upgrade offense

[trueblood86]

I read today that Michael Oher was cut. Would he be a good pick up for us or is he pretty much done in the NFL? Would he even be worth picking up for depth?

[ProblChld32]

Just was asking cause the thread is about upgrading the offense and you put C so thought you were wanting to bring in a new guy or something

 

Im all for bringing in new talent at C if it can help get us an 1000 yard rusher and keep luck Upright. I just included positions i thought were "question marks". 

[theanarchist]

RG, WR, RT, HB

Edit: c

Agree. Don't really think we need to look at C tho. JMO. Contrary to popular opinion I think we need to upgrade the offense(line and HB)more than we need to upgrade the defense. Not saying that we don't need defensive players like S and DT and another pass rusher just saying that if the offense could have sustained drives we would have had a better chance of competing with NE, especially in the 2nd game.

[Jdubu]

i dont buy this.  with the exception of bradshaw who may not come back, we are not good enough at the position.

We are good enough at the position of RB to get done what we need to get done IF we had a better oline. You really have to decide what kind of a team you are going to become because you can't afford to be dominant in the running game, and the passing game and the defense, you just can't. Something has to become a compliment to your team moreso. We have obviously chosen to become a pass dominant team, no matter what Pagano says, because we picked Luck, Fleener, Allen then TY. We attempted to make the defense much better with parts of it but that didn't work out as well as planned and even though we attempted to go big with Trent, that failed as well. Strengthen the oline and it strengthens 2 places. The pass blocking gets better, the passing games gets even more dangerous, and its potent now. The run game has a chance to open up as well because the oline makes bigger holes to run through and not get hit in the backfield so often. Now it is true that a great back with speed, size and vision will upgrade the run game we have too but those backs are more rare and way more expensive. A RB that we have on this team, given an improved oline, can produce just what we need for this passing oriented offense.

 

You spend the money on Luck and his passing toys and an oline to protect, you spend on a defense that can clog up a run, get after the passer and cover receivers. Running back, you save cash there. You spent your money on Luck not the running game. If we had middle of the road QB's, you spend on the RB.

[Jdubu]

I don't think that "some point" is in the 2nd year of a rookie who showed flashes late, but was far from being "a force" like OBJ etc .., and a CFL player who has never played a down in the NFL. 

 

I didn't say spend a lot ... someone like Eddie Royal or Cecil Shorts is not going to be that expensive, and isn't going to stunt the growth of Moncrief or Carter.

 

One (or more) of Castonzo, Allen, and Fleener could possibly manage top 5 depending on how this season goes, but right now none of them are top 5 at their position. 

 

If Moncrief and Carter end up being good enough to lock down the #2 & #3 WR positions and Castonzo, Allen, and Fleener all in the top 5 at their position than I will be more than I will be more than happy to pay the WR we brought in to be a #4 and to pay those 3 top 5 money and take what ever cap implications that entails.  Because if all that happens and we have just moderately improved our OL and DL we are looking at a SB.

What kinda oney are you thinking you are going to pay that Royal or Shorts kinda guy? Again, sometimes, you have to take the leap of faith that what you have seen on your film session and watching the guys, you have players already in which you believe you can work with and not go out and spend any cap space on a middle teir wr, instead, you take all that cash and get an olineman and defensive playmakers. You can't have superstars all over the field.

 

Its a gamble either way for the GM. He spends the cash in one place and they flop and he hoped for another area to step up. We will soon see which direction the team feels they are strongest in.

[esmort]

What kinda oney are you thinking you are going to pay that Royal or Shorts kinda guy? Again, sometimes, you have to take the leap of faith that what you have seen on your film session and watching the guys, you have players already in which you believe you can work with and not go out and spend any cap space on a middle teir wr, instead, you take all that cash and get an olineman and defensive playmakers. You can't have superstars all over the field.

 

Its a gamble either way for the GM. He spends the cash in one place and they flop and he hoped for another area to step up. We will soon see which direction the team feels they are strongest in.

 

I don't know where you got this idea that getting a middle of the road WR is going to prevent us from getting what we want somewhere else; the two aren't mutually exclusive. We have plenty of cap space for a middle of the road veteran WR to hold us over a year or 2 until we can see what we have with the young guys.  I am guessing Royal will be in the ~$3 million range; probably something like 3yrs/$10 million $3 million guaranteed, and Shorts probably less. 

 

Getting a WR of this caliber for this kind of money is not going to have any impact on the other FAs we sign or the development of our young WRs ... there's nothing that says you have to "take this leap of faith" and have no plan B ... there is nothing preventing us from being smart and hedging our bets. The type of guys I am suggesting are far from "superstars".

 

 I think you are probably in the minority in thinking we don't need to do something to strengthen the WR position.

[aaron11]

We are good enough at the position of RB to get done what we need to get done IF we had a better oline. You really have to decide what kind of a team you are going to become because you can't afford to be dominant in the running game, and the passing game and the defense, you just can't. Something has to become a compliment to your team moreso. We have obviously chosen to become a pass dominant team, no matter what Pagano says, because we picked Luck, Fleener, Allen then TY. We attempted to make the defense much better with parts of it but that didn't work out as well as planned and even though we attempted to go big with Trent, that failed as well. Strengthen the oline and it strengthens 2 places. The pass blocking gets better, the passing games gets even more dangerous, and its potent now. The run game has a chance to open up as well because the oline makes bigger holes to run through and not get hit in the backfield so often. Now it is true that a great back with speed, size and vision will upgrade the run game we have too but those backs are more rare and way more expensive. A RB that we have on this team, given an improved oline, can produce just what we need for this passing oriented offense.

 

You spend the money on Luck and his passing toys and an oline to protect, you spend on a defense that can clog up a run, get after the passer and cover receivers. Running back, you save cash there. You spent your money on Luck not the running game. If we had middle of the road QB's, you spend on the RB.

the run blocking has not been that bad.  herron and bradshaw both averaged more than 4.5 ypc.  neither can hold up for a full season though.  we should look into an early round rookie.

[Jdubu]

the run blocking has not been that bad. herron and bradshaw both averaged more than 4.5 ypc. neither can hold up for a full season though. we should look into an early round rookie.

How many yards does this team get up the middle? How many 3rd and 2 did we convert running? The running we got were from outside the tackles really. Spend money on the oline, rb's are turned into superstars if they can get through the middle. Again, don't need an AP or a lynch to succeed. Would be nice to find that guy but spend our cash elsewhere. Pay the guys we have here now that have the top talent (luck, TY etc...) and look at FA to beef up the lines. No need to spend a big contract on a RB or middle road old WR (with exception of maybe REGGIE to a $3 mil for 1 yr send off perhaps) just to fill a WR gap. Draft one later, bring up a PS guy or get something in FA that has possession skills. We have enough speed, we need more Welker, Eddleman, vereen like players. Just catch the ball and get to the sticks for a first down. Everyone is in love with all these home run threat type guys. I'd rather methodically carve up teams 10 yards at a time.

[MTC]

Right guard and running back.

 

For RG, I would like to go out in FA and sign one. There are some decent options (Iupati, Boiling, Carpenter)

 

RB, I'd be upset if we go with FA (unless if its for a cheap deal like Bradshaw last year.) If we do go RB in FA, I hope it's not more than $4 million a year. 

 

Todd Gurley or Melvin Gordon round 1. That'd be awesome. 

[Jdubu]

We have to have someone who is a proven WR opposite TY no question

You say definitely. Who was the big 2 receivers on the Seahawks? What about the high profile wr's of the pats? Its a luxury, not a necessity and I stil feel we have enough to go further beefing up oline and defense

[akcolt]

You say definitely. Who was the big 2 receivers on the Seahawks? What about the high profile wr's of the pats? Its a luxury, not a necessity and I stil feel we have enough to go further beefing up oline and defense.

 

If you think we are starting the season with 3 WR's you don't know much about football. Grig's isn't going to go with a 2nd year guy and a kid who couldn't even make a PS just 2 years ago as the only help for TY that is just crazy.

 

I never said anything about  a big name WR I said we have to bring in a vet or resign one of our guys.

 

Seattle and NE both had WR's that had played in the league they weren't running rookies out there

 

The Seahawks even spent a 2nd and a 4th in last years draft on the position. I wouldn't mind either of the Hawks WR's Kearse or Baldwin not sure if they are under contract or not.  Let's not pretend they play anywhere near the same style we do. They only threw it 21 times in the Super Bowl.

 

NE had Lafell and Amendola both had proven they could play in the league Amendola lead led the league in all purpose yards in 2010 and of course Edleman 

[Jdubu]

If you think we are starting the season with 3 WR's you don't know much about football. Grig's isn't going to go with a 2nd year guy and a kid who couldn't even make a PS just 2 years ago as the only help for TY that is just crazy.

I never said anything about a big name WR I said we have to bring in a vet or resign one of our guys.

Seattle and NE both had WR's that had played in the league they weren't running rookies out there

The Seahawks even spent a 2nd and a 4th in last years draft on the position. I wouldn't mind either of the Hawks WR's Kearse or Baldwin not sure if they are under contract or not. Let's not pretend they play anywhere near the same style we do. They only threw it 21 times in the Super Bowl.

NE had Lafell and Amendola both had proven they could play in the league Amendola lead led the league in all purpose yards in 2010 and of course Edleman

Never anywhere had I said we would go with 3 wr's and yes I do think he would go with a 2nd year guy who showed some skill in his first season along with a guy who has played in a pro system, albeit the CFL, but nonetheless, he has proven he has talent. We also have 2 really nice pass catching TE's and we still have Whalen and the potential that Wayne comes back. That's all the wr's this team can field. Now if you bring in a guy comparable to Wayne and he makes between 1-2 million, I'm cool with that. Just don't see the need to bring in a guy for a lot of money or even middle road money.

So because Seattle doesn't run our system, I can't compare that teams all over the league use young or no name receivers all the time. My point on New England as well was that several of their wr's didn't exactly stand out last season (2013-2014) yet they started with them this past season anyways. It is possible to have your QB make your WR look better or overcome youth. We need to save the cash to spend on Luck, TY and at least 1 TE. Whatever is left this season, it goes towards the defense as should the top of the draft.

[Rally5]

I would be very disappointed if that was our receiving group.

 

I agree our TE's are good receiving weapons; but if we don't want to limit our options, and want to be able to call the best plays to create favorable mismatches than we need a solid proven #2 WR. Moncrief or Carter may develop into that WR eventually; maybe even by the end of this season, but I don't want to just pencil them in and assume that.

 

It doesn't have to be some big name guy, bringing in someone like Cecil Shorts, Eddie Royal, etc ... would make me much more comfortable with our WR situation, and even than I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a WR if there was a good value one at a mid to late pick.

Ugh, you'd be happy with Cecil Shorts or Eddie Royal?  Let's stick with Moncreif, Hilton, Carter, Fleener and Allen.  We got run over by New England 4 times!  Luck is under constant duress and we can't run the ball and you want an wide-out,  Yikes is my only response to this string.

[esmort]

Ugh, you'd be happy with Cecil Shorts or Eddie Royal?  Let's stick with Moncreif, Hilton, Carter, Fleener and Allen.  We got run over by New England 4 times!  Luck is under constant duress and we can't run the ball and you want an wide-out,  Yikes is my only response to this string.

 

"Yikes" did you even get the context of the conversation .... doesn't seem like it. 

 

I would be ok with bringing in one of those guys as a move the the chains type veteran receiver.  If Reggie doesn't come back you really want to go into the season with a just TY as our only experienced WR, and a 2nd year guy who has showed flashes but nothing substantial, and a guy who has never played a down in the NFL?  Yeah, that's the recipe for success. 

 

What does Luck being under duress and us getting run on have to do with have to do with a WR?  I never suggested that we address WR instead of the OL or DL, or even that it was the top priority.  Who said we had to pick one or the other? We need to address multiple positions in the off season including a veteran WR whether that is a mid level guy like Royal or a high level guy like Marshall.

[Rally5]

We are good enough at the position of RB to get done what we need to get done IF we had a better oline. You really have to decide what kind of a team you are going to become because you can't afford to be dominant in the running game, and the passing game and the defense, you just can't. Something has to become a compliment to your team moreso. We have obviously chosen to become a pass dominant team, no matter what Pagano says, because we picked Luck, Fleener, Allen then TY. We attempted to make the defense much better with parts of it but that didn't work out as well as planned and even though we attempted to go big with Trent, that failed as well. Strengthen the oline and it strengthens 2 places. The pass blocking gets better, the passing games gets even more dangerous, and its potent now. The run game has a chance to open up as well because the oline makes bigger holes to run through and not get hit in the backfield so often. Now it is true that a great back with speed, size and vision will upgrade the run game we have too but those backs are more rare and way more expensive. A RB that we have on this team, given an improved oline, can produce just what we need for this passing oriented offense.

 

You spend the money on Luck and his passing toys and an oline to protect, you spend on a defense that can clog up a run, get after the passer and cover receivers. Running back, you save cash there. You spent your money on Luck not the running game. If we had middle of the road QB's, you spend on the RB.

YES, YES and thousand times YES!