Whats with people talking about drafting a Guard at 10? and other draft musings. (kinda long) (1 Viewer)

[rstrauss33]

There's some talk as others have said that Albert could play LT This is one guy that's really surging. I know he doesn't know everything but Kiper said in his chat yesterday that Albert WILL be a top 10 pick and some have him at LT ahead of Clady. How's that for shocking?

 

[Guitarzan]

LT

I'm thinking if Clady is there at #10 he would probably be the highest rated player left .

 

[Domeination]

Ok, here's my belief: When in doubt, look to the tranches. You can never have too many good linemen and that's where the battles are fought on every play. No team is stacked all along the lines, us included. We have needs at DT, RT and we could even fill another spot at OG, opposite Evans. However, a guard at 10 is probably too high, but Branden Albert is no ordinary guard: at 6'7, he's more suited to play OT. That being said, I've been saying for a while that Jeff Otah would make a lot of sense at 10. He's a big, mauling RT who would open up gaping holes in the running game. Reggie would have a field day running behind him. Face it: Stinch sucks and if Strief was going to overtake him, he would have done it last year. Ditch Stinch and keep Strief in for relief duty, draft Otah. If DRC is gone, as well as the usual suspects that will go long before we pick, Otah would be my choice.

We could actually use a top-flight tackle b/c of JB's knees and b/c Stinchcomb is mediocre. I would rather we take a bonafide early-first round tackle than reach for a LB at #10. If we can't trade down in the round, that might be the way to go.

 

[guillermo]

I have been talking about Albert for some time now, so here's my reasoning:

Last week I think, I started a thread about the chances of the saints willing to trade down. I think that teams between 12 and 16 may all have the same needs and one may be willing to jump. Ditto with the cowboys.

I think that there is no real jump in the talent between the first and 5th corner taken, there is also good depth at the linebacker position, and after Dorsey and Ellis are gone, it will take time for the next tackle to be selected. These are the saints needs, so jumping down is not a bad idea.

Like most around here, I think we need to go defense, early and often. However I was thinking if there was a player on offense that would not anger me if the saints take him an it is Branden Albert.

I think Albert will be a pro-bowler for years to come, can start from day one and will give us one of the best interior lines in the league. I think he can have the same impact as Steve Hutchinson, I think he is the player that can improve the most our running game, even more then Mendenhall or Otah who is a right tackle. You want to get a better production from Deuce, Reggie and Thomas, then pick Albert.

Contrary to most, I will keep Albert at left guard, he is so good to experiment with him at tackle. Otah will be a good player but I think Strief is ready to challenge Stinchcomb for the startig position there. I have a lot of faith in Brown, so no need for Williams and Clady who are natural left tackles.

As of last week, there has been talk of Albert being now a top ten selection. I wanted to draft him if we were able to trade down to grab more picks, meaning getting two defensive players plus Albert in the first two rounds. Now, seems it won't happen.

I still beleive defense is the way to go, but I will be happy if the saints decide that Albert is their man at #10. I think Albert is as good as his position as Dorsey and Ellis are on theirs. The only difference is that you pick your defensive tackles early and your guards late.

 

[Guitarzan]

I thought it was common knowledge that LBers were NOT a deep position in this draft.

My point is there is some speculation that if Rivers is there at #10 we might take him, and that probably would represent a #10 pick with a late teens grade.

 

[rstrauss33]

I still beleive defense is the way to go, but I will be happy if the saints decide that Albert is their man at #10. I think Albert is as good as his position as Dorsey and Ellis are on theirs. The only difference is that you pick your defensive tackles early and your guards late.

Man number 10 is really high for a guard as you point out. We could certainly pick him up as a guard and groom him as a tackle (a position he still needs to learn.) I'm not sure if the value is there if the goal is to use him a guard but if we think he could play tackle, we could do that.

I don't know enough about Albert yet to make a call on this. In general, I'd rather pick the blue chip o-line or dt prospect than the risky CB high in the draft (especially this one where there are 4 cbs which are pretty close.) Rivers seems like he may be a little bit of a reach.

I'm all for BPA- if it's Albert, so be it.

 

[guillermo]

Man number 10 is really high for a guard as you point out. We could certainly pick him up as a guard and groom him as a tackle (a position he still needs to learn.) I'm not sure if the value is there if the goal is to use him a guard but if we think he could play tackle, we could do that.

I know this is a moot question, but wouldn't you pick a guy like Hutchinson or Faneca with the 10th pick just because he is a guard?

Common knowledge would say no, but production will say yes.

BTW, Chitownsaint, I am being an hypocrit posting this question, after my comments yesterday on using players who are not part on this draft as an example. Mea culpa.

 

[demented]

Honestly, I don't think the Saints D is as bad as it's made out to be. We got mauled early and often because the O sputtered do to lack of early game run blocking. We had a top 15 defense in 2006 with the same players. With the addition of Vilma and Morgan, we can concentrate on stopping the run with the front 7 and making the safeties sit back in coverage. If we can make a good DT pick up, I think we will see a top 15 D at least this year.

 

[rstrauss33]

I know this is a moot question, but wouldn't you pick a guy like Hutchinson or Faneca with the 10th pick just because he is a guard?

Common knowledge would say no, but production will say yes.

BTW, Chitownsaint, I am being an hypocrit posting this question, after my comments yesterday on using players who are not part on this draft as an example. Mea culpa.

If we think he's as good a prospect as those guys sure pull the trigger. I just think we better have a lot of conviction in him to pick him at 10 as a guard.

 

[NJDevilSaints]

If Albert's the pick I will be disappointed but not upset.

Disappointed because I think everyone here is expecting a "defensive playmaker." We want to see 5 INT, 15 sacks, 100+ tackles as well as highlight films, and you don't get any of that with a guard. So disappointed sure.

But not upset, because reality is offensive lines win and lose games. The Pats line lost them the Super Bowl. People credit the Giants defense, and sure they did a great job, but the Pats o-line DRASTICALLY underperformed as well. A pick like Albert, while not having sort of the flash you'd expect from a 10th overall pick, WILL make us a better team right away.

As for taking a guard at 10, whatever. If he's that good, you take him.

 

[bobad]

I don't see anything wrong with strengthening the O-line. Skill players and bull rushing DT's are entertaining, but O-linemen are a team's bread and butter. I like Albert. I hear he is quick and has the strong push that we need in our running game. A strong running game that moves the chains is the defense's best friend.

Am I saying I hope we draft an O/L at 10? No, I want a DT. However, if Dorsey and Ellis are gone, I would be happy with Albert (or DRC, Lofton, Rivers, or Mendenhall (if Deuce is gone)).

 

[Fun Bunch]

I would be happy with the pick.

Anyone who doesn't think we can strengthen our line wasn't paying attention last year. Against physical defenses, Drew was absolutely running for his life. In addition, our run blocking was pretty sub-par. We can, always, always, always use a great OLineman.

Heck, I wanted Ben Grubbs last year instead of Meachem, and still maintain we would be in much better shape if that had been the pick.

 

[NolaDome]

I would love the pick...

Either a LG or RT needs to be addressed and if we can get a great player at 10 then its worth it..

Stinchcomb does not appear to have the run blocking we need of the right side.

Also if you pair Jamal Brown with a big LG we could run off that all day

 

[BoNcHiE]

I thought it was common knowledge that LBers were NOT a deep position in this draft.

My point is there is some speculation that if Rivers is there at #10 we might take him, and that probably would represent a #10 pick with a late teens grade.

No, what he means is there is no drop in talent from Rivers at 10 vs. Connor, Mayo, or maybe Lofton 20 picks later. There isn't an elite LB prospect and the first 3-4 LB's are all pretty much on the same level (Lofton isn't quite as athletic as the top 3). So idealy you could trade down, pick up extra picks, and still get a LB just as good (if thats your pick at your new spot).

This draft is deep with good LB's, but there isn't one elite prospect like a Willis or Hawk.

 

[Saints382]

I wouldn't mind Albert at all at #10, he plays LG (which needs a upgrade), can execute the swing pretty good at his size, smart and great character, and has the ability to play T as well.

Man, pairing him up with Jammal at LT would be sick, followed by Goody at Center and with Jahri...leaving Stinch as the only weak-link (who can still improve as well, since it was his ONLY 2nd full year starting in the league). Our running game would improve greatly and we can even give Drew more time in the pocket to complete passes. Also, our O-line would have great depth, for sure.

I want as much as DEFENSE as possible, but Albert is too tempting. We can get a CB in round two, easily as well as a LB and DT.