View Full Version : Blalock or Grubbs?

04-20-2007, 07:08 PM
I'm seriously having questions now... I think this is the second time i've looked at each, and now i'm doubting my original choices.

Blalock has the better versitility, power, and technique, but i don't think he'll reach an elite guard by just pure power which he's been able to do at texas for a while...
Grubbs is more athletic, better suited for the misdirection running that the bears have played recently with turner, but needs a year to build the strength that would keep him behind garza...

whereas blalock will probably immediatly challenge garza for RG spot (in my mind), grubbs won't... blalock will still be better in two years than grubbs, but grubbs will probably be better than blalock in three years...

if they both land to the bears. who would you pick?

or, as i more often ponder... picking ugoh over grubbs/blalock at 37... (or staley at 31 if it's there)...? i know many of you are dead set on a WR rnd 1, or OLB. but, as an option.

04-20-2007, 07:39 PM
This is a great thread..

I have flip flopped on this a lot..

Blalock is the safer pick.. Grubbs will be better IMO.. I'd go with Grubbs.

04-20-2007, 10:32 PM
The real question isn't who is going to replace Garza but who will replace Brown as this is most likely his last year.

If your looking for the better LG prospect I think it's Grubbs but Blalock is the better RG prospect because he seems to be stronger. They bring different things to the table I would be fine with either one.

Hurricane Ditka
04-21-2007, 10:37 AM
Grubbs, and I wouldn't think twice about it. Grubbs has the potential to be another Steve Hutchinson or Shaun Andrews, he's got better footwork than Blalock, and could step in later on in the season and preform at a high level. I think Grubbs could beat out Garza this year, or at least challenge for some reps, and I have no doubt that he'd beat out Metcalf once Ruben retires.

04-21-2007, 12:53 PM
Grubbs would be the more typical prospect of the two that Angelo would draft in the second round, and I dont want Blalock in the first. So hence my answer would be Grubbs.

04-21-2007, 02:59 PM
I've always liked Blaylock more as I think he'll be more versitile, but I'd be ok with both so long as we can get a playmaker with the other pick.

04-21-2007, 05:36 PM
Hm, out of those two I would definately take Ben Grubbs, I rate him ALOT better then I do Blaylock....waht about Aarron Sears, I personally would look at either Grubbs or Sears at 37. I have nothing against Blaylock, just personally would take Grubbs first (maybe even at 31) and if's he's gone, i'd look at Sears at 37. If Sears was gone, I would prefer Zach Miller over Blaylock.
Im still hoping we aquire one more high 1st or 2nd round pick, so we can take a WR, OL and a TE, and then grab a LB in the third, say Rufus Alexander?

What do you thank?
as for Ugoh, i like him, but think guard is more important this year, and in the next year or two, we should take a top tackle....however if we aquire pick #6, that's where you take a tackle, Joe Thomas or Levi Brown, but in late first early second, the value is way better at guard.

Smokey Joe
04-21-2007, 09:32 PM

04-21-2007, 09:45 PM
Niether, Staley owns both of them (and yes I know they play different positions).

04-22-2007, 01:28 AM
Niether, Staley owns both of them (and yes I know they play different positions).

bingo. reason 3 why i want to move up and then back down.

staley is top OT material without the injury baggage of thomas. and still managed to look really sharp against better talent than MAC material.

blalock has the versitility to play both OT and OG, and that's why i would put the edge over to him instead of grubbs in order to really seal the line in terms of depth. blalock is more of a LG than an RG though I think, but could play both positions relatively well. If there was one person i would love to line up against kevin williams, it would be him. although he's more naturally suited to play OG based on his size (if he was a little taller and had a little more wingspan, he might contend against staley and thomas for top three OT)... but could definitely fill in for an RT spot if needed due to injury. that upside gives him the nod in my book... he has good speed. good pop. pass blocks pretty well, but would have to really have to have a base that he's shown often to knock them around.

grubbs has more technique issues than blalock though. grubbs may have better footwork and is slightly more athletic... i watch him and he gets stood up and loses his base, steps too far and loses balance and doesn't get his ass in a row. now, when he does get his base (which him not having it is rather rare), he has great hips and is a model on why he could be ruben brown two years ago in two years. he's more of a RG than blalock for sure.

both of them will beat metcalf. both will probably beat garza for a postion sometime in the season.

37 is too soon for sears. he's a late second-early third pick. probably the most versitile of all linemen in the draft (didn't he play everything but center?)... i know he played LT in college, but probably wouldn't play LT in the pros... and we could really use an LT. john tait is absolutely a great lineman, plays both tackles really well (see kansas city and the story of priest holmes)... and moving him to rt, and putting staley at lt. mmm. sounds like delicious.

anyway. i do agree the better value at 31 is a OG not an OT. swift why do you rate grubbs better than blalock? and. i think i should be done seeing as i don't even remember what i'm responding to but just rambling about what i feel i always do.

Smokey Joe
04-22-2007, 02:05 AM
Niether, Staley owns both of them (and yes I know they play different positions).

Staley is a top 20-25 pick at this point though.

04-22-2007, 09:12 AM
Staley is a top 20-25 pick at this point though.

I know, but I'm just saying...Personally I don't want either Blaylock or Grubbs in the first if there are better options like a Jarrett, Bowe, Griffin, etc..

04-22-2007, 03:09 PM
i would really like to take a dwayne jarret or dwayne bowe at 31 and would be really happy with either of these guys at 37.

04-23-2007, 05:25 AM
awfully quiet, the reason i like Grubbs over Blaylock is i think he's a better player.

Justin Blaylock - He hits with a powerful punch and can knock defenders back. He's huge and has a quick first step. BUT He's not very athletic, will sometimes drop his head and lose his man during pass protectiong, can be beaten with double moves and he isnt very effective at the second level.

Sure im leaving out some more of his positives, like his killer instinct, which could make him great...but i still like Ben Grubbs better...

Ben Grubbs - Amazing toughness and short-area power, he can pull out with anybody and lead Cedric Benson around the corner, always sustains his blocks, he plays through injuries, solid technique, effective vs. Run AND pass, quick hands, mentally tough, light on his feet, can anchor and dominate at times, his effort and hustle is second to none, great for goal line and short yard situations. Translation? Perfect for the Chicago Bears. Even if Blaylock is a better player, which i doubt, I think Ben Grubbs would be better for the Bears and make our offensive line amazing. Tait, Brown, Kreutz, Grubbs and Miller would be awesome this year. And then next year our guard combo could be Grubbs and Garza, while Garza would be a backup G/C this year, or maybe even start and Grubbs take over next year, but i think he's too good to keep off the field. I would not be dissapointed with either player, but think Grubbs is just PERFECT for the Bears and the more I read about him or watch him, the more i like him.

As for Sears, he was a 1st round grade at end of the year, and the combine has hurt him, i think he's great, he can play any position, and he dominated at every position he played, without ever REALLY settling down. I think if we gave him a solid spot, he'd become a Pro-bowler, or he could be a G/T combo for us, i dont know, i just like him. :)

04-26-2007, 07:55 PM
I believe if they were both available the Bears would Draft Grubbs. They apparently like this guy alot.

04-27-2007, 11:48 PM
Grubbs. He seems more agile and might be a better fit.