|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151 |
to weigh in on the Mack debate...
the kid is a 1st round pick (late in the first round at that) that is a pro bowler...I dont care how you slice it, Alex Mack has played in the Pro Bowl and will most likely do it again.
In my opinion, the only good 1st round picks weve made in the past 5-6 years were Joe Thomas and Alex Mack and theyve both made the pro bowl...Those are good picks.
Who cares where the highest ever center to be drafted was, who cares what the earliest pick ever was. Mario Williams was the highest drafted DE ever...worked out for Houston (could you imagine if they took bush or young? ew) The kid is good...and look at the trend as of late. Mack first round, Pouncey and Pouncey, first round...and actually Mack is no longer the highest picked center ever...because Mike Pouncey went to Miami at 18...
Dont look to the past to determine success of picks and "value" a 1st rounder is in the pro bowl and we're complaining and arguing about it? saying we couldve had a good 3rd round center? are you joking? a 1st rounder in the pro bowl...argument should be over right there. great pick. period.
"It has to start somewhere
It has to start somehow
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Clay Matthews: Runner Up for Defensive Player of the Year
Glad Mack is on the team, hope he stays here a long time... not the right pick.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
amen on that. Sometimes you just have to accept that fact that drafting a pro-bowl player in the first round is a GOOD thing.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,124
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,124 |
but... but...
there's soooo much good fodder there for excessive navel contmplation....
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
drafting a probowl center in the first is equal to drafting a pro bowl kicker in the first.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
drafting a probowl center in the first is equal to drafting a pro bowl kicker in the first.
lol, not even close to being true.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,395
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,395 |
Quote:
Quote:
drafting a probowl center in the first is equal to drafting a pro bowl kicker in the first.
lol, not even close to being true.
I was going to let it pass as a rare brain cramp for mourg .... but yeah, solidifying your O-line with a very good centre can never be wrong. I mean, seriously...
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
I just have to say that the current front office is probably very happy that Mack is on the team and probably don't care that he was drafted where he was.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
I just have to say that the current front office is probably very happy that Mack is on the team and probably don't care that he was drafted where he was.
Sure, but they'd be even happier if Oher was their RT (and LT backup...who is our LT backup right now?)...what's the point? Yeah, Mack is a good player but I can guarantee you Heckert would not have drafted him if he was running the Browns draft...oh look, he traded up with us and picked Maclin and then RB McCoy in the 2nd...with D.Jackson and Westbrook on the roster and a lot of uncertainty at C and G (switched around Cole, Jackson and Gilles)...Heckert knows value, he'd never pick a C in the 1st
You can laugh at Mourg all you want but his K to C comp isn't that far off...C have more value but really not all that much and they have 1 thing in common...the drop off from best to AVGs ones is the most marginal compared to other positions...when do you draft your kicker in fantasy leagues? and why? same would be the case with C and GMs "value" them accordingly...that's why so many high profile C reach FA
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Sure, but they'd be even happier if Oher was their RT
Perhaps in your mind, but I don't believe that for even one second.,
MACK is a better center than Oher is a tackle. it's just that simple. Pashos is a stop-gap and everyone on here knows it. so eventually, we'll find out RT.
But if you think that passing on a line general to get an average or a little better than average RT is a good thing, they you need to rethink your position..
I'd much rather have a Center like Mack.,..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Quote:
Clay Matthews: Runner Up for Defensive Player of the Year
Glad Mack is on the team, hope he stays here a long time... not the right pick.
It is easy to say that now. No one knew that when he was drafted. Not even Green Bay. Matthews wasn't even a full time starter in college.
Mack was by far the consensus #1 center, is smart as can be, and is a top 5 C in the NFL......after 2 seasons!
I have never seen people complain about a Pro Bowl player so much in my life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Sun Apr 19 2009 11:10 AM
I've never been as high on Curry as everyone else, but I only saw him in the Navy/Wake Forest game, where he looked indecisive and was often out of position to make the play. I understand that that's why teams run the option, but if he's really the greatest LB prospect to come out in years he should be able to make an impact in any situation.
Personally, for a team running a 3-4, I don't see why Clay Matthews is not at the top of everyone's list. He's got the athleticism, he's got the football skills... the only knock people seem to have against him is that he only started for one year.
If you listed all of the linebackers available in this year's draft, who would you think is more prepared to play LB in a 3-4 than a son of a linebacker who starred in the 3-4 in the NFL for more than 15 years?
https://www.dawgtalkers.net/showflat.php?...true#Post547507
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Again, so what? You liked Matthews for the 3-4. You still could not have predicted that he would become what he has. No one could, or he would have been drafted Top 5 no question.
Matthews would have been a much better pick for us over Curry simply because we needed rushers more than ILB, even if Matthews had only developed into a "good" OLB.
It's good that you liked him before the draft. Good job. But it doesn't change the fact that given what everyone knew at the time, Mack was a great pick. Matthews was much riskier, and given that we have fallen on our faces with numerous picks recently, and we were in the lower rungs in the NFL in terms of talent, you take the "safer" pick, who even at "safer" was capable of the Pro Bowl.
Matthews is the better player, but he was much riskier and honestly was a huge shot in the dark at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
I can't link to it, since it was in the draft forum which isn't searchable, but I said that if we can't trade down we should take him at 5.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
I think that Center is a position every bit as an important of a cog in the machine as is RT is.
He makes all of the line calls and adjustments. Making the right ones, should not be underestimated.
I'm happy to have Mack, because the Center position is a position of strength with him in the lineup.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
This discussion is laughable. Given our draft success since the return, we should be jumping for joy that we hit on an all-pro, every down player.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Quote:
This discussion is laughable. Given our draft success since the return, we should be jumping for joy that we hit on an all-pro, every down player.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,524
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,524 |
Quote:
This discussion is laughable. Given our draft success since the return, we should be jumping for joy that we hit on an all-pro, every down player.
No kiddin!!!
We have two all-pros on our front line.... I'm extremely happy we have him and JT!
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,700
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,700 |
Comparison time..
Couch, Brown, Warren, Green, Faine, Winslow, Edwards,Wimbley, Thomas, Mack, Haden, and now Taylor...
Couch, Brown, Green - Busts
Warren, Faine, Winslow, Edwards, Wimbley - starters
Mack and probably Haden, Productive starters may turn into multiple Pro-Bowlers.
Thomas Multiple Pro-Bowls..
The objective of a top first round pick is to get a productive starter, it not a Pro-Bowler. A first rounder, lower half should be a productive starter, so I don't understand the comments about Mack, we should very pleased that he appears to be set at the position for the forseeable future.
I think the real issue is that we passed on Everett Brown and Shady McCoy with those second round picks and clearly reached on DV, that has sat in my crawl for a while, and missing the obvious hurts.
Last edited by ChargerDawg; 08/26/11 04:02 PM.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Quote:
This discussion is laughable. Given our draft success since the return, we should be jumping for joy that we hit on an all-pro, every down player.
No kiddin!!!
We have two all-pros on our front line.... I'm extremely happy we have him and JT!
JT is an AllPro....Mack isn't yet...still not consistent enough in pass pro..there's a reason he was voted 8th best C
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-07-20-nick-mangold-best-interior-linemen_n.htm
Thats pretty good but not elite class yet...it also proves my point that there are a lot of decent C out there....they just aren't as valuable...I think our Offense would look much better with Nicks or Maclin at WR and Fraley at C instead of Robo and Mack...we already have a Top LT and good LG, why throw additional resources at C when you have absolutely no playmakers? really, any way I look at it, it doesn't make much sense to draft Mack that high, esp with the roster of April 2009...actually pretty stupid
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
The objective of a top first round pick is to get a productive starter, it not a Pro-Bowler. A first rounder, lower half should be a productive starter, so I don't understand the comments about Mack, we should very pleased that he appears to be set at the position for the forseeable future.
Comments aren't about Mack...they're about value...
Also, I can pick a sure fire starter in round 1 ANY draft if I go C, G, FB or RB, TE or MLB or S...I can do that any draft and still field a 4 win team because I have nada at impact positions that MAKE more of a difference like DT, DE, OT, QB, WR
That's what happened with the 2009 draft...we had 4 Top picks and came away with 1 good player because our FO had no clue about value...Mangini and Kokinis thought like you guys: "Let's take a sure fire starter with our 1st"...and then got 2nd level prospects at much more important positions...if you go Nicks/Maclin and then Unger/Levitre..you get 2 AVG to good NFL starting talent...with Mack-Robo you get 1..and picking Mack 1st put them into this situation...I cant spell it out any more than that..I guess you guys don't get the context of the pick...you just cant pretend to look at the Mack pick as if it's in a vacuum
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
JT is an AllPro....Mack isn't yet...still not consistent enough in pass pro..there's a reason he was voted 8th best C
#
Well obviously someone thought well enough of him to take him to the pro bowl and that would put him in the top 5 of Centers.
Who cares what USA today thinks. what do they know?
&
Why do you constantly wine about the past???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880 |
Quote:
.remember: Mack was the highest drafted C EVER...
Jeff Faine was also drafted 21st by us as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Quote:
.remember: Mack was the highest drafted C EVER...
Jeff Faine was also drafted 21st by us as well.
...yeah, that worked great for us too, didn't it? we released O'Hara who is still a Top 10 C today...drafting Mack and dumping Fraley wasn't as stupid as Mack > Faine and Fraley < O'Hara but considering our roster situation back then, lacking playmakers all over the place, it was still a pretty stupid thing to do...even if you take out the value aspect
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Why do you constantly wine about the past???
Because past decisions and draft choices are the reason we still suck? maybe?....2 years from now I will probably rave about the 2010 and 2011 drafts, I'm consistent...both drafts already look better than the dreaded 2009 draft..and Heckert didn't have the luxury of having 4 Top 50 picks, he got MORE with LESS to work with (just compare Heckert's trade down haul to Mangini's...both ultimatley picked at #21...who got better value?, lol)...he will have 3 Top 50 picks next draft, plus an extra 4th....yummy
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why do you constantly wine about the past???
Because past decisions and draft choices are the reason we still suck? maybe?....2 years from now I will probably rave about the 2010 and 2011 drafts, I'm consistent...both drafts already look better than the dreaded 2009 draft..and Heckert didn't have the luxury of having 4 Top 50 picks, he got MORE with LESS to work with...he will have 3 Top 50 picks next draft, plus an extra 4th....yummy
Their is nothing we can do to change the past. It is what it is and hey it's not all bad. We have a starting Center for years to come and a good one (good teammate as well).
Nobody in the current FO is worried about the past.
Forward thinking
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,705
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,705 |
Maybe this is nitpicking, but it might be unfair to compare any draft day move to what happened with us this year with the Falcons.
That trade can only be described as raping and pillaging. The Falcons saw gold in Julio Jones, fell in love with him, and sold the farm to get him. It's not so much our earned gain but their loss.
I get your point, that probably would never have happened with Mangini negotiating the deal, just saying that if you compare any other deal to what happened this past draft, the other will come up short.
... unless, maybe, you talk about the Hillis-for-Quinn deal.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880 |
Quote:
...yeah, that worked great for us too, didn't it? we released O'Hara who is still a Top 10 C today...drafting Mack and dumping Fraley wasn't as stupid as Mack > Faine and Fraley < O'Hara but considering our roster situation back then, lacking playmakers all over the place, it was still a pretty stupid thing to do...even if you take out the value aspect
O'Hara was waived a few weeks ago; don't think he falls into the top-10 category.
I don't disagree with you that letting O'Hara go was the start of several back center decisions. However, we can't mix regimes with the same blame as others.
We are better today at Center than we likely have been since Steve Everitt..which by the way was drafted 14th so Mack wasn't the highest drafted Center of all-time nor even in Browns history.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Steve Everitt..which by the way was drafted 14th so Mack wasn't the highest drafted Center of all-time nor even in Browns history.
Always wondered where the 'highest drafted center' thing came from. Damien Woody was also drafted higher.
The highest was 11 or 12, I think, back in the 70's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
a 1st rounder in the pro bowl...argument should be over right there. great pick. period.
So by this logic ... if Mack were picked at #1 overall, it's a great pick?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830 |
Quote:
Quote:
Steve Everitt..which by the way was drafted 14th so Mack wasn't the highest drafted Center of all-time nor even in Browns history.
Always wondered where the 'highest drafted center' thing came from. Damien Woody was also drafted higher.
The highest was 11 or 12, I think, back in the 70's.
Pete Brock was the 12th pick in 76....but...
Bob Johnson was the 2nd pick in 68....Jim Otto may have been the 1st pick....hard to figure that one out for some reason
Dan Currie was the 3rd pick in 58
http://drafthistory.com/
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833 |
with all the information we fans have today:
internet
ESPN pundits such as Mel Pompadour Kiper
NFL network
we have all become more educated on the drafting process. Hell NFL draft coverage is a big thing. The ratings for the draft are through the roof. Some internet forums keep a draft forum open at all times and what are we discussing now?
The one thing we should keep in mind is that drafting is still an inexact science.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda......
and 20/20 hindsight.
Can anyone say Jamarcus Russell?
I'm not nearly as concerned about taking a center in the 1st as I am whiffing on Viekune. And the jury is still out on Robo and MoMass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,547
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,547 |
Quote:
Quote:
a 1st rounder in the pro bowl...argument should be over right there. great pick. period.
So by this logic ... if Mack were picked at #1 overall, it's a great pick?
Compared to our overall #1 picks since the team returned in 1999 ........ yes.
Has Mack been a better player than either Tim Couch or Courtney Brown? Yes. He shows up and performs at a Pro Bowl level. Compared to #3 overall Gerard Warren, yes, he's been a great pick. Compared to #16 overall William Green, yes, he's been a great pick.
We can play the woulda/coulda game with any draft pick ..... but in the end, the question is this:
Without regard to their actual position in the draft, and regardless of the position they play, are they an effective player in the NFL?
When you look at how many players bust each year, this really is a huge question.
Look at round 1 of that 2009 draft.
Stafford looks like a player ..... if he can ever stay healthy. Jason Smith is a decent tackle, but nowhere near Joe Thomas quality. Tyson Jackson has 69 tackles and 1 sack in 2 years for the Chefs. Aaron Curry appears to be a solid guy. The jury's still out on Sanchez. Andre Smith has started 13 games for the Bengals in 2 years. Heyward-Bey has 35 catches in 2 seasons. Don;t know a lot about Moore other than he has played 15 games in each of his 1 seasons. Raji looks solid. Crabtree looks middle of the road so far. Maybin ..... nothing so far. Moreno's been decent so far. Orakpo's been an outstanding pick for the Redskins. Jenkins has been a solid guy for the Saints. Cushing is solid. English, not so much. Josh Freeman has been an outstanding young QB. Ayers has been so-so. Maclain has been a really strong receiver for the Eagles, Pettigrew has been a really good receiving TE for the Lions.
If the draft were "re-drafted", would Josh Freeman go behind Stafford and Sanchez? Would Orakpo move up to #1 LB taken? Would Mack have more value than the OT taken?
Any team can look at who they took, compared to who was left on the board. In the end, the most important thing is this: Is the guy your team took a guy whose play is worthy of a #1 pick? In the case of Mack, yes, he has been worthy of a #1 pick. We can play the game where we "shoulda" taken Matthews, or Britt, or Harvin, or a host of other guys ...... but in the end, we got a Pro Bowler in the 1st ...... and that has to be the goal every year.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,395
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,395 |
Bottom line:
Mack was a great pick, it's sorta amazing someone would complain about taking a C who has turned into a Pro Bowl-calibre player.
That said, the rest of our 2009 draft pretty much sucked.
If either Robo or MassQ turn into solid WR, it would lessen the degree of suckiness of the 09 draft.
gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
In the end, the most important thing is this: Is the guy your team took a guy whose play is worthy of a #1 pick? In the case of Mack, yes, he has been worthy of a #1 pick. We can play the game where we "shoulda" taken Matthews, or Britt, or Harvin, or a host of other guys ...... but in the end, we got a Pro Bowler in the 1st ...... and that has to be the goal every year.
That right there should end this discussion.. There really isn't much else to say that matters.
Good job Ytown
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Bottom line:
Mack was a great pick, it's sorta amazing someone would complain about taking a C who has turned into a Pro Bowl-calibre player.
That said, the rest of our 2009 draft pretty much sucked.
If either Robo or MassQ turn into solid WR, it would lessen the degree of suckiness of the 09 draft.
Your 1st and 2nd sentence are connected though...it was the same draft...that was my whole point throughout this
and again, no Mack isn't worthy of a #1 overall...you don't draft "not to lose", you draft to win the game 
I bet you could draft a ProBowl player every year in the 1st round of a draft and still have a team that doesn't sniff the POs...the reason is VALUE
You guys just don't seem to get it..do you play fantasy? Why isn't a QB the #1 overall despite often making the most points in that game? V.A.L.U.E., position scarcity, epth-drop off etc ...similar concept
Mack was a safe pick, agood player but not a good CHOICE...if we drafted WR Nicks or WR Maclin, we could have taken Unger, Levitre or Loadholt in the 2nd..better value and 2 NFL starters worth their salt...not just 1
Also, you guys ripped Savage for his 2008 draft where we had no 1st to 3rd...well depsite having no picks he ended up with Rubin (+1 ProBowl season from Rogers)....since Rubin AT LEAST has as much value as Mack (for the record: I consider Rubin to have MUCH more value, since a good DT is worth much more than a good C), by your logic...this draft was MUCH better than the 09 one...we got as much out of less picks (even when you count the wasted ones on Quinn and C.Williams, still less top2 round picks than Mangini had)....I could bet many on here though think the 09 draft was better than the 08 draft, which btw was bad enough
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
we could have taken Unger, Levitre or Loadholt
Don't these guys suck?
I know vikings fans feel Loadholt is overated
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Haven't seen Loadholt enough but he's the starting RT for the Vikings and their RB isn't complaining..I guess he has problems in pass pro but is aload in run blocking...that was his profile
The other 2 are pretty solid and day 1 starters since they were drafted...Levitre is the best Bill OL and Unger is very versatile and can pretty much play all over the OL
Those were just OL comps since we drafted Mack in the 1st, there were plenty of other good prospects..even if they all are "just" NFL AVG starters, which still is valuable, it's still better than having a way below AVG starter (if not 1 of the worst around the league) like Robo...
sinply put: Nicks+Levitre/Unger/Loadholt > Mack+Robo
and that's not hindsight...we scrambled for WR talent (we had none after trading BE and KW, remember?) BECAUSE we went "safe" interior OL in the 1st...that's just dumb and bad drafting..we should have a Top 5 WR and interior OL talent, instead we have a Top C and 2x2nd tier WR talent...gotta maximize VALUE with so many Top picks..and we didn't do it...Mack would have been a little better choice if our next pick was in the 3rd or 4th round...and even then I would disagree with the pick...but with 3x2nd round picks coming up? Pretty much the dumbest pick I could have imagined
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151 |
you wont get a disagreement from me that Nicks would have been a great pick...but
We're now looking back at what happened. This is now in the past so the what-if game isnt nearly as relevent imo. We took a C with our first round pick (in the 20s) and he now is in the pro bowl. If you look at our first rounders from the years previous, only Joe Thomas truly panned out as our 1st round pick outside of him.
That makes him the 2nd best 1st round pick we've had since 1999. I could be swayed by an argument saying Winslow was better (cept trading a 2nd rounder to move 1 spot was ridiculous) because he played well while here.
Mack is just not something I'm willing to complain about. He is a top 5 center in the whole NFL. Having a guy like Mack makes guys like Pinkston (our new LG), Hillis, Womack/Yates/Lauvao, and McCoy look better. This works for me.
The concept of value i think is overblown because of the ability to find guys later in drafts that can become amazing NFL players. Tom Brady, Ryan Mallet (i think hes going to be great), Matt Cassel, Matt Hasselbeck, Brett Favre, Trent Green, Marc Bulger, Kurt Warner, etc...do those guys make it so that Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Carson Palmer etc arent good values?
Would anyone hesitate to pick Chris Johnson at #1 now despite knowing you can find a guy like Arian Foster later?
Are we still gonna gripe that we coulda had Adrian Peterson instead of Joe Thomas?
Value to me is ability at their spot. When youre in the first round...since there is 20 spots to fill in (combining WR and CB spots) then when you pick in a draft...your goal should be to get someone who is in the top 5 in their position. Is it likely? no, there are already 32 (or 64 for WRs and CBs) in the league that are starting and some are already very good. So when drafting, your value should be to find a guy who will be better at his spot than anyone else...regardless of where it is.
Sure Nicks and Unger could have been a good combination of picks and we would have a top 5 guy at his position, but I would argue that Mack makes more people on his team better because his position allows that. Mack can make every OLer better because he makes every call on the line. That helps both the running and passing game. I feel like Center is the most important position on the OL because hes making all the calls. Theres a reason guys like Olin Kruetz, Kevin Mawae, Nick Mangold, and Jeff Saturday play their entire careers for 1 MAYBE 2 teams during their career. LT is also important because they have to stonewall the best pass rusher every play...but the Center makes the calls, and has to make the exchange on the snap and stonewall a DT...Saying that a center can simply be found elsewhere isnt false...but to be a phenomenal one that makes an entire offense better is false. Alex Mack has done that for this team as evidenced by Hillis' madden cover. as evidenced by Colt McCoy being able to step in and be as successful as he was last year as a rookie.
Nicks can make his team better too, but without a solid OL, he isnt going to be nearly as successful. I just dont see it...I dont see that its possible to rip the pick of Alex Mack...I get the reasoning, I just dont agree with it. We lamented our ignoring the trenches for so long in the draft, and when we do it, we say we should have gone elsewhere...build from the inside out seems to be the way most teams win...Theres a reason that the Steelers and Ravens are able to do what they do on offense...because they build the trenches...thats what allows guys like Willie Parker, Emmanuel Sanders, Mike Wallace, and Antonio Brown so successful. Solid in the trenches.
"It has to start somewhere
It has to start somehow
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
This Mack is a ProBowler is just crap btw....1st of all, being voted into the ProBowl means...well, not much since it'S a popularity contest and with OL it goes like this: Top 50 pick? check...a RB with great numbers? check = ProBowl...it's a joke
That said Mack was a 2nd alternate PBowler, which means he was voted 3rd or even 4th best AFC C by fans ....Im sure the same guys who dismissed DA's ProBowl appearnace are now quick to name Mack a ProBowler, lol...me? I could care less for both...Mack is a good NFL C right now, but not elite yet...you act as if he is a Top3 guy already...he isn't...he has a good chance of getting there but he still has some holes in pass pro
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Camp Discussions (Part II)
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
![[Linked Image from thumb0.webshots.net]](http://thumb0.webshots.net/t/34/34/0/73/58/2594073580091396520Miskbz_th.jpg)
