PATRIOTSFANINPA

With all the talk that we should have taken Dez and that he will be a star for Dallas will mean that Dallas's old OL better give Romo time to find him or it won't matter how much talent he has.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PATRIOTSFANINPA

There are some here that want LeVoir in Kaczur's spot...I don't know about that.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

KontradictioN

That's why I said it was a nitpick. This year, he doesn't look to be penciled in as a starter at RT and I don't expect him to be. The fact that he was pulled at the end of the season last year in favor of an extremely raw rookie who, a lot of times, required help from a TE speaks volumes about what BB and Dante thought of Kaczur. Neal leaving the line-up exposed his weaknesses just as much as they exposed Connolly's. The only difference is that Connolly was supposed to be a back-up (and we knew as much) while Kaczur was supposed to be a starter. I also find it funny that the only defense that anybody can come up with for him is that he signed an extension. WOW, what an Earth shattering defense! IMO, getting pulled from the starting line-up in favor of said rookie says more than signing an extension. Me? I sincerely hope that Kaczur is not the starter at RT in 2011. I like him as a back-up, though...

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


CREDIT - Sicilian

BelichickFan

I've never liked him that much, even when he was "ok" as a rookie that was just ok in the sense that he didn't totally suck, he wasn't actually good. Still, we've never had a great OL, just a decent, effective one. If Ohrnberger looks decent in camp this year, who knows but I guess they must have liked him for a reason, then a line going forward of Vollmer, Mankins, Koppen, Ohrnberger, Kaczur isn't wholly worse than what we've had over time. We may need a Guard where I have O penciled in.

rodentstew

If NE transitions to a more balanced offensive attack, the OL will be fine regardless of age. When you throw the ball 35 times a game, they'd better be able to hold their blocks and handle good edge rushers. Haven't we learned that by watching the difference between the Pats in the early 2000's vs 2007? A ball control offense makes an average OL good because their weaknesses aren't as exposed. ALL OL make a point that they enjoy run blocking more than pass blocking... that speaks volumes.

The drafting of two TEs gives me hope that we'll see a more consistent use of the run game and play action. Please!

OLine is fine. More rush attempts + more play action + short to intermediate passing attack = Brady protected + fresher defense. If my memory doesn't fail me, it also meant three SB victories.

Sciz

What I love about Kaczur is that he can backup RT, LT, and presumably RG. I don't want him starting, but he's an ideal #3 OT.

As for the OL as a whole, we've seen a big chance at LB and DB, so it's probably time to go back to the lines in next year's draft. As much as everyone wants a WR, I'm guessing those 2 firsts will be used on a DE and a OG.

BelichickFan

The stud WR is nice but for young "receivers" we have Tate, Price, Edelman, Welker (still young enough to be part of the plan going forward), Hernandez and Gronkowski. Unless the young guys really bomb out I don't see a top 15 pick being used on a WR.

RayClay

Kaczur has mostly avoided the wear and tear of blocking pass rushers, so he's fresh.

__________________

spacecrime

So we need to get rid of our starting line and find guys who are a year younger at each position?

I find it hard to get worked up over the fact that the average OLine is a year younger than ours, particularly if that average is low because they are starting rookies.

But I guess when the sky refuses to fall year after year, desperation sets in and you'll take anything you can.

Either we are starting unproven youngsters who have proven nothing and we desperately need veteran players, or we are too old and need to get younger.

Anyway, shouldn't the goal be to be the best at what you do, not the youngest?

__________________
“When we look at the board, based on everything we want in a football player at that particular time, we evaluate them and take the player that fits best for our football team. That’s what we always do, and I think the last nine years we’ve put a pretty competitive team out there on the field every year. I think that’s how you do it – you get good football players. Sometimes they are not always at the No. 1 position, but I don’t think you pass up good football players to get the guys who aren’t as good just because they’re at a position that somebody feels you need.”
BB on his draft philosophy, April 2010

patsinthesnow

I agree with the goal being the best over age. Our O-Line is good, but not what other fanbases thing it's amazing.

However, we aren't the best at what we could be at RB.