Difference Between RT & LT and What's Best For The OL in 2008

[Rob0729]

I think Light is a top 5-10 LT in this league. People who think Light sucks need to really watch other teams' games and see what other teams are putting up with for LTs. I bet the Jets would behind closed doors gladly trade D'Brickishaw Ferguson for Light. Parcells might trade his entire o-line for Light.

Also, there has been few great LTs taken in the draft particularly high in the first round over the last decade. The 1990s was a great decade for franchise LTs. This decade has been crap. Most of the tackles taken in the first round over the last decade who have been successful ended up at either a guard position or RT. Many of the top 10 LT picks have been outright busts even a guy like Robert Gallery who was touted to be as dominant as Orlando Pace or Water Jones when he came out.

Sorry, but I think we are fine at LT. Light isn't the best out there, but he is better than most LTs. I think we need to upgrade our RT, but not early in the draft. Maybe in the third round.

People really need to put themselves in other teams shoes. The Bills took a decade to find a good LT. The Dolphins have been looking for a LT since Richmond Webb. The Jets look like they will be looking for another LT pretty soon since Ferguson doesn't look like the answer. And that is just our division.

I guess this is a case of the grass is always greener... But there are few dominant LTs in this league and it is littered with a lot of mediocre to average LTs. We are lucky to have an above average one.

 

[PatsFan37]

Unoriginal,
If what you say is true, and I'm not certainly qualified to say it isn't, then does the RT have the tougher job? Typically, a college team's best tackle plays LT. The best tackle will play in the NFL. It makes sense that most NFL RTs were college LTs.

So here are guys who had to re-learn their footwork AND have to face switch-hitting DEs and rush LBs, like Jason Taylor and Merriman, who frequently line up on either side.

It almost makes the RT a tougher position to draft. The guy has to learn new footwork, be the road-grader in the strong-side run, and have the quick feet to handle the leading pass rusher who might switch sides to face him in obvious passing situations.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think Light is a top 5-10 LT in this league. People who think Light sucks need to really watch other teams' games and see what other teams are putting up with for LTs. I bet the Jets would behind closed doors gladly trade D'Brickishaw Ferguson for Light. Parcells might trade his entire o-line for Light.

Also, there has been few great LTs taken in the draft particularly high in the first round over the last decade. The 1990s was a great decade for franchise LTs. This decade has been crap. Most of the tackles taken in the first round over the last decade who have been successful ended up at either a guard position or RT. Many of the top 10 LT picks have been outright busts even a guy like Robert Gallery who was touted to be as dominant as Orlando Pace or Water Jones when he came out.

Sorry, but I think we are fine at LT. Light isn't the best out there, but he is better than most LTs. I think we need to upgrade our RT, but not early in the draft. Maybe in the third round.

People really need to put themselves in other teams shoes. The Bills took a decade to find a good LT. The Dolphins have been looking for a LT since Richmond Webb. The Jets look like they will be looking for another LT pretty soon since Ferguson doesn't look like the answer. And that is just our division.

I guess this is a case of the grass is always greener... But there are few dominant LTs in this league and it is littered with a lot of mediocre to average LTs. We are lucky to have an above average one.

Light's more than fine. However, this is a rare opportunity (of late) for this team to get a top 10 pick, and there's not a lot of top 10 talent available this year. Most people don't think that there's a top 10 type cornerback available, and there are only 1-2 top 10 types at linebacker (and none at ILB). That means that New England will be picking from a pool of players that either don't fit an immediate need or are 'reaches'.

Given that this is being looked at as an excellent tackle draft and there hasn't been one of those in a long time, that's where I'd prefer they focus. After all, because of Goodell, the team won't be drafting again until the bottom of the second round, and that list of tackles will have been well picked by then.

No doubt, Goodell's action in taking that pick has significantly altered the approach that New England will take in this draft, because that second pick in the first round is gone and the "we can draft one of those a little later" option is gone with it.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, the footwork is different on the right side. A college LT is more likely to become a LG than anything else in the pros, more likely than a LT or a RT.

Getting back to the OP's question:

...
This leads to a left tackle bias on the pro level because to switch sides, a college left tackle turned right tackle has to relearn all their footwork. While NFL offenses do their best to eliminate bias to confuse the defense, for this reason you still have a significant difference between right and left tackle on the pro level; along with the previously stated reason that most quarterbacks are still right-handed and the left side is the blind side where the best down rusher is.

Thus, left tackles on all levels are valued for their pass blocking abilities; long arms, agility, balance, speed, etc. Right tackles tend to be like the rest of the line, powerful inline blockers with strong leg drive. Those requirements change quite a bit depending on if you're primarily a passing or running offense.

 

[Rob0729]

Light's more than fine. However, this is a rare opportunity (of late) for this team to get a top 10 pick, and there's not a lot of top 10 talent available this year. Most people don't think that there's a top 10 type cornerback available, and there are only 1-2 top 10 types at linebacker (and none at ILB). That means that New England will be picking from a pool of players that either don't fit an immediate need or are 'reaches'.

Given that this is being looked at as an excellent tackle draft and there hasn't been one of those in a long time, that's where I'd prefer they focus. After all, because of Goodell, the team won't be drafting again until the bottom of the second round, and that list of tackles will have been well picked by then.

No doubt, Goodell's action in taking that pick has significantly altered the approach that New England will take in this draft, because that second pick in the first round is gone and the "we can draft one of those a little later" option is gone with it.

Firstly, I am always weary of what people say about the the draft. Every year you hear it is a great year for one position over another and the final outcome isn't always right. I remember the 1999 draft being compared to the 1982 draft in terms of QBs. Except the 1982 draft produced three HOFers and the 1999 draft produced none with McNabb being the closest chance and still a long shot at best. Other than him and Daunte Culpepper, it was a mediocre year for QBs. 2003 was supposed to be a great year for DTs. But of the 4 DTs taken in the top 15, two were outright bust (Johnathon Sullivan and Jimmy Kennedy), one was major disapointment (Dewayne Robertson), and only Ty Warren was worth his draft position. 2002 was supposed to be a great year for OTs, but of the first round picks only Levi Jones was considered above average with Bryant McKinnie being average, Mike Williams an outright bust, and Marco Columbo with an up and down career.

Secondly, I think based on recent history that odds you are not going to get a great LT in the first round. Drafting at seven, I do not want a RT or guard. I want an impact potentially franchise player who could even compete for ROY. That's my preference and Belichick and Pioli may disagree with me.

Thirdly, I think the o-line is the easiest position to find solid starters in later parts of the draft. Koppen was a fifth rounder. Neal wasn't drafted. Light was the middle of the second round. Stacy Andrews who was franchised this year was a fourth round pick. The best LT in the division and one of the best in the league wasn't even drafted (Jason Peters in Buffalo).

 

[Deus Irae]

Firstly, I am always weary of what people say about the the draft. Every year you hear it is a great year for one position over another and the final outcome isn't always right. I remember the 1999 draft being compared to the 1982 draft in terms of QBs. Except the 1982 draft produced three HOFers and the 1999 draft produced none with McNabb being the closest chance and still a long shot at best. Other than him and Daunte Culpepper, it was a mediocre year for QBs. 2003 was supposed to be a great year for DTs. But of the 4 DTs taken in the top 15, two were outright bust (Johnathon Sullivan and Jimmy Kennedy), one was major disapointment (Dewayne Robertson), and only Ty Warren was worth his draft position. 2002 was supposed to be a great year for OTs, but of the first round picks only Levi Jones was considered above average with Bryant McKinnie being average, Mike Williams an outright bust, and Marco Columbo with an up and down career.

A failure to successfully transition from college to the NFL ≠ lack of talent.

Secondly, I think based on recent history that odds you are not going to get a great LT in the first round. Drafting at seven, I do not want a RT or guard. I want an impact potentially franchise player who could even compete for ROY. That's my preference and Belichick and Pioli may disagree with me.

In New England this year, the only positions with open competition for a starting job are ILB, RT and CB. Now, if McFadden falls to #7, he might get a real shot at starting because of the quirk of being a running back, with their "he can or he can't" aspect that shows itself so often, but that's pretty much it. There are no ILBs going in the top 10, and none of the CB prospects are considered top 10 talents at last check.

Thirdly, I think the o-line is the easiest position to find solid starters in later parts of the draft. Koppen was a fifth rounder. Neal wasn't drafted. Light was the middle of the second round. Stacy Andrews who was franchised this year was a fourth round pick. The best LT in the division and one of the best in the league wasn't even drafted (Jason Peters in Buffalo).

Samuel was a 4th round pick, Gay was undrafted, Ellis Hobbs was a 3rd rounder. Heck, the player considered to be the best CB in the league this past season, Al Harris, was a 6th round pick.

 

[Joker]

so what do you think...trade down in the first for more picks and take a corner in the late teens or twenties?

 

[Deus Irae]

so what do you think...trade down in the first for more picks and take a corner in the late teens or twenties?

Ok, first let's get the disclaimer: Belioli know what they are doing and have scouted all this out while I haven't, so I'm just tossing things against a wall to see what sticks. Now, having said that, and still preferring to take a top 10 OT if one is available, here's my 'perfect' trade down scenario:

McFadden drops to #7. Dallas calls up and agrees to swap #22 and #28 for #7 (there might be more to the deal, but that's enough for this topic).

At #22, New England takes one of the remaining tackles, assuming NE grades one of the remaining prospects as a first rounder. Then, at #28, NE grabs a cornerback. That leaves a second and 2 thirds still remaining in top picks, and they could be used for CB/LB picks or rolled over to the next season.

 

[Rob0729]

A failure to successfully transition from college to the NFL ≠ lack of talent.

In the same respect, a lot of good or great college talent doesn't mean a position is really that deep at the position for NFL caliber talent.

In New England this year, the only positions with open competition for a starting job are ILB, RT and CB. Now, if McFadden falls to #7, he might get a real shot at starting because of the quirk of being a running back, with their "he can or he can't" aspect that shows itself so often, but that's pretty much it. There are no ILBs going in the top 10, and none of the CB prospects are considered top 10 talents at last check.

We have more flexibility to move players around on defense. Say we draft a Vernon Gholston, we can always move Vrabel and Thomas inside at least on certain plays. We could certainly get an OLB to start if he comes in and picks up the system quickly. Vrabel and Thomas have proven they can both be productive inside.

As for where players are ranked, there are several CBs on the outskirts of the top 10. The Pats have shown that they do not use the same rankings as most of the mocks and publications. Many of their better picks were considered reaches including Seymour, Warren, and Mankins.

Samuel was a 4th round pick, Gay was undrafted, Ellis Hobbs was a 3rd rounder. Heck, the player considered to be the best CB in the league this past season, Al Harris, was a 6th round pick.

Not saying there are other positions that you can't find top talent later in the draft. I am saying that o-line is one of the easiest positions to find top talent later in the draft.

But I think most of our biggest needs are on the defensive side of the ball. Our offense broke records last year and our offense was decent and we could be without Seau, Bruschi, and Samuel. That's why I don't think we should draft an OT at 7.

Personally, I would want us to make a strong effort to trade down anyway. Unless Belichick and Pioli sees someone at seven that they feel that they absolutely love and feel they must have, I think drafting that high is a waste. Drafting an OT because it is a deep position, doesn't excite me. Drafting an OT because Belichick and Pioli think that they absolutely need to draft the guy, might.

 

[unoriginal]

Unoriginal,
If what you say is true, and I'm not certainly qualified to say it isn't, then does the RT have the tougher job? Typically, a college team's best tackle plays LT. The best tackle will play in the NFL. It makes sense that most NFL RTs were college LTs.

So here are guys who had to re-learn their footwork AND have to face switch-hitting DEs and rush LBs, like Jason Taylor and Merriman, who frequently line up on either side.

It almost makes the RT a tougher position to draft. The guy has to learn new footwork, be the road-grader in the strong-side run, and have the quick feet to handle the leading pass rusher who might switch sides to face him in obvious passing situations.

I think, because the NFL is a passing league, and QBs are usually right-handed, the LT has the tougher job. Although to your point, I'd bet there were fewer rookie starting right tackles in this league than rookie starting left tackles. They need a year or two to mirror all their movements from one side to the other.

But it just ends up being less physically demanding on the strong side versus the blind side.

That doesn't mean the Pats won't take a tackle at #7 to replace Kaczur, as the Pats usually sit their rookies for at least half the first year anyways. If they get a wower there they'll likely take him.

 

[mgteich]

Let's be real. Most of us would be ecstatic if RT Jake Long were drafted by the patriots at #7.

I think, because the NFL is a passing league, and QBs are usually right-handed, the LT has the tougher job. Although to your point, I'd bet there were fewer rookie starting right tackles in this league than rookie starting left tackles. They need a year or two to mirror all their movements from one side to the other.

But it just ends up being less physically demanding on the strong side versus the blind side.

That doesn't mean the Pats won't take a tackle at #7 to replace Kaczur, as the Pats usually sit their rookies for at least half the first year anyways. If they get a wower there they'll likely take him.

 

[unoriginal]

Let's be real. Most of us would be ecstatic if RT Jake Long were drafted by the patriots at #7.

Absolutely. If you follow the Big Men First theory of drafting, RT seems like the spot you'd target with the #7.

Just depends if the Pats end up finding value there when they come to pick.

 

[Deus Irae]

Let's be real. Most of us would be ecstatic if RT Jake Long were drafted by the patriots at #7.

Absolutely. If you follow the Big Men First theory of drafting, RT seems like the spot you'd target with the #7.

Just depends if the Pats end up finding value there when they come to pick.

I would think that if either of the Longs being looked at in the first round were available at #7, there would be people doing cartwheels in the Patriots' war room.