Joe Staley? What is wrong with O'Call/Kazcur? - New England Patriots Forums

jbb9s · 03-25-2007, 10:24 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...rt3/index.html

They show that BB/SP are interested in OL help. My question is: does this mean neither Kazcur or O'callaghan have potential to start in the opinions of the staff? Light, Mankins and Koppen are locks, Neal is solid and was just resigned at RG. These two younger guys both have started (Kazcur in 05 when Light went down and O'callaghan this year when Kazcur was down). I know everyone was worried after that DEC Miami game when these guys were clowned and also the running game eroded week by week throughout the season, but it seams to me that Hochstein and Yates or whoever are adequate backups along with the Kazcur/O'callaghan non starter. Please tell me what I am missing! I mean, did the OL give up 30+ 2nd half point in the last game of the season?

***DaBruinz*** · 03-25-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbb9s

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...rt3/index.html

They show that BB/SP are interested in OL help. My question is: does this mean neither Kazcur or O'callaghan have potential to start in the opinions of the staff? Light, Mankins and Koppen are locks, Neal is solid and was just resigned at RG. These two younger guys both have started (Kazcur in 05 when Light went down and O'callahan this year when Kazcur was down). I know everyone was worried after that DEC Miami game when these guys were clowned and also the running game eroded week by week throughout the season, but it seams to me that Hochstein and Britt or whoever are adequate backups along with the Kazcur/O'callaghan non starter. Please tell me what I am missing! I mean, did the OL give up 30 2nd half point in the last game of the season?

What you are ignoring is that the Offense couldn't stay on the field. Because the offense couldn't stay on the field, the defense got tired. Do you understand now?

Now, that being said, the O-line wasn't the ONLY reason. They were just one of many as to why the offense failed. Having Dillon and Faulk get injured and Maroney not be fully recovered didn't help.

Now, the OTHER thing you are missing is that O'Callaghan has a history of injuries. Concussions to be precise. There is no guarantee that he will be back or, if he is back, that he won't win back his starting job.

Patriot Missile · 03-25-2007, 10:30 PM

Depth,depth and more depth. I like it.

jbb9s · 03-25-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

What you are ignoring is that the Offense couldn't stay on the field. Because the offense couldn't stay on the field, the defense got tired. Do you understand now?

Now, that being said, the O-line wasn't the ONLY reason. They were just one of many as to why the offense failed. Having Dillon and Faulk get injured and Maroney not be fully recovered didn't help.

Now, the OTHER thing you are missing is that O'Callaghan has a history of injuries. Concussions to be precise. There is no guarantee that he will be back or, if he is back, that he won't win back his starting job.

The AFCC debate is one of those chicken or egg debates. Lets not go there...

And our starting MLB had a heart attack 2 yrs ago. There is no guarantee he will be back.

And our starting safeties have missed 3/4ths of the last two season combined. There is no guarantee either one of them can stay on the field.

***DaBruinz*** · 03-25-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbb9s

The AFCC debate is one of those chicken or egg debates. Lets not go there...

And our starting MLB had a heart attack 2 yrs ago. There is no guarantee he will be back.

And our starting safeties have missed 3/4ths of the last two season combined. There is no guarantee either one of them can stay on the field.

1st off, I did go there and its a perfectly VALID argument.

2ndly, We don't have a starting MLB. We have 2 starting ILBs.

3rdly, Bruschi didn't have a heart attack. He had a stroke.

4th, Our 2 starting safeties are Eugene Wilson and Rodney Harrison. They've been hit with catastrophic injuries that you can't plan for. They were freak accidents.

5th, Sanders and Hawkins showed they were more than capable as starters. The issue was with the LBs not being able to cover the Colts TEs because they were exhausted.

SeanBruschi54 · 03-25-2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

1st off, I did go there and its a perfectly VALID argument.

2ndly, We don't have a starting MLB. We have 2 starting ILBs.

3rdly, Bruschi didn't have a heart attack. He had a stroke.

4th, Our 2 starting safeties are Eugene Wilson and Rodney Harrison. They've been hit with catastrophic injuries that you can't plan for. They were freak accidents.

5th, Sanders and Hawkins showed they were more than capable as starters. The issue was with the LBs not being able to cover the Colts TEs because they were exhausted.

***BZZZZT***

Hawkins and Sanders last year were servicable. Nothing great at all.

Hawkins lack of speed forced LB's to cover the slot reciever while Sanders was dropping back playing zone in case of deep outs to Harrison or Wayne.

There was a perfect video showing this online a while ago.

Crazy Patriot Guy · 03-25-2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbb9s

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...rt3/index.html

They show that BB/SP are interested in OL help. My question is: does this mean neither Kazcur or O'callaghan have potential to start in the opinions of the staff? Light, Mankins and Koppen are locks, Neal is solid and was just resigned at RG. These two younger guys both have started (Kazcur in 05 when Light went down and O'callaghan this year when Kazcur was down). I know everyone was worried after that DEC Miami game when these guys were clowned and also the running game eroded week by week throughout the season, but it seams to me that Hochstein and Yates or whoever are adequate backups along with the Kazcur/O'callaghan non starter. Please tell me what I am missing! I mean, did the OL give up 30+ 2nd half point in the last game of the season?

You can never be too good at a position. The OL could be a whole lot worse but it certainly could be a whole lot better as well. Kaczur and O'Callaghan are both playing under small money rookie contracts. We aren't under any financial obligation to keep them and play them, such as the Texans having no choice but to cut Carr after the Schaub trade.

If an OL is at the top of their value chart when we're on the clock, they'll pick him up. There's nothing wrong with that. I think too often people look at our most glaring need and assume that the draft has to be focused on that first or we've made a mistake. If the Patriots had focused on biggest need first rather than best player available these past years, we wouldn't have near the team we have right now.

***mgteich*** · 03-25-2007, 11:02 PM

In other posts, I have identified Britt and Mills as the most vulnerable offensive players. I was corrected with regard to OT. Any of the OT's could be upgraded depending on health and performance. However, there really is only one potential opening at OT.

We have three OT's who have been injured in the last two years, and a fourth OT who started one game in 2007. The fifth is from the Practice Squad. How how serious is O'Callaghan's injury? I don't know. I do know that he has had a history of concussions.

Would I feel better with Staley drafted and we brought six OT's into camp? Would this improve the team or not? My answers are yes, and yes. Where's the mystery? Certainly, we can't take OT's off our draft board.

Light, Kaycur, O'Callaghan, Staley, Britt, Bubin

===================================

We are so sure that we "should" draft a S, ILB and CB on Day One. Would we say the same if we signed Samuel long-term, and also signed Gay, Mickens, Hartwell and Seau? Would we say the same if we traded down and had four Day One picks? If we make these free agent signings (or similar) wouldn't OT become an interest on Day One? I would think so.