Joe Staley? What is wrong with O'Call/Kazcur?

[jbb9s]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/03/23/mock.draft4.part3/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]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/03/23/mock.draft4.part3/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]

Depth,depth and more depth. I like it.

 

[jbb9s]

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]

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]

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]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/03/23/mock.draft4.part3/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]

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.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

If we could get Staley at #24 I would be all for it. Blalock, too, if we think he can play RT although most people have him as a Guard.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

If we could get Staley at #24 I would be all for it. Blalock, too, if we think he can play RT although most people have him as a Guard.

You heard it here first BF calling picks 24 and 28.

BOTH OL PICKS!

This board would have Nem like explosions by the second.

 

[italia44]

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.

Thanks for the moment of sanity,DaBruinz

Most people on this board want us to turn over our whole roster,based on the 2nd half of the AFCCG.......Yikes!,this was the "perfect storm" of
Bad Kharma,nothing more.

Injury-prone Db's and Lb's?

Broken bones,strokes,torn groins,are bad-luck injuries,not payback from the Football Gods.

Sanders and Hawkins played very well the latter part of the season,as did Ellis Hobbs.

Randall Gay is an excellent corner/nickleback,do you think BB/SP would use a 2nd-round tender on this guy,if they thought he was a JAG?

Maroney and CJ are babies,for godsake,they're just 21-22yrs old......they're just as likely to be stars for another decade......We have the best coaches in the league,give them a chance to "teach".

We don't need 10 more rookies on this roster,just a little tweaking......get Tedy back to his best position....Harrison to SS.

I don't care how many passes Stallworth,Welker et al catch,but I do know they will greatly alter the way teams deal with TB and the offense.

As presently constituted,this is the Best Patriots team of them all,underestimate them at your peril.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

You heard it here first BF calling picks 24 and 28.

BOTH OL PICKS!

LOL, that's not exactly what I was calling for But RT is one of our most upgradable starting spots in my mind. We need depth at LB. We need depth at Safety and young upside for when Rodney retires and Wilson leaves. But when everyone is healthy, our RT might be our worst starter.

 

[jbb9s]

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.

What's up with being so condenscending? Just a spirited discussion but now I feel like I need to defend myself:

1: AFCC - It exhibited one thing clearly: depth is an issue on defense. It was the biggest meltdown statistically speaking in the history of the NFL's championship games (thats 82 played). Thats an pretty objective statement. If you want to blame that on the offense, I'd say "hmm, scoring 30+ points is a pretty good offensive performance - good enough to win every other game BB has ever coached in fact".

2. MLB - wow - do you want to have a conversation about the topic of discussion or semantics.

3. Is the fact that Bruschi had a stroke make him any more likely/unlikely to return as if he had a heart attack. Address the point: Bruschi's liklehood to contribute next year is as questionable as O'callaghan.

4. Yes - they are freak injuries and YES - you can't account for them. But do you think you ever recover from a serious injury 100%? If you don't think injuries of this magnitude won't manifest themselves again down the line you are crazy. Especially with 30+ yr old players.

5. I guess we watched different games last year. Hawkins was woeful against better passing attacks. I think Le Kevin Smith could run faster to a hot dog truck than Hawkins could run down a TE running open in the secondary on turf.

 

[jbb9s]

By the way, I started this post to answer the following question:

"Is neither O'callaghan nor Kazcur a good enough to start next year?" They are young with 3 yrs experience between them. Is their upside limited?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Competition isn't a bad thing, but IMHO, the primary reason to scout Staley is to have multiple options in place at the end of round one so they can get a quality player who will help the team should someone they rank higher be selected early or trade discussions go nowhere. It's like having Troy Brown cross-train at CB during Training Camp, contingencies are easier to handle if you've preplanned your options.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/03/23/mock.draft4.part3/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?

 

[patsox23]

I think a big part of any interest in OL is that the Patriots see that as a major VALUE position dropping down the board this year - for whatever reason. If they can land a STUD OL at #24/#28 who would ordinarily go, say, top 15 most years, I wouldn't hold it against them if they chose to pick one.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

It's like having Troy Brown cross-train at CB during Training Camp, contingencies are easier to handle if you've preplanned your options.

Um getting off topic here for a second but if Troy Brown is resigned and he has to play CB because someone was "happy" was injured.

Then i motion for someone taking Gay out to the shed and pulling the trigger. No more injuries GAY!!!!!:enranged:

 

[patsox23]

I think Hawkins was EH last year, but Sanders looked to take a bit of a step in the right direction.

 

[unoriginal]

If the Patriots take Joe Staley, it won't be because they feel they can't find a decent RT out of the four options they currently have, but because they feel Staley is competition/insurance for Light on the left side.

He's got many attributes the Pats look for in a blind side tackle; former tight end, not overly tall so he can get blocks down on quick edge rushers, and he's reputedly a good run blocker to boot. Kaczur and Bubin are similar sizes, but Kaczur has always played stiff and "technical" to me, and Bubin hasn't been able to crack an NFL roster yet. Staley by accounts is a rare atheletic talent who's a bit of an X factor due to the comparaitvely low-level of competition he faced.

Since none of us are the Pats, and can't grade these prospect, I'll never be "shocked" about who the Pats take, nor can I in my right mind "disagree" with whoever they select, I trust their scouting procedures. I don't, however, trust SI's scouting and mocking procedures. I think they choose Staley and pitched him as right tackle help because they looked at Matt Light and saw he made the Pro Bowl this year, and looked at the other side and saw three different starters, and said "Hmmm, they're weak there, Belichick doesn't like any of 'em." Then they looked at the drafting history and saw two offensive lineman going as the first Pats selections (Adrian Klemm, Logan Mankins) and Matt Light, who also went high. I doubt they have any more information on the Pats' evaluations then we do.

Then again, if anyone is likely to be right using the black magic approach, its Don Banks, who lives in the area and accurately predicted the Super Bowl this year... in July.

 

[The 12th Man]

If the Patriots take Joe Staley, it won't be because they feel they can't find a decent RT out of the four options they currently have, but because they feel Staley is competition/insurance for Light on the left side.

He's got many attributes the Pats look for in a blind side tackle; former tight end, not overly tall so he can get blocks down on quick edge rushers, and he's reputedly a good run blocker to boot. Kaczur and Bubin are similar sizes, but Kaczur has always played stiff and "technical" to me, and Bubin hasn't been able to crack an NFL roster yet. Staley by accounts is a rare atheletic talent who's a bit of an X factor due to the comparaitvely low-level of competition he faced.

Since none of us are the Pats, and can't grade these prospect, I'll never be "shocked" about who the Pats take, nor can I in my right mind "disagree" with whoever they select, I trust their scouting procedures. I don't, however, trust SI's scouting and mocking procedures. I think they choose Staley and pitched him as right tackle help because they looked at Matt Light and saw he made the Pro Bowl this year, and looked at the other side and saw three different starters, and said "Hmmm, they're weak there, Belichick doesn't like any of 'em." Then they looked at the drafting history and saw two offensive lineman going as the first Pats selections (Adrian Klemm, Logan Mankins) and Matt Light, who also went high. I doubt they have any more information on the Pats' evaluations then we do.

Then again, if anyone is likely to be right using the black magic approach, its Don Banks, who lives in the area and accurately predicted the Super Bowl this year... in July.

I agree with you competely. If they do draft an OT, it would be competition for Light and possible future replacement for him since he is getting older. I do still hope they go with a S with one of the first round picks. Thing is, nobody knows what will happen on draft day, not even BB and Pioli know who they'll draft until probably minutes before it actually happens. Just depends who is on the board at the time.