Draft him at 12.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

not if we dont have a tackle or CB signed soon.... but I like the kid, just at this point with some many holes he seems a luxury..

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

He changes the whole dynamic of the offense. Much bigger impact than any db or ol at 12

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He changes the whole dynamic of the offense. Much
> bigger impact than any db or ol at 12


Welcome aboard the bandwagon!!

If you cant protect RT, he doesnt have any time to throw it to these guys. If we dont have a #1 CB, we are going to give up alot of points in the passing game, which will require more pts from our offense to win... If we sign a real tackle, and a decent CB, then I am all for taking a shot on a offensive playmaker at 12, that is what I have been preaching all along.. I just dont want us to lose guys and forget to replace them. Losing both Fasano and Long without replacing them with real starters on the line, hurts our pass protection tremendously IMO...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He changes the whole dynamic of the offense.
> Much
> > bigger impact than any db or ol at 12
>
>
> Welcome aboard the bandwagon!!


I am on it full bore. This is a guy defensive coaches will have to game plan for. Can't say that about anyone else available in the 1st. Put him in the slot with Hartline, Wallace, and Gibson (who I think we sign), and a passable seam TE, and I think we're really on to something. We can get by with a FA or at 2d or 3d and what we've currently got at OG and OT. No defensive player at #12 is really all that. The ND TE is not worth #12, and neither are Patterson (too risky, big bust potential) or Allen. Only downside to Austin is his size, but we've seen from guys like Russell Wislon that in today's NFL, getting too hung up on old-school measurables is not the way to go.....

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you cant protect RT, he doesnt have any time to
> throw it to these guys. If we dont have a #1 CB,
> we are going to give up alot of points in the
> passing game, which will require more pts from our
> offense to win... If we sign a real tackle, and a
> decent CB, then I am all for taking a shot on a
> offensive playmaker at 12, that is what I have
> been preaching all along.. I just dont want us to
> lose guys and forget to replace them. Losing both
> Fasano and Long without replacing them with real
> starters on the line, hurts our pass protection
> tremendously IMO...


I'm not going to address the CB issue because I think its the least of our worries and it can be hidden for a year by improving the pass rush. I agree with you...top priority is giving RT the weapons and the o-line needed to make us competitive. It's not like next year is Super Bowl or we get kicked out of the league. So when it comes to CB I'll just say that I'd be fine with a CB in the 2nd-5th round range we can develop.


So the question is what OT are you getting at 12 that is so much better than what you can get 42?

Lane Johnson is the only OT that might fall to us that fits that bill.

If he's gone (which seems likely), and we don't sign an OT in free agency (which seems unlikely), which combination of OT/WR works best for you with our first two picks:


Tavon Austin, WR...and... Terron Armstead or Barrett Jones at OT?

Or

DJ Fluker, OT...and...Justin Hunter or Terrance Williams at wR??


Personally, I think the first option is by far the best one....but that's me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2013 03:23PM by THE Truth.

I don't see fluker at 12 at all. More likely one of the top 2 OGs falls to that spot. If we went OL that's who we'd take. OT is not a really huge need IMO. We can always sign winston.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see fluker at 12 at all. More likely one
> of the top 2 OGs falls to that spot. If we went OL
> that's who we'd take. OT is not a really huge need
> IMO. We can always sign winston.


Maybe but I got the impression from Crowder's post he wanted to address OT or CB if the draft were tonight.

Right now we lost our best tackle and possibly the best blocking TE in football, who can help hide weaknesses of the tackle playing next to him on the line.. Our line at this point has taken a hit without the signing of a starting tackle.. You can have all of the playmakers you want, but if u cant protect the young QB, you are wasting your money on guys who you will have a hard time getting the ball to...
Ultimately I think we should sign Jake Long if you guys want to draft Austin. Losing 2 legit pieces on the line in Fasano and Long without replacing them would be a mistake in the development of RT...
I want the playmaker at 12 as much as anybody and it pains me that we might not be in position to do so with these other holes...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right now we lost our best tackle and possibly the
> best blocking TE in football, who can help hide
> weaknesses of the tackle playing next to him on
> the line.. Our line at this point has taken a hit
> without the signing of a starting tackle.. You can
> have all of the playmakers you want, but if u cant
> protect the young QB, you are wasting your money
> on guys who you will have a hard time getting the
> ball to...
> Ultimately I think we should sign Jake Long if you
> guys want to draft Austin. Losing 2 legit pieces
> on the line in Fasano and Long without replacing
> them would be a mistake in the development of
> RT...
> I want the playmaker at 12 as much as anybody and
> it pains me that we might not be in position to
> do so with these other holes...


No doubt we'd have to address OT in the draft if free agnecy ended to day and the draft were tomorrow.

but just because OT would be a huge need under that scenario doesn't mean the value is there at #12.

But based on your answer I presume you would prefer to take Fluker and a different WR over Austin and an OT like Armstead or Jones.


This is why I think drafting for need ultimately dooms a franchise. You just don't get value and don't add to your foundation by drafting the best player left at your biggest need over the best player left.

Fortunately for all of us, there are 6 weeks until the draft.

We will sign an OT in that time frame which should lessen the need to scratch that itch for those who prefer to draft for the most pressing need each time our turn pops up.

he's electric, may not be there though

How can 12 be too hgh for the next Wes Welker/percy Harvin type player?

Rams or Pats will gladly take him.

jlyell13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> he's electric, may not be there though
>
> How can 12 be too hgh for the next Wes
> Welker/percy Harvin type player?
>
> Rams or Pats will gladly take him.


too bad for them they pick after us

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

There will be good OL in the second. Can't pass up a playmaker like Austin unless you feel a Woods or Swope can do the same and will be there in the second. Watch the videos. they can't. Mayock is high on Austin

Patterson might replace Wallace in Pittsburgh

Austin looks like a cross between Devin Hester and Steve Smith. I wouldn't mind taking him at 12. You don't get many opportunities to draft a guy like that. Address OT, CB, TE needs in free agency and/or in rounds 2-4. But we need a playmaker at 12.

Mike Wallace
Brain Hartline
Brandon Gibson
Tayvon Austin

we'd have a top-5 receiving corp right there.

Take a TE in the 2d, 1 OL/OG, and the rest of the draft on D and I like our chances. At a mimumum it will be very fun to watch. More so than taking a "versitile" OL at #12 (barf!)

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Wallace
> Brain Hartline
> Brandon Gibson
> Tayvon Austin
>
> we'd have a top-5 receiving corp right there.
>
> Take a TE in the 2d, 1 OL/OG, and the rest of the
> draft on D and I like our chances. At a mimumum it
> will be very fun to watch. More so than taking a
> "versitile" OL at #12 (barf!)

Exactly. We'd have an offense that would actually scare teams.

That makes every game winnable if Tannehill takes that next step in his development.

Then next off-season you finish tweaking the o line and secondary and you go into Philbins 3rd year with one of the best offenses in the sport and what should be a top 10 defense.

That's a title contender.

hopefully Ireland's moves with the LBers pan out. It's still a big risk to replace our LBs with 2 guys who have played exactly 1 good season in the nfl. If they do, then I think we are in very good shape as long as we add Austin or another WR who can scare someone

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

OL may not be sexy but its essential. And there are 4 "franchise caliber" OTs in the draft and we're definitely going to need one.

The only WR deemed to be top dog alpha (aka future numero uno certified "franchise caliber" rock catcher) is C Patterson and no way we do that with the Wallace signing.

BTW Austin is certainly exciting but I don't believe the consensus has him projected in R1 let along #12 in the entire draft. He would definitely be a reach @12 and should still be on the board with our 1st pick of R2. Some even think he'll be on the board @54 (our second 2nd rounder).

BNF, at this point I say it's 50/50 he even gets to #12. There is some serious buzz about this guy. Not a reach at 12.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

That may be. But then again the draft is always at least 50% BS based on pure rumor fabrication.

BigNastyFish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OL may not be sexy but its essential. And there
> are 4 "franchise caliber" OTs in the draft and
> we're definitely going to need one.




Joeckel, Fisher, Johnson. 3 elite LT prospects, ant one of which I'd take at #12 over Austin.

Who's the 4th?




>
> The only WR deemed to be top dog alpha (aka future
> numero uno certified "franchise caliber" rock
> catcher) is C Patterson and no way we do that with
> the Wallace signing.
>
> BTW Austin is certainly exciting but I don't
> believe the consensus has him projected in R1 let
> along #12 in the entire draft. He would definitely
> be a reach @12 and should still be on the board
> with our 1st pick of R2. Some even think he'll be
> on the board @54 (our second 2nd rounder).


Austin is a 1st round pick in every mock.

Anywhere from the pats at #31 to as high as #16.

After his combine and pro day he won't make it past Minnesota at 23/24 and will likely go in the teens.

I know he's getting a ton of hype right now and maybe he'll pop all the way up into the top 1/3 of R1 -- but that doesn't solve our fundamental issue @OL.

It's a simple. For example, check out the Lady in NE. The key to her success has been extraordinary protection -- the kind of protection that allows the Lady to polish her nails and adjust her hose as she scans the field for hot looking "receivers."

And we all know, as evidenced by the playoffs last year, the Lady is a pathetic "athlete" and folds her pink panties into a messy bundle as soon as she gets whopped-on a few times.

So what's the point? Protection is 50% or more of a legit NFL coitusbacks effectiveness and ultimate production. And we need to make sure Thill has the same kind of salon room and comfort the Lady has gotten for years and years. That has been the KEY to their overall success -- the OL has played at a consistent high level for about 10 years.

And of course our own glory years reveal the same formula. You still win up front.

Last -- yea I'm NOT EXCITED by the fact we still haven't solved the OL problem and in fact we need a critical component.

Best blocking TE in football?

really?

Fasano was errratic his entire stay here at best. He did had some good games....But very few.

BigNastyFish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know he's getting a ton of hype right now and
> maybe he'll pop all the way up into the top 1/3 of
> R1 -- but that doesn't solve our fundamental issue
> @OL.
>
> It's a simple. For example, check out the Lady in
> NE. The key to her success has been extraordinary
> protection -- the kind of protection that allows
> the Lady to polish her nails and adjust her hose
> as she scans the field for hot looking
> "receivers."
>
> And we all know, as evidenced by the playoffs last
> year, the Lady is a pathetic "athlete" and folds
> her pink panties into a messy bundle as soon as
> she gets whopped-on a few times.
>
> So what's the point? Protection is 50% or more of
> a legit NFL coitusbacks effectiveness and ultimate
> production. And we need to make sure Thill has the
> same kind of salon room and comfort the Lady has
> gotten for years and years. That has been the KEY
> to their overall success -- the OL has played at a
> consistent high level for about 10 years.
>
> And of course our own glory years reveal the same
> formula. You still win up front.
>
> Last -- yea I'm NOT EXCITED by the fact we still
> haven't solved the OL problem and in fact we need
> a critical component.


That's all well and good BNF but just taking the next best player left on the board at your biggest need is a bad way to draft. Especially if the next guy you are taking isn't any better than the guys you could get at that need position in round 2.

Nobody is saying the oline should be ignored, only that we shouldn't be so focused on that position that we pass on an impact player at another.

We can draft oline in rounds two and three and get starters in this draft.

So which scenario do you like better.

Austin and an ot at 42 like armstead, Pugh, jones or quessenberry?

Or DJ fluker (a RT) at 12 and Justin hunter/deandre Hopkins/Terrance Williams type WR at 42?

I'm not a professional NFL talent evaluator nor a trained hair stylist but I did read a magazine about the draft at the barber shop yesterday! Actually -- I love the way she does my hair with her big boobies rubbing on me like a couple of playful baby seals -- but that's another matter.

OK. Guarantee me a stud OT in R2 and you have my permission to play with Tavon after school. Just don't be late for dinner! And make damn sure you bring home that OT!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2013 07:35AM by BigNastyFish.

Thanks for reminding me that I need to go get a haircut.

No one has Tavon that high at 12, why on earth should we pick him there? As stated Patterson is the stud of the draft at WR.