycho" then you should probably provide a source for that claim.
no, I'm sayign it's because I never disagreed but you said ALL ZBS had weight limits and we were sayign it's not all about weight. it's baout the quickness, which is MY original point. nice try though. I also said that bigger is better because of pass blocking. not too big but no OL wants guy who are too big (6;8" 370 is way way too big,)

Bearsfan123
12-18-2007, 11:05 AM
Bears draft is good. Although I am unsure if Phillips has more value than Clady, but trading up for Brohm is awesome.

That should make Bears fans everywhere happy.

DiG
12-18-2007, 11:42 AM
"17) Redskins: Top 3 Needs – DE, S, WR
Selection: Vernon Gohlston, DE, Ohio State – Still needs to put on some bulk but did a real nice job against Jake Long and Michigan’s other T. Lots of upside and could create some pressure on opposing QBs, which the Redskins sorely lack.
Other Option: Derrick Harvey, DeSean Jackson"

I love the Gohlston pick but just an FYI:

CB, OLine, and OLB are all bigger needs than Safety for the Redskins. Also Harvey and Jackson are absolutely NOT other options. Harvey is too light to play opposite of Andre Carter in Greg Williams defense and Jackson is too similar to Moss and El. We will look to add a possession receiver that can be a redzone threat.

woodnick
12-18-2007, 12:44 PM
cause I have sources within that Atlanta organization who talked about Barry when they were looking at bringing him in and that's what his weight limit was in GB. And in the beginning you only used the idea of weight limits for ZBS and smaller OL. nothing about quicker your exact quote:

Also, I was the one who claimed about why the Falcons hated the ZBS Gibbs ran was weight limits when I suggested Shell who runs ZBS and said it was all abotu quickness. and how bigger guys are better cause they hold up better in pass blocking. guys like Joe Staley at 6'6" 325 isa better fit for the ZBS than a guy like Sam Baker at 6'5" 298 because he'll hold up better in pass blocking.


actually the quickness was MY original point. your's was always the weight limits. and it's from my sources within the Falcons when BArry was a FA on why they didn't want him is because they found out from GB guys that he would be around 400 at points during the year.

no, I'm sayign it's because I never disagreed but you said ALL ZBS had weight limits and we were sayign it's not all about weight. it's baout the quickness, which is MY original point. nice try though. I also said that bigger is better because of pass blocking. not too big but no OL wants guy who are too big (6;8" 370 is way way too big,)

I gotta say, I think you're completely full of **** unless your source within the Falcons organization is a vendor, but here's no way that Barry was close to 400 lbs. when the Falcons looked to rbing him in, or that "he would be around 400 at points during the year."

Source: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=617091

"But Barry never got on the field and never did the fit the zone-blocking system that the Packers installed when coach Mike McCarthy came on board. Listed by the team once at 332 pounds but probably weighing 10 to 15 pounds more during his playing days in Green Bay, the 6-foot-4 Barry is built more for the power blocking rather than the athletic cut-blocking."
this source also states "Therefore, the new Packers offensive lineman needed to be fit, athletic and around the 300-pound mark, ideally."

So like I said earlier, don't make **** up about having a source with in the Falcons organization, just because you don't have any factual info to present doesn't mean you lower yourself to that.

woodnick
12-18-2007, 01:00 PM
"17) Redskins: Top 3 Needs – DE, S, WR
Selection: Vernon Gohlston, DE, Ohio State – Still needs to put on some bulk but did a real nice job against Jake Long and Michigan’s other T. Lots of upside and could create some pressure on opposing QBs, which the Redskins sorely lack.
Other Option: Derrick Harvey, DeSean Jackson"

I love the Gohlston pick but just an FYI:

CB, OLine, and OLB are all bigger needs than Safety for the Redskins. Also Harvey and Jackson are absolutely NOT other options. Harvey is too light to play opposite of Andre Carter in Greg Williams defense and Jackson is too similar to Moss and El. We will look to add a possession receiver that can be a redzone threat.

Yeah. with Doughty playing pretty well despite the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the playing time S can be back burnered. I think they'll still address it, but probably later in the draft. Harvey would have to bulk up a lot, but in his first year he'd at least be a pass rush specialist while he develops. The Jackson option was in the thougt process that the 'Skins might cut Randle El in the offseason due to his lack of production/highcost and he'd fit in well there and be explosive in the return game.

scar988
12-18-2007, 01:31 PM
I gotta say, I think you're completely full of **** unless your source within the Falcons organization is a vendor, but here's no way that Barry was close to 400 lbs. when the Falcons looked to rbing him in, or that "he would be around 400 at points during the year."

Source: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=617091

"But Barry never got on the field and never did the fit the zone-blocking system that the Packers installed when coach Mike McCarthy came on board. Listed by the team once at 332 pounds but probably weighing 10 to 15 pounds more during his playing days in Green Bay, the 6-foot-4 Barry is built more for the power blocking rather than the athletic cut-blocking."
this source also states "Therefore, the new Packers offensive lineman needed to be fit, athletic and around the 300-pound mark, ideally."

So like I said earlier, don't make **** up about having a source with in the Falcons organization, just because you don't have any factual info to present doesn't mean you lower yourself to that.
lol, if only you knew me. I have 3 seperate sources within the organization one of which is extremely high up (but then again you don't believe me to begin with) but anyway, just because an article says it, doesn't mean it's the whole story. BArry has always had weight issues similar to grady jackson's... but where is the arguement against what I was saying anyway? I said it was all about quickness, you said it's all abotu weight. not even close to true.

woodnick
12-18-2007, 01:45 PM
lol, if only you knew me. I have 3 seperate sources within the organization one of which is extremely high up (but then again you don't believe me to begin with) but anyway, just because an article says it, doesn't mean it's the whole story. BArry has always had weight issues similar to grady jackson's... but where is the arguement against what I was saying anyway? I said it was all about quickness, you said it's all abotu weight. not even close to true.

Well, if it's all about quickness, and size has nothing to do it with it, provide a source. Other than your guys in the Falcons organization and prove me wrong.

scar988
12-18-2007, 01:56 PM
Well, if it's all about quickness, and size has nothing to do it with it, provide a source. Other than your guys in the Falcons organization and prove me wrong.

a source about how it's all about quickness? how about the weights of the current raiders line in a ZBS
300-325-315-295-315

and your link said only around 300 right?

how about Carolina another ZBS team:
312-304-312-291-300

how about Denver?
290-302-295-322-305

or Green Bay?
320-305-295-300-315

or Houston?
337-322-303-307-307

like I said it's all about quickness. why else woudl there be guys who are 320+ pounds playing in it? especially Charles Spencer who is a 337 pound LT?! again, all about quickness (and yes I know he may not be listed as the starter at LT listed but he is the starter when he was healthy.)

The Legend
12-18-2007, 02:01 PM
Reggie Smith i like that pick for the packers

woodnick
12-18-2007, 02:13 PM
and again, Leftwich isn't that QB, Redman is more likely to stay then either Leftwich or Harrington for the year. Flacco? no thanks. but Brennan with one of our 2 2nd round picks would work. and I agree our OL would be better with say Art Shell as the OL coach (big fatty zone blocking run with big fatty man pass) and at least one pick i nthe first or 2nd on the OL. we need talent on the OL i nthe worst way. but we won't trad e up for McFadden. or anyone else for that matter. we will stay where we are or trade down. and we can get a spell back for Norwood or hell even keep Dunn as his spell back for next year. but we don't need to use a first unless Mcfadden somehow falls to 4.

Art Shell has NEVER used a ZBS in his entire career. He's always been known for his in-lin blocking scheme. Your statements just suck with no factual backing or evidence.

http://www.raidersonline.org/news100807.php
http://www.fannation.com/message_boards/show_thread/1153
http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/sfm/topic.html?id=2192
http://www.ibabuzz.com/raidersblog/2007/06/page/5/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061119/ai_n16857534

woodnick
12-18-2007, 02:16 PM
a source about how it's all about quickness? how about the weights of the current raiders line in a ZBS
300-325-315-295-315

and your link said only around 300 right?

how about Carolina another ZBS team:
312-304-312-291-300

how about Denver?
290-302-295-322-305

or Green Bay?
320-305-295-300-315

or Houston?
337-322-303-307-307

like I said it's all about quickness. why else woudl there be guys who are 320+ pounds playing in it? especially Charles Spencer who is a 337 pound LT?! again, all about quickness (and yes I know he may not be listed as the starter at LT listed but he is the starter when he was healthy.)

I wouldn't say those weights shoot way past 300, and it's funny that you put Barry at 332, I thought he's around 400 lbs.

woodnick
12-18-2007, 02:34 PM
a source about how it's all about quickness? how about the weights of the current raiders line in a ZBS
300-325-315-295-315

and your link said only around 300 right?

how about Carolina another ZBS team:
312-304-312-291-300

how about Denver?
290-302-295-322-305

or Green Bay?
320-305-295-300-315

or Houston?
337-322-303-307-307

like I said it's all about quickness. why else woudl there be guys who are 320+ pounds playing in it? especially Charles Spencer who is a 337 pound LT?! again, all about quickness (and yes I know he may not be listed as the starter at LT listed but he is the starter when he was healthy.)

Accoring to ESPN: Left to right

Houston: 300, 320, 301, 300, 310, but the rest were accurate. Maybe the reason the Raiders line is bigger is because this is the first year they are implementing the scheme after Shell, hence their lineman were leftovers since Shell's inline blocking scheme. Avg. weight w/o Oakland = 304.95, w/ Oakland = 305.96 either way I wouldn't put those weights way far off of 300 lbs.

woodnick
12-18-2007, 02:37 PM
Reggie Smith i like that pick for the packers

Yeah, there's tons of potential in Green Bay right now, if Favre comes back next year and mantains his level of play, I think they'll only get better and might be legit favorites in the NFC. Not to mention the way they are playing right now puts them as top 2 in the NFC right now.

woodnick
12-18-2007, 02:58 PM
a source about how it's all about quickness? how about the weights of the current raiders line in a ZBS
300-325-315-295-315

and your link said only around 300 right?

how about Carolina another ZBS team:
312-304-312-291-300

how about Denver?
290-302-295-322-305

or Green Bay?
320-305-295-300-315

or Houston?
337-322-303-307-307

like I said it's all about quickness. why else woudl there be guys who are 320+ pounds playing in it? especially Charles Spencer who is a 337 pound LT?! again, all about quickness (and yes I know he may not be listed as the starter at LT listed but he is the starter when he was healthy.)

Another funny point is that of those 5 teams you just listed, Oakland is the largest and they allowed the most amount of sacks, which in previous posts you've said "bigger guys are better cause they hold up better in pass blocking." Nice proof there.

scar988
12-18-2007, 03:13 PM
Art Shell has NEVER used a ZBS in his entire career. He's always been known for his in-lin blocking scheme. Your statements just suck with no factual backing or evidence.

http://www.raidersonline.org/news100807.php
http://www.fannation.com/message_boards/show_thread/1153
http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/sfm/topic.html?id=2192
http://www.ibabuzz.com/raidersblog/2007/06/page/5/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061119/ai_n16857534
in line. meaning the LINE MOVES TOGETHER, it's a ZBS without cut blocking. hmmm, nice try... I've seen Shell's scheme and it's not a man scheme. it's more of a zone run with man blocking in the pass game.

I wouldn't say those weights shoot way past 300, and it's funny that you put Barry at 332, I thought he's around 400 lbs.
where did I say anything about BArry in that post. he's a BACKUP.
Accoring to ESPN: Left to right

Houston: 300, 320, 301, 300, 310, but the rest were accurate. Maybe the reason the Raiders line is bigger is because this is the first year they are implementing the scheme after Shell, hence their lineman were leftovers since Shell's inline blocking scheme. Avg. weight w/o Oakland = 304.95, w/ Oakland = 305.96 either way I wouldn't put those weights way far off of 300 lbs.
actually the measurements are accurate from NFL.com and Charles Spencer is the actual starter for Houston but he's on IR. you said it was all about weight limits and being UNDER 300 pounds in your initial post. so doesn't that prove my point? when guys 320+ are doing better in the scheme than 290 pounders, that proves a lot to me.
Another funny point is that of those 5 teams you just listed, Oakland is the largest and they allowed the most amount of sacks, which in previous posts you've said "bigger guys are better cause they hold up better in pass blocking." Nice proof there.

Oakland sucks at pass blocking. that's on the talent level there, not the size.

woodnick
12-18-2007, 05:44 PM
in line. meaning the LINE MOVES TOGETHER, it's a ZBS without cut blocking. hmmm, nice try... I've seen Shell's scheme and it's not a man scheme. it's more of a zone run with man blocking in the pass game.


where did I say anything about BArry in that post. he's a BACKUP.

actually the measurements are accurate from NFL.com and Charles Spencer is the actual starter for Houston but he's on IR. you said it was all about weight limits and being UNDER 300 pounds in your initial post. so doesn't that prove my point? when guys 320+ are doing better in the scheme than 290 pounders, that proves a lot to me.


Oakland sucks at pass blocking. that's on the talent level there, not the size.


In-line blocking is not a form of ZBS it's a form of traditinal man-man blocking, hence, why all the sources say how Crable is bringing in a new Zone blocking scheme, not a new form of the ZBS. But nice try back at ya.

The only player listed at around 337 pounds on the Houston O-line on ESPN.com is Barry, so I figured that was who you listed. Funny coincidence since I thought Barry is supposed to be around 400 lbs. though.

Charles Spencer has always been critized for his weight in Houston and yes he is the starting LT of the first 2 games of the 2006 season and Spencer isn't on the IR, he's on the PUP. Where does it say anything about guys "320+ are doing better in the scheme than 290 pounders" thats just your opinion again.

Nice excuse for the Raiders pass blocking, but we're already using that in Detroit. It doesn't take into account that the biggest line of the ZBS is the team that allowed the most sacks is in direct contradiction to your previous statement. I will, however, remember your excuse for when I'm proved wrong and use it.

BeerBaron
12-18-2007, 06:19 PM
i doubt the bears trade back in if it involves losing thier 1st rounder the following year...a decent QB can be had in the 2nd in any of the following: brennan, ainge, henne, flacco...

but i dont mind the pick of phillips

scar988
12-18-2007, 06:23 PM
In-line blocking is not a form of ZBS it's a form of traditinal man-man blocking, hence, why all the sources say how Crable is bringing in a new Zone blocking scheme, not a new form of the ZBS. But nice try back at ya.

The only player listed at around 337 pounds on the Houston O-line on ESPN.com is Barry, so I figured that was who you listed. Funny coincidence since I thought Barry is supposed to be around 400 lbs. though.

Charles Spencer has always been critized for his weight in Houston and yes he is the starting LT of the first 2 games of the 2006 season and Spencer isn't on the IR, he's on the PUP. Where does it say anything about guys "320+ are doing better in the scheme than 290 pounders" thats just your opinion again.

Nice excuse for the Raiders pass blocking, but we're already using that in Detroit. It doesn't take into account that the biggest line of the ZBS is the team that allowed the most sacks is in direct contradiction to your previous statement. I will, however, remember your excuse for when I'm proved wrong and use it.
from what I've seen of Shell's scheme it looks like it has zone in it. but whatever I don't know much about it. just what I saw in 1998 which was too long ago for me to remember accurately.

funny how the only weight limit on the link you gave was for Barry. has nothign to do with the entire team like you stated but for JUST BARRY. Also, I USE NFL.COM not ESPN. so that's where the weights come from. nice try.

Spencer was criticized for his weight by us. not by Houstons staff. his quickness is what has madeh im such a good ZBS guy and it's IR. if you are on PUP and you hit say the 8th week it's IR, so even if it's listed as PUP, he's actually on IR.

again, the sacks thing is a talent issue. hence why Detroit sucks at it too. they haven't put enough resources into it's line.

Don Killuminati
12-18-2007, 07:26 PM
actually Cable never really did much of the whole cut blocking thing. Gibbs was the guy wo stressed that and the weight limits... but Gallery isn't much of a cut blocker as is, he is a damn good zone blocker however,

Gallery's development has been astounding over the course of the season. He's really found a home in Cable's scheme. Hell, Paul McQuistan looks like a legit RT now. Both guys are killing it in the run game. Did I ever mention to you how thrilled I am that you guys turned Cable loose?

scar988
12-18-2007, 07:44 PM
Gallery's development has been astounding over the course of the season. He's really found a home in Cable's scheme. Hell, Paul McQuistan looks like a legit RT now. Both guys are killing it in the run game. Did I ever mention to you how thrilled I am that you guys turned Cable loose?
lol, that's fine. I hope you love Cable. McQuistan is a beast man. and that's just in his looks. but Cable doesn't run the Gibbs ZBS. he runs his own variation on it where there is not as much cutting.

Don Killuminati
12-18-2007, 10:01 PM
Maybe the reason the Raiders line is bigger is because this is the first year they are implementing the scheme Another funny point is that of those 5 teams you just listed, Oakland is the largest and they allowed the most amount of sacks, which in previous posts you've said &quot;bigger guys are better cause they hold up better in pass blocking.&quot; Nice proof there.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth here, aren't you?

woodnick
12-18-2007, 11:58 PM
from what I've seen of Shell's scheme it looks like it has zone in it. but whatever I don't know much about it. just what I saw in 1998 which was too long ago for me to remember accurately.

funny how the only weight limit on the link you gave was for Barry. has nothign to do with the entire team like you stated but for JUST BARRY. Also, I USE NFL.COM not ESPN. so that's where the weights come from. nice try.

Spencer was criticized for his weight by us. not by Houstons staff. his quickness is what has madeh im such a good ZBS guy and it's IR. if you are on PUP and you hit say the 8th week it's IR, so even if it's listed as PUP, he's actually on IR.

again, the sacks thing is a talent issue. hence why Detroit sucks at it too. they haven't put enough resources into it's line.

I guess with Shell's blocking scheme you should spoken with your "sources" with in the organization, but maybe they're too busy putting together job apps. for next year.

The article is for Barry's weight limit, but was a factual basis to show that there have been weight restrictions for O-linemen in ZBS in the past, the rest of the line's restrictions are implied or else Barry would've probably had an issue of being singled out, which I've never heard of.

Spencer was critized by Houston's staff for being too heavy. Why would Atl. ever critize a guy for beeing to heavy when he never had any ties to the organization?

Which Team hasn't put enough resources into their line?

woodnick
12-19-2007, 12:08 AM
Talking out of both sides of your mouth here, aren't you?

I wouldn't say that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, in the two quotes the first one stated an opinion on why the Raiders line might be bigger than the other ZBS teams' lines. The second statement was in regards to how he said that bigger guys are better pass blockers, yet his bigger guys have allowed more sacks than the smaller guys.

The two statement are over different subject matter, not in direct correlation to each other. If the argument was made that the old guys don't fit the new scheme than that would make the link, but that argument hasn't been introduced and it would be flawed due to the line's success in run blocking.

If that is talking out of both sides of my mouth, please explain it to me because I don't see it.

Don Killuminati
12-20-2007, 05:50 AM
There's a lot you're not seeing, I've noticed. I'm neither an optometrist, nor a special ed teacher, so there's not much I can do to help.