PDA

View Full Version : Linemen


run-david-run
12-11-2005, 06:54 PM
Who do we keep from this year's O-line and at what position?

I see Pitts staying and going back to LG along side D'Brick. This should solidify our left side. Hog should be the starting center next year. We cant get rid of Todd Wade because of his contract, but seeing his size and lack of quickness he could make a decent Guard. I think we should then use our second pick on either Johnathon Scott or preferably McNeil out of Auburn to play Right Tackle, depending on wether Scott is willing to play RT.

We then get rid of McKinney and Weigert out of the starting line-up.

MorKnolle
12-11-2005, 07:33 PM
Who do we keep from this year's O-line and at what position?

I see Pitts staying and going back to LG along side D'Brick. This should solidify our left side. Hog should be the starting center next year. We cant get rid of Todd Wade because of his contract, but seeing his size and lack of quickness he could make a decent Guard. I think we should then use our second pick on either Johnathon Scott or preferably McNeil out of Auburn to play Right Tackle, depending on wether Scott is willing to play RT.

We then get rid of McKinney and Weigert out of the starting line-up.

I think Pitts stays at LT, keep Wiegert (pretty good still and a decent cap hit to get rid of) for one more year, put him at LG. Keep Hodgdon but look for a possible replacement that is bigger and can run block better, although he is decent in pass blocking. Unfortunately have to keep Wade, hopefully he can transition to RG but I'm not sure, but I do know I don't like him at RT. Draft a rookie (my preference is Winston) for RT and draft another (McNiel, Scott, Thomas, Joseph? don't have a specific idea of who yet) to rotate in on the interior and groom to replace Wiegert at the end of next year. Get rid of McKinney and Weary, already canned Riley, possibly keep Wand but I'm not real fond of him either. Keep Washington as he is a servicable back up and can play any of the interior spots. Maybe draft a third OL in the 4-7 round somewhere to groom for a year or two as Wade's eventual replacement once the cap hit to cut him drops to a managable level, otherwise draft his replacement in a year or two.

El Tejano
12-11-2005, 07:38 PM
Say we end up with the #2 pick?

Grid
12-11-2005, 07:50 PM
with the #2 pick we could still make a trade down for either Lienart or Bush..whoever is available.

I think whichever tackle we take (and god we better take one) will have as much chance of playing LT as Pitts does. I think it is Pitts job to lose..but either way our line isnt impressing anyone.. so if our RT is better.. I think we would switch em around.

I wonder if we couldnt really make a huge splash in this draft... if ya think about it.. if both Bush and Lienart are coming out..and we have the #1 pick.. if things are set up right, we could make a killing.

For example.. if we are #1, San Fran is #2, Green Bay is #3... we could find ourselves in a situation where Green Bay will trade us their #1, #2, and #3 so that they can get Bush over San Fran. San Fran may then opt to take Dbrick over trading down, since they need a line almost as bad as we do. Then we are sitting at #3 with Lienart on the board. We could trade with someone else again and get another #1, #2, and #3 deal.. and move to the middle of the first round.

Now we are sitting at a spot where we can get Scott or McNeil.. and we would have three #2s and four #3s. Thats pretty dang big. Even Casserly shouldnt have much trouble getting at least a few starters out of that situation.

Things would have to play out just right for that to even be a possibility though.

run-david-run
12-11-2005, 09:23 PM
with the #2 pick we could still make a trade down for either Lienart or Bush..whoever is available.

I think whichever tackle we take (and god we better take one) will have as much chance of playing LT as Pitts does. I think it is Pitts job to lose..but either way our line isnt impressing anyone.. so if our RT is better.. I think we would switch em around.

I wonder if we couldnt really make a huge splash in this draft... if ya think about it.. if both Bush and Lienart are coming out..and we have the #1 pick.. if things are set up right, we could make a killing.

For example.. if we are #1, San Fran is #2, Green Bay is #3... we could find ourselves in a situation where Green Bay will trade us their #1, #2, and #3 so that they can get Bush over San Fran. San Fran may then opt to take Dbrick over trading down, since they need a line almost as bad as we do. Then we are sitting at #3 with Lienart on the board. We could trade with someone else again and get another #1, #2, and #3 deal.. and move to the middle of the first round.

Now we are sitting at a spot where we can get Scott or McNeil.. and we would have three #2s and four #3s. Thats pretty dang big. Even Casserly shouldnt have much trouble getting at least a few starters out of that situation.

Things would have to play out just right for that to even be a possibility though.
San Fran splashed out for Jon Jannsen at LT last offseason, he has been injured, but they are not going to draft D'Brick. I really doubt Green Bay will break the bank for Bush, those types of trades have a history of failling misserably. It is looking like we will end up wtih the number 1, maybe trading down will net us a second and a third, givving us 10 total picks and 3 picks in the third round, all of them probably in the top 5 (ours, New Orleans and whoever we trade down with). That will set us up pretty well to work on the O-line early (first two picks) and then foucus on the D.

PS: wondering if there is a limit on the number of picks you can have, on Madden it is 10...

MorKnolle
12-11-2005, 09:24 PM
If we are at #1 or #2 we should trade down. You're right, with whatever OLinemen we bring in they will need to compete for the LT job, but I think Pitts will end up staying there at least early on in the year, and I'd generally rather have a veteran protecting my QB's blind side rather than a rookie.

If we end up with #1, with the current standings it would probably look like San Francisco/Green Bay at #2/#3, NY Jets/New Orleans at #4/#5. The 49ers, Packers, and Jets would all be looking for Reggie Bush and would be in a decent trade war to get him. According to the draft pick point chart, getting the #2, #34, and #66 from San Francisco for the #1 would favor us in points, but with so many other teams probably willing to give up all three picks for Bush the 49ers might be looking to as well. After trading to #2, the Saints, Ravens, Cardinals, and possibly the Jets (depending on Pennington's health) would be looking to trade up for Leinart, so we could possibly pick up another 2nd and 3rd round picks and still end up in the top 5. If the Packers are #2 we accept a trade from the 49ers, it might ruin our chance at trading down again as the Packers have no interest in Leinart and would be looking to trade down with potential suitors. However, if we trade down twice and end up at #4 or #5, we could possibly trade down a third time if someone like the Cardinals who really need some OL help are really wanting to secure someone like D'Brickashaw Ferguson, so we could possibly pick up an additional pick there and trade down another 3-4 spots and still get our next top choice of OL (I prefer Winston over Ferguson anyways.

run-david-run
12-11-2005, 09:28 PM
the thing with drafting D'Brick or Winston and moving Pitts to guard is that it solidifes the left side of the line. Pitts is an above average guard who has the ability to be very good, if D'Brick is as good as advertised (rated as the 5th best player by Kipper), we will be set for years on that side

MorKnolle
12-11-2005, 09:43 PM
the thing with drafting D'Brick or Winston and moving Pitts to guard is that it solidifes the left side of the line. Pitts is an above average guard who has the ability to be very good, if D'Brick is as good as advertised (rated as the 5th best player by Kipper), we will be set for years on that side

Pitts is a very good OT though, he is athletic and strong. If we drafted Ferguson or Winston and they beat him out for the LT job at some point then we should move Pitts to RT.

Grid
12-11-2005, 10:05 PM
Yah I think Pitts has shown that his athleticism is suited to playing OT. If he isnt at LT, I wanna see him at RT. Guards are... traditionally.. the easiest Olinemen to find.. and once we have the tackle spots nailed down, I think filling in the guard spots will be "somewhat" simple.

MorKnolle
12-11-2005, 10:16 PM
Yah I think Pitts has shown that his athleticism is suited to playing OT. If he isnt at LT, I wanna see him at RT. Guards are... traditionally.. the easiest Olinemen to find.. and once we have the tackle spots nailed down, I think filling in the guard spots will be "somewhat" simple.

I agree. I think Wiegert still has another good year left in him and hopefully Wade can switch over to OG, but I think we should still look to draft an OG with our second pick in the draft since there are so many talented OL at the top of the draft. We can have the three compete for the two starting spots and get our rookie ready to take over for Wiegert in a year, and maybe Wiegert could even move over to OC to replace McKinney.

Goldeagle
12-11-2005, 11:05 PM
Who do we keep from this year's O-line and at what position?

I see Pitts staying and going back to LG along side D'Brick. This should solidify our left side. Hog should be the starting center next year. We cant get rid of Todd Wade because of his contract, but seeing his size and lack of quickness he could make a decent Guard. I think we should then use our second pick on either Johnathon Scott or preferably McNeil out of Auburn to play Right Tackle, depending on wether Scott is willing to play RT.

We then get rid of McKinney and Weigert out of the starting line-up.

That seems decent. I am not sold on Pitts at LT, but he is a good player. I really want the Brick and another draft pick going to the O-line!

Trapped
12-11-2005, 11:18 PM
Pitts, Wiegert, Hogdon, and Wade should all return. In a trade down, i would be satisfied with an Oline consisting of Pitts Wiegert Hogdon Wade and Winston.

After that is done, we need a TE, 2nd WR, And any defensive position not occupied by Dunta Robinson or anyone weighing over 300lbs.

Maybe Leonard Pope, Reggie Wayne and Jon Vilma?? Im in that christmas spirit.

Big B Texan Fan
12-11-2005, 11:32 PM
Pitts is a very good OT though, he is athletic and strong. If we drafted Ferguson or Winston and they beat him out for the LT job at some point then we should move Pitts to RT.
agreed. and who's to say that a 2nd rd draft pick tackle can't produce. we all think pitts does an OK to good job and he's a 2nd rd pick and he didn't even play high school f-ball.

we draft bush or whoever with our 1st pick then go o-line next. unless were picking in the 7-10 range then maybe we go o-line but chances are we are picking top 3 if not #1. remember, you take the best player available with your 1st pick especially if it's a high one. except for qb if you are set there.

if we are picking 3rd overall, what do you guys think of us taking hawk? that is if bush is gone and lienert is gone for us trade with someone who needs a qb.

Scooter
12-12-2005, 06:53 AM
Pitts is a very good OT though, he is athletic and strong. If we drafted Ferguson or Winston and they beat him out for the LT job at some point then we should move Pitts to RT.

bingo. pitts makes an adequate LT but IMO would make a very good RT, i'd really love to see what he could do on the right side of the line. what i'd like to see is two solid first day picks spent on the line ... winston & jean-giles being the ideal. if we can land someone like hutchinson without breaking the bank, then we'd be in pretty good shape IMO. either way, i'd throw the rookies into the fire and start them right away at LT and either G or C (whichever most suited for). weigert, wade, & hodgdon i'd let fight for the remaining interior spots for the new coaching staff.

MorKnolle
12-12-2005, 11:30 AM
bingo. pitts makes an adequate LT but IMO would make a very good RT, i'd really love to see what he could do on the right side of the line. what i'd like to see is two solid first day picks spent on the line ... winston & jean-giles being the ideal. if we can land someone like hutchinson without breaking the bank, then we'd be in pretty good shape IMO. either way, i'd throw the rookies into the fire and start them right away at LT and either G or C (whichever most suited for). weigert, wade, & hodgdon i'd let fight for the remaining interior spots for the new coaching staff.

I agree with picking Winston first, although I don't know enough about the other ones available to make a decision on who to pick next then, maybe Jean-Gilles, maybe Davin Joseph, maybe Winston Justice, maybe Marcus McNeil, maybe even look to pick up a top OC (like the one from Minnesota) if we pick up a couple extra 2nd round picks and he's available in there. I say we definitely let the rookies compete for the top spots, but I'm still a little wary on starting a rookie at LT and protecting Carr's blind side immediately, I'd give him at least half a season to get used to the NFL first, but once again that all comes down to who wins the battle for the spot. I'd also look to sign Hutchinson if we can do so without spending too much money on him and that would maybe free up another draft pick, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

Coach C.
12-12-2005, 11:40 AM
Do you like Hutchinson or LeCharles Bentley better. Hutchinson has played tackle and guard in the league and Bentley has played everywere in the inerior line. They are both probowlers who would you want more...

MorKnolle
12-12-2005, 11:45 AM
Either Hutchinson or Bentley would be ok if they are available we can get them for a reasonable price.

Scooter
12-12-2005, 08:42 PM
Do you like Hutchinson or LeCharles Bentley better. Hutchinson has played tackle and guard in the league and Bentley has played everywere in the inerior line. They are both probowlers who would you want more...

whichever is cheapest because you cant go wrong with either one. ideally i'd like bentley because he is 2 years younger, and is at a bigger hole for the texans which is center. between the group of linemen we currently have, we can find a couple of guards. pitts at RT, a fresh start at LT, and bentley would make a fairly impressive foundation IMO. i really dont have much of a problem with starting a rookie on carr's weakside next season morknolle because i dont think we're looking at playoffs next year nomatter how well we do this offseason. we cant do worse than this season so more wins next year should at very least keep fans content enough to keep the bandwagon rolling and the experience would be vital to our future.

we screwed the pooch on our "5 year plan" out of the gate with this coaching staff, but i'm still more concerned about building a real team that can excell and evolve and be a contender year after year instead of a fire and forget that detroit lions keep trying to pull off. there's good reason the texans arent calling me to be GM, but i'd sink whatever necessary into getting top tier O-linemen and drafting the most hungry LB's.

TEXANFAN23435
12-12-2005, 09:24 PM
O.K. I dig this thread. If we're going to move that 1st pick and it might be for Bush then I want experience to go with some of those picks. I'll propose this one because the Raiders are in need and would jump at the chance of getting Leinart or Bush and thay have what I want.

OT/Gallery + Oak. #1 for our #1. Think Glimmer Man would jump at the chance to add one of these two players? Also, that Oak. pick should be a top 10 pick which could be used on another OT. There's your bookends and what's left of our current line should give us enough options to fill the G positions and leave some backups. If we get a strong G in the draft we might have the luxury of having Pitts start at RT and platoon the rookie until next year when he should be ready. Then you can move Pitts inside to G and that is huge.

Just my two cents.

Runner
12-13-2005, 05:58 AM
From LT to RT

Pitts - McKinney - Hodgdon - Weigert - Wand

Reasoning: This team has a lot of holes to fill, and this would be the best line we have had since the we've been a team. It would probably be average (adequate pass blocking, very good running blocking) in the league. Average isn't saying a lot, but given the numerous holes to fill that would have to be good enough. McKinney is a much better guard then center, Weigert is a better guard than tackle. Therefore these guards could help Hodgdon grow at center (although I'd still use a mid-to-late draft pick/FA acquisition on another center), and the guards could also work with the tackles given the schemes for specific games. Wand would be a better RT than Wade, leaving Wade as an extremely expensive backup. Brown is a decent backup guard. These players should have far better coaching next year which will also be a huge help.

This frees up the use of our first round pick to use on the best player available or to trade for multiple picks and a proven defensive player (picks to include a 2-4 round tight end). Our defense will probably require more fresh blood to fix than our offense, so we can't ignore the defense when contemplating this next draft.

royce1054
12-13-2005, 06:06 AM
If season ended today its
Houston
Jets
49ers
NO
GB
Tenn

If i am not mistaken. I know GB NEEDS A RB. I am sure the Jets want Bush too. So the only question i see if who offers us a better deal.

If we trade to NYJ i dont see us staying at #2 either. I think Tennessee wants Linehart to be their next quarterback and i am not sure if they can take the chance on someone else trading up to get him. So i think that will be tempting for them to move up to #2 to get him.

So new order after trades would be
NYJ -- BUSH
Tenn -- Linehart
49ers -- Brooks
NO -- Hawk
GB -- D Williams
Houston-- Ferguson

We get who we need and about 10 Mil less. Not only that now we have 4-5 extra picks to move back up into the 1st or early 2nd round and upgrade other areas.

MorKnolle
12-13-2005, 10:21 AM
If season ended today its
Houston
Jets
49ers
NO
GB
Tenn

If i am not mistaken. I know GB NEEDS A RB. I am sure the Jets want Bush too. So the only question i see if who offers us a better deal.

If we trade to NYJ i dont see us staying at #2 either. I think Tennessee wants Linehart to be their next quarterback and i am not sure if they can take the chance on someone else trading up to get him. So i think that will be tempting for them to move up to #2 to get him.

So new order after trades would be
NYJ -- BUSH
Tenn -- Linehart
49ers -- Brooks
NO -- Hawk
GB -- D Williams
Houston-- Ferguson

We get who we need and about 10 Mil less. Not only that now we have 4-5 extra picks to move back up into the 1st or early 2nd round and upgrade other areas.

The 49ers (2-11) are currently ahead of the Jets (3-10) in draft order. Tennessee will not trade up to get Leinart, the 49ers will be a major player in the Bush trade talks, and Brooks and Hawk will not go in the top 4 in the draft, LBs just aren't taken that high (LaVar Arrington is the only LB to be drafted in the top 9 in the last eight years, and he was much more sought-after coming out of college than Hawk or Brooks). I also don't currently like us getting Ferguson out of the top couple OLinemen but I'll have to wait until the combine to make my decision there.

Algebrat
12-13-2005, 10:27 AM
If season ended today its
Houston
Jets
49ers
NO
GB
Tenn


"if the season ended today" is often used for predictions. However, I'm not convinced that the Texans can actually lose to SF and possibly even Arizona. One more victory and we are picking 2nd, two more and we could fall behing SF, NYJ, NO, and GB and be selecting 5th.

MorKnolle
12-13-2005, 10:29 AM
From LT to RT

Pitts - McKinney - Hodgdon - Weigert - Wand

Reasoning: This team has a lot of holes to fill, and this would be the best line we have had since the we've been a team. It would probably be average (adequate pass blocking, very good running blocking) in the league. Average isn't saying a lot, but given the numerous holes to fill that would have to be good enough. McKinney is a much better guard then center, Weigert is a better guard than tackle. Therefore these guards could help Hodgdon grow at center (although I'd still use a mid-to-late draft pick/FA acquisition on another center), and the guards could also work with the tackles given the schemes for specific games. Wand would be a better RT than Wade, leaving Wade as an extremely expensive backup. Brown is a decent backup guard. These players should have far better coaching next year which will also be a huge help.

This frees up the use of our first round pick to use on the best player available or to trade for multiple picks and a proven defensive player (picks to include a 2-4 round tight end). Our defense will probably require more fresh blood to fix than our offense, so we can't ignore the defense when contemplating this next draft.

Yes we have a lot of holes to fill but offensive line is #1 on that list and there are plenty of excellent OL prospects this year, so this is the year to finally upgrade that. McKinney is gone next year (getting old, cost us over $4 million to keep but is pretty cheap to cut/trade), Wand is not a starting-quality RT and I'd much rather see someone like Eric Winston there, Hodgdon is undersized and not a great runblocker so I wouldn't mind seeing us look to draft a OC with our second or third pick, Todd Wade is locked into a big contract so we unfortunately have to keep him around and play him for a year, Wiegert is getting old and his contract is up after next season so we need to draft an OG to start playing and get him ready to replace Wiegert. I don't see TE as a particularly big need because I think our current ones can do ok if we put them in a position to succeed with a new offensive scheme, and we have more important needs to fill with our 1st-3rd round picks (hopefully have some extra ones too after trading down) and I don't see us finding a TE in the 4th or later that is better than what we currently have. Either way Olsen from Miami will be out next year so if our current TEs can hack it with a new coach then we can get Olsen. We also have several defensive players that are locked into big contracts so we can't really move most of them around, and depending on what coach and system we have I'd like to give most of those guys a year to see what they can do in a real defensive system before bringing in a whole new crop. I do think we should look at getting a CB and/or S since we need those regardless of our defensive system, and I'd look for a CB first as I think Brown and Earl together are functional. I really think our offense is a couple OL, maybe a WR, and a new coordinator away from being one of the elite offenses in the NFL and since we're about to give Carr $8 million to sign a new three year deal I want to draft and use free agency to finally give him an offense he can work and excel with and at least get that part of our team fixed up and ready to go. We have a lot of young talent in the offensive skill positions and need to bring in a few OLmen that are better and younger than our current ones and then our offense will be ready to be great for many years to come.

Texans Horror
12-13-2005, 10:31 AM
Wand - Pitts - Eslinger - Weigert - J. Scott/McNeil

All upgrades to current position.

infantrycak
12-13-2005, 10:39 AM
Hodgdon is undersized ...

Where do myths like this start?

Hodgdon 6'3" 296 lbs

Tom Nalen (Denver) 6'3" 286 lbs
Mike Flynn (Baltimore) 6'3" 305 lbs
Jeff Saturday (Colts) 6'2" 295 lbs
Casey Wiegeman (KC) 6'2" 285 lbs
Jeff Hartings (Steelers) 6'3" 295 lbs
Nick Hardwick (Chargers) 6'4" 295 lbs
Todd McClure (Atlanta) 6'1" 286 lbs
Mike Flanigan (Packers) 6'5" 301 lbs
Robbie Tobeck (Seattle) 6'4" 297 lbs

Those are the centers for the top OL's in the league. I don't see anyone significantly bigger than Hodg--certainly Hodg is not below that average.

Runner
12-13-2005, 10:43 AM
....

and depending on what coach and system we have I'd like to give most of those guys a year to see what they can do in a real defensive system before bringing in a whole new crop



All right! You read my whole post and brought the thread back on topic and saved it from turning into a draft draft draft thread.

What you said about the defense (quoted above) I feel about the offense.

MorKnolle
12-13-2005, 10:51 AM
Where do myths like this start?

Hodgdon 6'3" 296 lbs

Tom Nalen (Denver) 6'3" 286 lbs
Mike Flynn (Baltimore) 6'3" 305 lbs
Jeff Saturday (Colts) 6'2" 295 lbs
Casey Wiegeman (KC) 6'2" 285 lbs
Jeff Hartings (Steelers) 6'3" 295 lbs
Nick Hardwick (Chargers) 6'4" 295 lbs
Todd McClure (Atlanta) 6'1" 286 lbs
Mike Flanigan (Packers) 6'5" 301 lbs
Robbie Tobeck (Seattle) 6'4" 297 lbs

Those are the centers for the top OL's in the league. I don't see anyone significantly bigger than Hodg--certainly Hodg is not below that average.

Hodgdon does not look that big and either way he did not look like a very good run blocker in the few games he played because he got pushed around some. He is still an upgrade over McKinney though.

MorKnolle
12-13-2005, 10:52 AM
Wand - Pitts - Eslinger - Weigert - J. Scott/McNeil

All upgrades to current position.

Wand over Pitts is a serious downgrade. Wade also unfortunately needs to be in there somewhere, because of his contract, hopefully not at OT though.

MorKnolle
12-13-2005, 11:03 AM
All right! You read my whole post and brought the thread back on topic and saved it from turning into a draft draft draft thread.

What you said about the defense (quoted above) I feel about the offense.

I agree, I think that the skill position players on offense will greatly benefit from a new coach and system, plus they are all young as well and can get better and grow as a unit for many years. If Gaffney leaves in free agency we'll need to look at getting another WR too (maybe Reggie Wayne since the Colts likely can't afford him, but he might want a bigger contract than he's worth anyways), but I think Gaffney wants to stay if we make him a decent offer and it looks like we are committed to improving the team. The OL is the one place on offense that I feel has a couple glaring holes and has some aging people so I'd like to spend a couple high draft picks bringing in new offensive linemen to fix up those holes and start to replace our older guys. That way we will have some young and talented OL to grow and progress with the rest of our offense. My thing with drafting a bunch of front seven defensive players is if we switch to a 4-3, many players will be playing in a different position. Babin will likely move up to DE, Robaire, Walker, Payne, and Travis Johnson will all be crammed into the DT position and duke it out for playing time (in a couple years Payne and Walker will likely be retired though and leave Smith and Johnson left, but until then we have those two huge contracts sitting there). If we switch to a 4-3 I think we will need another DE so I wouldn't have a problem with us looking to draft one (after we secure at least one OL) or getting a free agent (John Abraham could very likely be available along with others). Like I said we really need another CB, although I think Buchanon and Faggins would not look as bad if we actually had a real defensive system and pressure opposing QBs better, but I'd still look for a CB if we can find a good one in the 3rd-4th round, otherwise just draft the most athletic one available later on. I think Brown and Earl together at safety is functional, neither is very good at covering people yet, but both are young and with better coaching in there I think they can develop, but we could look to draft a faster, cover safety (someone like Huff from UT that could play S on obvious passing situations and maybe slide over to CB in running situations to leave Earl and Brown back there since they tackle pretty well). At LB, Wong is locked into a pretty big contract but I still like him anyways, unfortunately Greenwood is locked in with a big contract, and I like having Peek and Orr as our high energy OLB in a 3-4 and Babin can switch in and out too. If we switch to a 4-3, Peek and Orr can rotate in and out on the third spot or come in for Greenwood some too, which doesn't really leave a LB spot open. Polk is a decent backup LB too. I think we need to get a new LB or two at some point, but I think with our current situation that it isn't a very good option to draft one now, at least in the higher rounds. If there's an athletic one available in the lower rounds that we can bring in for special teams and groom into a good LB in a year or two when we're more able to replace our current guys then I say go for it.

|The.Brand0n|
12-13-2005, 11:05 AM
When Hodgdon was in the games that I remember, I hardly remember ANY sacks. That whole first half against the Jags, before he hurt his foot they didnt give up any sacks. Then immediately after he exited, the sack party began. If anyone has that on tape, feel free to go back and look @ it.

MorKnolle
12-13-2005, 11:32 AM
When Hodgdon was in the games that I remember, I hardly remember ANY sacks. That whole first half against the Jags, before he hurt his foot they didnt give up any sacks. Then immediately after he exited, the sack party began. If anyone has that on tape, feel free to go back and look @ it.

I admit Hodgdon was a good pass blocker, but I am questioning his run blocking abilities. I'm not by any means say we give up on him and I think we need to look at OT and OG before thinking about getting a OC in the draft, although if we bring in someone like LeCharles Bentley in free agency then he could play either position very well.

Grid
12-13-2005, 11:56 AM
Keep in mind that we run that zone blocking scheme for our run blocking.. and it took our current olinemen almost an entire season to get comfortable with it enough to actually do anything that resembled run blocking.

Hodgdon may need a little while longer with the system before his run blocking abilities can really be gaged.

zeplin
12-13-2005, 01:11 PM
I think we all agree.
[
!) that a new revamped OL is needed to succeed.
2) New coaching staff with a new offensive scheme
3) New GM

What I am worried about is anytime you bring in a new staff with a new offensive scheme it takes QB's usually a couple of years to be able to run the complete offensive package with skill.:rockets:

Grid
12-13-2005, 01:18 PM
well the success of big Ben in Pittsburgh seems to have opened coaches eyes to new ways of easing QBs into a new offense.

and actually.. considering how lame this offense has been, it wouldnt take much to show an improvement.

Runner
12-13-2005, 01:33 PM
Todd Wade is locked into a big contract so we unfortunately have to keep him around and play him for a year,

I forgot to comment on this in my earlier reply. I can accept having to keep him around, but I don't want to play/start him just because he has a big contract. He (and everyone else on the team) should only play if they are the best player we have on the roster at that position. That would be refreshing change in itself.

In addition to being the best player available on a position by position basis, the player combinations should bring the highest synergy to the team. For instance I maintain that last week's o-line of

Pitts - Brown - McKinney - Weary - Weigert

was inferior to

Pitts - Brown - McKinney - Weigert - Wand

regardless of if Weigert or Wand is the better right tackle.

humbleone
12-13-2005, 01:35 PM
LT to RT:

LT... no one on the roster (TBN via draft or trade....Gallery???)
LG...McKinney
C...Hogdon (deep draft for centers and we should take another one)
RG...Weigert
RT...Pitts

Backups...Wade (servicable guard/tackle), Brown (but the new coach needs to teach him what a snap count is) cut Wand.:texflag:

jacquescas
12-13-2005, 01:36 PM
doesn't anyone remember it takes a couple years for rookie lineman to make it... look at robert gallery, look at jordan gross. they needed time. D'brick will be good but not in 06. if we want to fix the line for 06 we need to do it through current NFL players.

Runner
12-13-2005, 01:45 PM
Backups...Wade (servicable guard/tackle)

Ths is becoming such common knowledge around this board I have to ask - has Wade ever played guard? I know some posters early on this year wondered if he could play guard because he "was too slow to play tackle". I think that has transformed into "he'd be a competent guard". I don't know he has the quickness off the snap for that, nor if he can keep his center of gravity low enough to play inside.

Opinions?

Grid
12-13-2005, 01:46 PM
NOT drafting Olinemen has put us in this position. Trying to put together a patchwork line every offseason has not improved our Oline in the least bit..

This offseason there will be no quality tackles available.

We WILL be rebuilding to a certain degree for the next 2-3 seasons. If we are lucky.. we MAY be competitive next season, but I wouldnt put money on it.

Draft Olinemen now.. start getting them ready now.. and in 2-3 seasons we wont have to worry about it anymore.

Runner
12-13-2005, 01:52 PM
NOT drafting Olinemen has put us in this position. Trying to put together a patchwork line every offseason has not improved our Oline in the least bit..

This offseason there will be no quality tackles available.

We WILL be rebuilding to a certain degree for the next 2-3 seasons. If we are lucky.. we MAY be competitive next season, but I wouldnt put money on it.

Draft Olinemen now.. start getting them ready now.. and in 2-3 seasons we wont have to worry about it anymore.

I think mismanaging talent we have is equally at fault - not just the o-line but across the board. We were more successful with more or less the same players last year.

royce1054
12-13-2005, 01:54 PM
The 49ers (2-11) are currently ahead of the Jets (3-10) in draft order. Tennessee will not trade up to get Leinart, the 49ers will be a major player in the Bush trade talks, and Brooks and Hawk will not go in the top 4 in the draft, LBs just aren't taken that high (LaVar Arrington is the only LB to be drafted in the top 9 in the last eight years, and he was much more sought-after coming out of college than Hawk or Brooks). I also don't currently like us getting Ferguson out of the top couple OLinemen but I'll have to wait until the combine to make my decision there.

Thats why i said if i am not Mistaken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well i think Tennesse wants Leinhart and would want to move up to get him in fear of losing him.. Come on McNair is going to retire and Volek is a FA and is not good enough to run that team. They might be able to stay at what 6 and get him but the possiblity of a team trading up to get him infront of them is very possible. Their is a strong possibility that 2 LB will go high this year. Brooks and Hawk are going to be monsters. Dont forget Greenway wont be far behind those 2. Now Ferguson or Winston who cares it was off the top of my head.

Grid
12-13-2005, 02:02 PM
I think mismanaging talent we have is equally at fault - not just the o-line but across the board. We were more successful with more or less the same players last year.

in many cases I agree with that.. but not with our Oline. It has always been bad.. the only time it has SEEMED like it was good was when Carr was limited to 3 step drops. We only have ONE Olineman that isnt starting (not counting Hodgdon) who MIGHT be good..and that is Seth Wand.

Runner
12-13-2005, 02:05 PM
in many cases I agree with that.. but not with our Oline. It has always been bad.. the only time it has SEEMED like it was good was when Carr was limited to 3 step drops. We only have ONE Olineman that isnt starting (not counting Hodgdon) who MIGHT be good..and that is Seth Wand.

It will be an interesting off-season.

humbleone
12-13-2005, 02:09 PM
NOT drafting Olinemen has put us in this position. Trying to put together a patchwork line every offseason has not improved our Oline in the least bit..

This offseason there will be no quality tackles available.

We WILL be rebuilding to a certain degree for the next 2-3 seasons. If we are lucky.. we MAY be competitive next season, but I wouldnt put money on it.

Draft Olinemen now.. start getting them ready now.. and in 2-3 seasons we wont have to worry about it anymore.

Well said Grid. The only exception is the dream shot of Al Davis coveting the #1 (the Raiders could use Leinart or Bush and won't have a shot at either) enough to give us Gallery and their '06 pick to get him (we could even throw in PBuc to sweeten the deal so that Davis can trade him to wherever Casserly lands for their 2nd and 3rd picks in '06). Even then, IMO we still should draft another Olineman or two.

C Madd
12-13-2005, 02:19 PM
Don't flame me if these questions has been presented in this thread already, but I wanted to ask these questions without starting a new thread.

Is our O-Line REALLY that bad? Ok, well of course they're bad, but why? Are these guys less physically talented than the rest of the linemen in the league, or is it bad coaching? Would bringing in a new coaching staff, with a new offensive line coach improve the performance of these players? Just a couple of questions I've been wanting to throw out there to fellow posters and get their take on it.

edo783
12-13-2005, 02:49 PM
Is our O-Line REALLY that bad? Yes and then some.

Ok, well of course they're bad, but why? Talent & Coaching

Are these guys less physically talented than the rest of the linemen in the league, or is it bad coaching? Both

Would bringing in a new coaching staff, with a new offensive line coach improve the performance of these players? Helps, but doesn't cure.

Ibar_Harry
12-13-2005, 03:33 PM
Your a new organization beginning life and you know your going to take a Young man who has an arm to be your QB. What are the necessary components to make such an aquistion successful? Talented receivers with a good receivers coach and more importantly a good O-line with an O-line coach who knows how to protect the QB and a good QB coach. The Texans have never provided the coaching. I think we had some talent on the receiver side and the O-line side of the ball that was never developed. Yes, AJ still needs a lot of work. He should be so much better than he is at this point in time. For that matter so should Mathis, Arstrong, Starling, Gaffny and others we have had on this ball club. Oh, yes, do forget Bradford. Wand should be playing every game, but he doesn't because of what appears to be a personality conflict with guess who. Wand was coming along and doing well until the zone blocking scheme was introduced. I'm not certain that Pendry's teaching style has gotten the most out of Wand, if anything. I would say our whole O-line was having problems learning the zone blocking scheme. I really question Pendry's knowledge of that blocking scheme. The O-line is a function of the coaching it has received along with a lack of injection of new young talent through the draft and Free Agency. Oh, well, there really isn't anything new to report.

MorKnolle
12-13-2005, 04:14 PM
It is very hard to find good OL in free agency and we've been putting off upgrading for a couple years. This draft is stacked with OL so we could draft two guys that would likely be able start for us next year and a third that can start in 2007 once Wiegert's contract is done. If we get a couple top-flight OL now to bump out some of our older (and not very good) OL, then our we could have a very strong offense in 2007 with every starter under 28 years old so they can stick together and improve for many years.

Bullfan
12-13-2005, 04:33 PM
Please do not go there about being "learning disabled". He had a minor "Learning Disability". Statistics show that children with learning disabilities are just about always your most intelligent children, they just have a different learning style. And you are correct, with these coaches, the whole line is learning disabled and our coaches are not smart enough to use the players strengths instead of their weaknesses.(i.e guards playing tackle and vice versa, right tackles playing on the left side, guards playing center, etc.)

P.S.

I'd like to see Pendry playing quarterback, I bet Wando would be on the line!

Ibar_Harry
12-13-2005, 04:57 PM
I have already edited it and said it in a different way. My point was in defense of Wand and perhaps the whole team as well. Thank you, you might want to edit it out of yours so it just disappears. Thank you.

Ibar_Harry
12-13-2005, 04:59 PM
I'd like to see Pendry playing quarterback, I bet Wando would be on the line!

Yea, right over the center McKinney licking his chops......

infantrycak
12-13-2005, 05:01 PM
Wand was coming along and doing well until the zone blocking scheme was introduced.

Is there no end to your revisionist urges? Wand did zilch, nada, nothing until the zone blocking scheme was introduced. He became a starter in the same game the Texans 1st unveiled zone blocking. To the extent he progressed, developed, came along, did well, whatever, he did it as a zone blocker.

Bullfan
12-15-2005, 12:26 PM
[
I'd like to see Pendry playing quarterback, I bet Wando would be on the line![/QUOTE]