Has Saldiveri fallen down the depth chart? (1 Viewer)

[DSnfla]

I just don't recall a lot of guys that failed when we moved them to a new position. Penning is actually better at RT than he was at LT and Fuaga looks very good at LT. Ruiz hasn't been good, but I don't think he would have been better at Center. And the jury is still out on Saldiveri who just can't stay healthy enough to practice in order to develop to the point that the might be able to play.

On the other hand you have Evans and Nicks who were huge successes.

Who am I missing that failed after a position move?

If the point is that Ruiz and Penning were reaches and they need to do a better job building the OL and drafting in general, then I don't disagree with you, but I don't the failure to have a better OL has anything to do with moving players to a new position and, as I said, Penning actually looks better at RT. Even Young who was drafted as and played RT actually has looked better at Guard.

Penning was not a reach he was drafted pretty much where all the experts said he would be

 

[St. Widge]

You should never take any position just to take players at that position

Sure, but you can look at the draft, find a round where there should be good talent on the OL at a good price and then take the best of the bunch when the grade meets the picks. It might not work out in every draft that you take a guy because it's good value but it can work without having to reach for anyone.

 

[St. Widge]

Penning was not a reach he was drafted pretty much where all the experts said he would be

I agree, but just because the "draft experts" agreed that was his range, doesn't mean they were right. As you said, he was never going to be ready to start in year one and likely wasn't going to be ready to start in year two. To me, you don't take a guy that high in the draft that might not be ready to start for two years. So to me that was a reach and a mistake for a team that needed an immediate starter at LT.

 

[DSnfla]

I agree, but just because the "draft experts" agreed that was his range, doesn't mean they were right. As you said, he was never going to be ready to start in year one and likely wasn't going to be ready to start in year two. To me, you don't take a guy that high in the draft that might not be ready to start for two years. So to me that was a reach and a mistake for a team that needed an immediate starter at LT.

If TP had not gotten hurt in his rookie yr and gotten in the work I had him starting in the latter part of that yr. But Marone was OL coach so there's that

 

[Elvis]

NO WHERE was Penning projected to be an immediate starter @ LT , We all knew he needed some work, especially in pass-pro. Peat was not salvaged @ LG, he played there so we could get the 5 best OL on the field

Is that so? I think you have some revisionist history going. Who was going to start at LT after Armstead left for Miami, if not our shiny new 1st round pick Penning? And Peat was drafted to take Zach Strief's spot at RT and they had a camp battle that he lost because he couldn't play the right side.

 

[Saint KayBee]

The team took chances with mid/late round OL for the better part of two decades. You had successes - Evans, Bushrod, Nicks - and guys who didn’t pan out (Andy Alleman, Marcel Jones, dare I say Charles Brown as an R2 choice). The front office has always tried, though. I can’t recall an extended stretch of thinking they haven’t, even when I wanted to throw either myself at my TV or my TV at my balcony window when they selected Rick Leonard in the fourth round.

Last year’s opening-day starters on OL were four first-rounders and his draft class’ highest-rated center, taken in the second round. That kind of investment is supposed to suggest positional security and not have a team in crisis mode just one season later - investing another first-round pick on OL - but here we are, due to injuries and expiring contracts the team wouldn’t renew.

There is also the issue of scheme. What are the coaches asking these o-linemen to do? Does it match well with their skills? Does further tailoring to their skills need to happen to help the other six position players do well? Last year the answer seemed to be yes and no at times. Stopgap players Max Garcia and Cam Erving performed well enough to help salvage what’d eventually be a lost season, but neither veteran was asked back and both are free agents north of 30 today.

With that in mind, perhaps the hope is that one of Kyle Hergel or Shane Lemieux can come up from the practice squad and give the Saints a boost along the OL, with the benefit of the week to prepare for life without McCoy.

 

[solarbear88]

You should never take any position just to take players at that position

How many 6'6" 320lb guys who can move and Squat 6 plates are walking the earth? I haven't seen one walking around in ages.

Offensive Line takes 3 years to learn the techniques and get strong enough. It makes it kind of unique in that if there is a body that can play in the NFL, particuarly tackle, sitting there you might want to take it as you need 5 of them and back ups and guys in development.

And it might be better to have a couple of decent tackles you are grooming sitting there rather than pay a proven guy $35m on a second contract. Unless a guy is an AllPro it might be good to have 3 or 4 servicable tackles in the system.

Otherwise you end up overpaying or praying a Rookie works out to fix your line.

Lots of linemen playing on Sunday from last year's draft that could have helped us a lot more than Foskey or Miller.