View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 31st, 2014, 9:55 pm



Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Who is the better LT prospect? 

Who is the better LT prospect?
Poll ended at April 25th, 2009, 11:21 am
Eugene Monroe 50%  50%  [ 13 ]
Jason Smith 50%  50%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 26

 Who is the better LT prospect? 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
njroar wrote:
Its not just the fans, even GM's have said, picks 1-15 should help your team from day 1, if they can't they shouldn't be your pick. An Early pick that has to sit, diminishes that draft value. And with diminished value...it points to LT over QB and Curry over LT, especially Smith if they feel he can't start from the first day.

I disagree with this completely. If the pick is Stafford, he sits for a year and then turns out to be a QB like Brady or Manning or even Carson Palmer, I don't see how anyone could say the pick's value was diminished. regardless of who the pick is and whether he sits for a year or not, of he becomes a cornerstone of the team for years to come, the pick was worth it. That's the bottom line to me.


And if Stafford was widely regarded to be the next Brady, Manning or even Carson Palmer I'd say you have a point. But he's not mentioned in the same breath with those players (or shouldn't be).

Like it or not, Stafford is as much a question mark (or even more) than Joey Harrington was. Stafford's supporters talk about his "big arm" but forget about his poor completion percentage (junior year and career wise), his poor showings against superior opponents, and his overall lack of consistency.

I'd rather have a QB who can thread a needle at 30 yards, but can't throw it past 40 yards, than a guy who can throw it 70 yards but might hit the hot dog vendor rather than the open man.

IF a QB was our only outstanding need, or if we didn't have any veteran to play the position, I'd say I understand. But people are completely blowing off the existence of Culpepper. Well, he's very versed in Scott Linehans offense and he has a big arm too. His accuracy, AS AN NFL QB, is much better than Staffords, as a college QB.

And the same knock on Culpepper (doesn't read defenses well) is the SAME knock on Stafford, but at about 1/5 the price.

I think I'll stick with Culpepper and get a player we need elsewhere.


March 30th, 2009, 10:20 am
Profile
Pop Warner Vet
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 12:28 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Grand Rapids
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
IF a QB was our only outstanding need, or if we didn't have any veteran to play the position, I'd say I understand. But people are completely blowing off the existence of Culpepper. Well, he's very versed in Scott Linehans offense and he has a big arm too. His accuracy, AS AN NFL QB, is much better than Staffords, as a college QB.

And the same knock on Culpepper (doesn't read defenses well) is the SAME knock on Stafford, but at about 1/5 the price.

I think I'll stick with Culpepper and get a player we need elsewhere.


At the risk of straying off topic, I think m2k is exactly right. We have a three-time Pro Bowl veteran quarterback, at a low price tag, working under his former OC, and a full, healthy offseason with the team.

He won't be the same ex-retired, off-the-street QB we got last fall.

In probability terms, if you had to guess, are the odds that Culpepper gets his groove back under these circumstances really so much less than the odds that Matt Stafford, with all his question marks, turns into a good NFL QB? So much less that we spend the #1 overall right now on Stafford and completely blow off Culpepper?


March 30th, 2009, 11:00 am
Profile
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3119
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
njroar wrote:
Its not just the fans, even GM's have said, picks 1-15 should help your team from day 1, if they can't they shouldn't be your pick. An Early pick that has to sit, diminishes that draft value. And with diminished value...it points to LT over QB and Curry over LT, especially Smith if they feel he can't start from the first day.

I disagree with this completely. If the pick is Stafford, he sits for a year and then turns out to be a QB like Brady or Manning or even Carson Palmer, I don't see how anyone could say the pick's value was diminished. regardless of who the pick is and whether he sits for a year or not, of he becomes a cornerstone of the team for years to come, the pick was worth it. That's the bottom line to me.


And if Stafford was widely regarded to be the next Brady, Manning or even Carson Palmer I'd say you have a point. But he's not mentioned in the same breath with those players (or shouldn't be).

Like it or not, Stafford is as much a question mark (or even more) than Joey Harrington was. Stafford's supporters talk about his "big arm" but forget about his poor completion percentage (junior year and career wise), his poor showings against superior opponents, and his overall lack of consistency.

I'd rather have a QB who can thread a needle at 30 yards, but can't throw it past 40 yards, than a guy who can throw it 70 yards but might hit the hot dog vendor rather than the open man.

IF a QB was our only outstanding need, or if we didn't have any veteran to play the position, I'd say I understand. But people are completely blowing off the existence of Culpepper. Well, he's very versed in Scott Linehans offense and he has a big arm too. His accuracy, AS AN NFL QB, is much better than Staffords, as a college QB.

And the same knock on Culpepper (doesn't read defenses well) is the SAME knock on Stafford, but at about 1/5 the price.

I think I'll stick with Culpepper and get a player we need elsewhere.

I've never said that Stafford should be the pick. That wasn't my point. My point was that the talk of the pick being wasted if the players sits for a year is ridiculous. I'm not a Stafford slappy. I've said on more than one occasion that I don't know who the pick should be. I'm leaning towards wanting to see Curry, but I can't see myself being greatly upset over any of the picks. I want whoever is picked to be successful. That's it.

Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread. Back to LT talk....

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


March 30th, 2009, 11:32 am
Profile
NFL Veteran
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2004, 6:02 am
Posts: 1355
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Post 
v1ly4 wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
If we were 1 OL away from being in the Playoffs (and contending deep) , i would say Monroe since he is more ready to go now.

But since we are BUILDING a team that will take a few years to even reach the playoffs, I say you go for the guy who has the Upside. I think even right away he will be an improvement over Backus just due to his athletic ability.. and with his Upside it just makes more sense.


Plus, we still have Backus under contract. If we can't cut our starting LT this year because of the cap hit, it makes it less necessary to get an immediate fix at LT.

If Detroit doesn't go LT at #1, St. Louis should choose Monroe over Smith because Pace is gone and they need a Day 1 contributor, but Detroit oughta pick Smith over Monroe for the higher upside of the two.

Here's my question...if we pick Jason Smith, does he play LG for a year until we cut Backus? Or does Backus slide to Guard? How do you guys see that working out?


Trying to get back OT. I guess that's a camp thing. If Smith can win the LT job then Backus get's moved to guard. If he can't then Smith will do the Jonathan Ogden thing and be an apprentice at LG before moving. Finally being able to watch Jason Smith's film though, he still does look raw. The technique is not at Eugene Monroe level yet. He's getting by on his superior athleticism. Watching Monroe tape, the guy makes playing LT look effortless. I think because it comes so easy for him, people may mistake that as a lack of a mean streak. The guy just demoralizes his opponents by frustrating them with excellent technique.

But you remember Jason Smith's ascent to this point, then project it forward, and maybe he just will be that good by the time opening day starts.

_________________
Image
Lion http://www.suh93.com


March 30th, 2009, 6:23 pm
Profile WWW
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
The better LT next season would be Monroe. The better LT prospect would be Smith.

Monroe would be better to throw in the mix now. Smith will be epic in a few years, imho.


April 1st, 2009, 6:33 am
Profile
Heisman Winner

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Linden, MI
Post 
faulkn22 wrote:
The better LT next season would be Monroe. The better LT prospect would be Smith.

Monroe would be better to throw in the mix now. Smith will be epic in a few years, imho.


What makes you think Monroe is as good as he will ever get already?

_________________
OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?


April 4th, 2009, 8:00 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
I think your jumping to conclusions. I am saying that next year, Monroe will be more able to jump in and start (J. Smith can start too, I'm just betting that he won't play quite as well as Monroe). If you look around the boards, I've been saying that I think J. Smith will be something special eventually, but I don't think he has all the technique down yet. There are a number of reasons why I have this opinion.

-J. Smith has changed positions three times in his collegiate career and would obviously be behind the learning curve compared to 3 and 4 year starting OT's.

-Monroe forced Branden Albert out of his job at Virginia. That speaks volumes to his ability to start in the NFL now.

-Monroe had to practice against the 2nd overall pick for 3 seasons (Chris Long).

-J. Smith played OT in a spread offense, which means that he didn't line up in a three point stance often (most of the game tape that you can find of him, including his highlight tape, rarely ever show him in a NFL stance). He's already standing when the ball is hiked in college.

-One of Monroes abilities that people talk about most is his footwork (one of the most important things for OT's) Mike Mayock says the prototypical LT is a 300 lb ballerina, and that is laymens terms for amazing footwork and sliding skills.

-J. Smith assaults and uses his physical prowess, which dominates in college but simply doesn't always work out in the NFL. In time, he'll get more technique, but that means he isn't as battle ready now.

Now, does that mean that I would draft Monroe ahead of Smith? I don't know necessarily... I tend to value upside the most, but Detroit hasn't had those kind of picks pan out in the past, so I could understand if they decide to go with the safer choice.


April 5th, 2009, 9:49 am
Profile
Veteran General Manager
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7259
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post 
faulkn22 wrote:
The better LT next season would be Monroe. The better LT prospect would be Smith.

Monroe would be better to throw in the mix now. Smith will be epic in a few years, imho.


I agree. Monroe is a finished product. Smith has only played the position for a couple of years and still has growth potential. He can play now and get OJT.


April 8th, 2009, 11:02 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.