adam Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Ok, so I was thinking about our Left Tackle situation and thought I would take a look at the last five years of teams that made the Conference Championship games (20 teams) and see how many had a Pro Bowl Tackle. Out of the 20 teams, only 9 had a Pro Bowl Tackle, and one of those was an Alternate. So more than half of the teams did not have an Offensive Tackle (Left or Right) on their team that year. Going further, only 3 of 10 teams that played in the Super Bowl over the past 5 years had a Pro Bowl Tackle. This is sort of the reason why I would not go OT in the first round unless someone drops to us at 19. I think guys like Martin and Adams may be reaches and not a good value at 19. So what do you think? Here is the list: 2011 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (NYG, NE, BAL, SF-1) Joe Thomas, Cleveland Jake Long, Miami D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NYJ Ryan Clady, Denver (Alt) Jason Peters, Philly Joe Staley, San Fran Jermon Bushrod, New Orleans 2010 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (GB-1, PIT, CHI, NYJ-1) Jake Long, Miami Joe Thomas, Cleveland D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NYJ Matt Light, New England (Alt) Jason Peters, Philly Jordan Gross, Carolina Chad Clifton, Green Bay Tyson Clabo, Atlanta (Alt) Donald Penn, Tampa Bay (Alt) 2009 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (NO-1, IND, MIN-1, NYJ-1) Jake Long, Miami Ryan Clady, Denver Joe Thomas, Cleveland D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NYJ (Alt) Jason Peters, Philly Bryant McKinnie, Minnesota Jon Stinchcomb, New Orleans David Diehl, NYG (Alt) 2008 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (PIT, ARZ, BAL, PHI) Joe Thomas, Cleveland Jason Peters, Buffalo Michael Roos, Tennessee Jake Long, Miami Jordan Gross, Carolina Walter Jones, Seattle Flozell Adams, Dallas Chris Samuels, Washington Jammal Brown, New Orleans 2007 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (NYG, NE-1, GB-1, SD-1) Matt Light, New England Jason Peters, Buffalo Joe Thomas, Cleveland Jonathan Ogden, Baltimore Marcus McNeill, San Diego Flozell Adams, Dallas Walter Jones, Seattle Chris Samuels, Washington Chad Clifton, Green Bay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 We don't need a pro bowler. Just need someone of NFL starter quality. Middle of the road would be a huge upgrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Damn good argument and nice analysis. I have to agree 100%. We don't need an ELITE left tackle. But we do need a good one. Ironically, of the 3 of the top 4 2011 playoff teams you mentioned that didn't have a pro bowl LT, 2 have former pro-bowl LT's: (New England--Matt Light & Baltimore--Bryant McKinnie) The Giants LT Will Beatty was a 2nd round pick. Most of the top teams had good LT's. There's exceptions: 2010 Bears who finished with Frank Omiyale---not good. I liked John Tait. He was never a pro-bowler, but he was damn good and the Bears broke the bank to sign him. It comes down to this: Is J Webb & Carimi any damn good??? It is possible to have success with bad tackles, but it's not easy. If they're bad, we're in trouble. More importantly: How do you find a good tackle? They are extremely expensive on the market and not readily available. That's why drafting one in the first round is so enticing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 There are certain positions that you have to invest higher in than others, and OLT in probably #2 right behind QB. I don't think Martin would be a reach at 19 and would not be upset if the Bears took him. IMO, these are positions to spend 1st picks on: 5 years of draft history shows where picks were spent in the top 10. DT-10 OT-9 QB-8 DE-6 LB-6 WR-6 CB-2 Other-4 Top 10 picks in the first RD: 2011: 3 QB, 1 OT, O DE, 1 CB, 2 WR, 2 LB, 1 DT (#11-DE JJ Watt) 2010: 1 QB, 2 OT, 0 DE, 1 CB, 0 WR, 1 LB, 3 DT...1 S (#11-OT Anthony Davis) 2009: 2 QB, 3 OT, 1 DE, 0 CB, 2 WR, 1 LB, 1 DT (#11-DE Aaron Maybin) 2008: 1 QB, 1 OT, 3 DE, 0 CB, 0 WR, 2 LB, 2 DT 1 RB (#11-CB Leodis McKelvin) 2007: 1 QB, 2 OT, 2 DE, 0 CB, 2 WR, 0 LB, 1 DT 1 S, 1 RB (#11-LB Patrick Willis) With the Bears, we can throw out QB and maybe CB because this defense says it don't need expensive CB's. That leaves OT, DE, DT, WR and LB. WR and LB are not on our A list, but will be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 There are certain positions that you have to invest higher in than others, and OLT in probably #2 right behind QB. I don't think Martin would be a reach at 19 and would not be upset if the Bears took him. IMO, these are positions to spend 1st picks on: 5 years of draft history shows where picks were spent in the top 10. DT-10 OT-9 QB-8 DE-6 LB-6 WR-6 CB-2 Other-4 Top 10 picks in the first RD: 2011: 3 QB, 1 OT, O DE, 1 CB, 2 WR, 2 LB, 1 DT (#11-DE JJ Watt) 2010: 1 QB, 2 OT, 0 DE, 1 CB, 0 WR, 1 LB, 3 DT...1 S (#11-OT Anthony Davis) 2009: 2 QB, 3 OT, 1 DE, 0 CB, 2 WR, 1 LB, 1 DT (#11-DE Aaron Maybin) 2008: 1 QB, 1 OT, 3 DE, 0 CB, 0 WR, 2 LB, 2 DT 1 RB (#11-CB Leodis McKelvin) 2007: 1 QB, 2 OT, 2 DE, 0 CB, 2 WR, 0 LB, 1 DT 1 S, 1 RB (#11-LB Patrick Willis) With the Bears, we can throw out QB and maybe CB because this defense says it don't need expensive CB's. That leaves OT, DE, DT, WR and LB. WR and LB are not on our A list, but will be considered. Most of the best OTs were taken in the first round. There is exceptions to that rule, but the better players are higher picks.I would just like a Tait type of player, better than average, doesnt have to be elite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 This is very flawed research for a variety of reasons. I'll run through a few... 1. Pro Bowls are often based on notoriety more than performance 2. Pro Bowls are for the best of the best, and a great player who is stuck behind a future HOFer is destined to get very little PB consideration. You will see the same four names recycle (e.g. Long, Thomas, Clady) for several years because they are the best and get a reputation as the best (see #1) 3. Just like styles make fights in boxing, so too do offenses make OTs. A system that puts pieces in a position to succeed is more likely to produce PBers. 4. The Bears offense has stunk since forever, and attention will not be focused on it as a result 5. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of unit cohesion and productiveness. The Bears have neither. 6. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of a group that is collectively good, with a higher leaning towards early draft picks. One has to only look at the last time the Bears made it to the Super Bowl to see a perfect example. Tait (1), Brown (1), Kreutz (3), Garza (4), Miller (5). Consider that by the time Miller got to the Bears he was 9-year vet who had been kicking ass for the previous 7 years, and that's much more than a 5th rounder. Garza was an established vet on the rise; Kreutz was a pro-bowl center, Brown was a pro-bowl OG with gas in the tank, and Tait was a veteran, pro-bowl LT. 7. Smart teams continually reinvest in the OL, specifically the OT position, through the draft. The only SB team in the last five years that didn't follow this logic was IND, and we all know that's because their collection of WRs, TEs, and Peyton Manning (and his lightning-fast release) makes playing defense against them nearly impossible. 2009 - NYG coming off a SB win in 2007, they draft a 2nd round OT (Beatty) who replaces their OL weak-link (Diehl [5]) 2010 - NO wins the SB, and despite having a 2nd rounder (Stinchcomb) and a 4th rounder who would soon be a Pro Bowler (Bushrod), they draft an OT in the 2nd (Brown) 2011 - GB wins the SB, and despite having a 2nd rounder (Clifton) and a 1st rounder (Baluga), they draft another OT in the first (Sherrod) 2011 - PIT loses to GB in the SB, and looks to replace their 5th round OT (Scott) with a 2nd round OT (Gilbert) To sum it up... Do the Bears need a Pro Bowl LT to succeed? No. Do they need to consistently try to get a Pro Bowl LT, through the draft or through trade, to succeed? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Ok, so I was thinking about our Left Tackle situation and thought I would take a look at the last five years of teams that made the Conference Championship games (20 teams) and see how many had a Pro Bowl Tackle. Out of the 20 teams, only 9 had a Pro Bowl Tackle, and one of those was an Alternate. So more than half of the teams did not have an Offensive Tackle (Left or Right) on their team that year. Going further, only 3 of 10 teams that played in the Super Bowl over the past 5 years had a Pro Bowl Tackle. This is sort of the reason why I would not go OT in the first round unless someone drops to us at 19. I think guys like Martin and Adams may be reaches and not a good value at 19. So what do you think? over the last 20 years there has been three teams who won a superbowl whose LT was never in a pro-bowl or considered all-pro: 1. the 2002 tampa bucs - one and done 2. the 2008 steelers who did have a pro-bowl LT in 2005 3. the 1996 green bay packers who had a pro-bowl LT in 2010 every other superbowl winner since 1991 has had a LT who was good enough to go to a pro-bowl or considered all-pro during their careers. this does not factor in the amount of pro-bowl guards or centers either. in other words, if you want to win more than a fluke superbowl a top requirement is to keep your 'quality' quarterback healthy and his blindside clean. there is just no other way to look at it. EDIT: i found the 96 packers stat after i posted this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 6. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of a group that is collectively good, with a higher leaning towards early draft picks. One has to only look at the last time the Bears made it to the Super Bowl to see a perfect example. Tait (1), Brown (1), Kreutz (3), Garza (4), Miller (5). Consider that by the time Miller got to the Bears he was 9-year vet who had been kicking ass for the previous 7 years, and that's much more than a 5th rounder. Garza was an established vet on the rise; Kreutz was a pro-bowl center, Brown was a pro-bowl OG with gas in the tank, and Tait was a veteran, pro-bowl LT. just to set the record straight... neither tait or miller were ever in a pro-bowl that i could find. whether they were all-pro or not i am not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 just to set the record straight... neither tait or miller were ever in a pro-bowl that i could find. whether they were all-pro or not i am not sure. Tait made it in 2001 and 2006 according to his wiki page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Tait made it in 2001 and 2006 according to his wiki page. there are no pro bowls with tait in them listed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Pro_Bowl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pro_Bowl http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TaitJo20.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 This is very flawed research for a variety of reasons. I'll run through a few... 1. Pro Bowls are often based on notoriety more than performance 2. Pro Bowls are for the best of the best, and a great player who is stuck behind a future HOFer is destined to get very little PB consideration. You will see the same four names recycle (e.g. Long, Thomas, Clady) for several years because they are the best and get a reputation as the best (see #1) 3. Just like styles make fights in boxing, so too do offenses make OTs. A system that puts pieces in a position to succeed is more likely to produce PBers. 4. The Bears offense has stunk since forever, and attention will not be focused on it as a result 5. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of unit cohesion and productiveness. The Bears have neither. 6. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of a group that is collectively good, with a higher leaning towards early draft picks. One has to only look at the last time the Bears made it to the Super Bowl to see a perfect example. Tait (1), Brown (1), Kreutz (3), Garza (4), Miller (5). Consider that by the time Miller got to the Bears he was 9-year vet who had been kicking ass for the previous 7 years, and that's much more than a 5th rounder. Garza was an established vet on the rise; Kreutz was a pro-bowl center, Brown was a pro-bowl OG with gas in the tank, and Tait was a veteran, pro-bowl LT. 7. Smart teams continually reinvest in the OL, specifically the OT position, through the draft. The only SB team in the last five years that didn't follow this logic was IND, and we all know that's because their collection of WRs, TEs, and Peyton Manning (and his lightning-fast release) makes playing defense against them nearly impossible. 2009 - NYG coming off a SB win in 2007, they draft a 2nd round OT (Beatty) who replaces their OL weak-link (Diehl [5]) 2010 - NO wins the SB, and despite having a 2nd rounder (Stinchcomb) and a 4th rounder who would soon be a Pro Bowler (Bushrod), they draft an OT in the 2nd (Brown) 2011 - GB wins the SB, and despite having a 2nd rounder (Clifton) and a 1st rounder (Baluga), they draft another OT in the first (Sherrod) 2011 - PIT loses to GB in the SB, and looks to replace their 5th round OT (Scott) with a 2nd round OT (Gilbert) To sum it up... Do the Bears need a Pro Bowl LT to succeed? No. Do they need to consistently try to get a Pro Bowl LT, through the draft or through trade, to succeed? Yes. I have always agreed with you on the importance of a quality LT, so in your opinion, who is worth that draft spot at 19, and would be worth that spot in the second round? I think from our draft spot Reiff, could fall, Adams and Martin could be there. So I think all three will be LTs in the NFL and could play at a high level. I also think Glenn should be considered, but everyone is projecting him to a OG, but think the possiblity exists to play LT. In the second round I think Massey could be considered and could be groomed into a starting LT that would upgrade our team. In the 3rd round I think J. Allen could be considered and possibly be played at LT., but probably not his first year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.