Got him off waivers. He any good?
Got him off waivers. He any good?
Not good enough for his own thread.
Some info on him in FA thread I think
Put him at guard, great depth lots of competition.
"Don't worry about the horses being blind.......just load the wagon!"
Guard doesn't look very strong at all IMO.When a third round rookie is your most promising player at the position
That doesn't bode well...Boothe is not that good. His rings in NY mean nothing, he was a signed for little of nothing and performed above his salary but nothing of note.
Bergstrom stinks. Barnes is marginal as well,If you think Howard will play guard than you must believe Watson is our RT and I don't so while I like the increased quality of the depth chart, we NEED another lineman.If its a tackle than Guard n is settled,If its Guard than we need another tackle,Im getting tired of watching ONE player on the O-line be so instrumental in our struggles year over year...
yes but Boothe,bergstrom and Barnes?...none is impressive...Most sites have Howard as the RT which is what makes the most sense, so who is the other Guard?
I would feel much better if we had one more player.Incogneato, Winston, doesn't matter...the three guys I mentioned are back ups on a quality line, not starters.
and I would disagree with the drafting of a guard as you've described it, there are two or three each year in the first round.
I will also add that I am one who believes in the more competition we bring in the better. I think that our 'third round rookie' being our most promising player at the position is great. It would not only indicate that we drafted well, it would indicate that we could be set for the future. You have to take it as it comes, we are rebuilding this team and not every position can be a probowler. You have to have solid football players in position, then hopefully they become the best.
still want another player.
Barnes has played better the last couple of years but he is at Guard because he still was getting beat at tackle.
Of the three names he is clearly the best and I would disagree that a third round prospect being at the top of your depth chart at a position speak well of the quality of depth.
as I pointed out, each year there are 4-6 guards taken in the 1st 2 rounds.
You revised your comment to include the second round and doubled the numbers. That's okay, it doesn't mean anything at all about Jackson's potential. Nor does it make a reference to the rush on other positions due to need or other conciderations.
I would say he was rated pretty high in his position, so why is he not a player to be excited about?
Heres a breakdown of guards taken in the first round by decade:
2010 current: 4
2000 2009: 6
1990 1999: 13*
1980 1989: 19
1970 1979: 15
1960 1969: 11
1950 1959: 2
1940 1949: 2
1936 1939: 1
Jackson's scouting report, I am sure you have read it.
He is a steal in the 3rd. There are always rookies that come out and are better than or have the potential after a very short time to be better than what a team has. No team is immune from this.
Like I said, you can never go wrong with depth and competition.
you lost me? I added the second round and doubled the number? uhhhh. YEAH. lol what your point? I said the same thing in two different ways so as not to be repetitious...you don't seem to be picking up on the message.
Ive already written several times I think he is a great prospect.But the rest of the players are scrubs.
As good as I hope he will be I would expect a team to have one quality player who could be said to be atop a depth chart over ANY third round selection. That is in no way a slight to Jackson, your continued defense of whom is unwarranted.
I was surprised by how few guards have been taken in the first round in the last 4 years, but the addition of the second round to my comment was in no way a revision of what I was saying.
Jackson went in the THIRD, hence the inclusion of the seond which I notice YOU chose to ignore in your research.
It is funny how many people ' don't seem to be picking up on the message' with you. I get it. To clarify, my point is simply that Jackson could be so good as to automatically elevate himself above a corps of veteran linemen. You seem to think that is saying the rest are no good. I don't see it that way. I think it is encouraging that it could mean he is going to be great, no matter how good the others are. That being said, I believe he was practicing with the first string due to an injury...Howard? Can't remember, that would indicate someone was above him. I hope that cleared things up for you a little. I know you like him, you've said so before.
The inclusion of the second round was NOT a revision, it was an addition. Your first statement: " as I pointed out, each year there are 4-6 guards taken in the 1st 2 rounds" is an addition to your previous claim: "there are two or three each year in the first round." BTW I was addressing the first statement not CHOOSING to IGNORE anything, I did look up a bit of the second round history, it increase some but not exponentially. I'd say it plays pretty evenly into the third, an increase here and there, a decrease once in awhile.
I know he was a THIRD rounder, I said so myself. He was selected in the third but expected to go early in the second, but there was a rush on other positions. We got a steal as I think you will agree. So, to put it in a nutshell I believe that if Jackson is our best line prospect it may be the fact he is just that good, not that the competition is bad.
So as you can see, I was not as you claimed 'defending Jackson' in as much as I was defending the rest of the guys.
I think that our guards are amongst the worst in the league which is proven out not only in their various ratings from sources,but the abysmal running game weve had for the last four years.
Boothe is average at best
Bergstrom is a bust and will most likely be cut.
Barnes is a failed tackle who doesn't want to play guard by his own contention and not a long term solution.
I would look for another player.
So is Jackson a great prospect or are we still guilty of "giving him hummers due to a group mentality when the smart money is on him riding the bench and being gone within a few seasons" as you so eloquently said in page 6 of the Grade the Draft thread? Could that have just been to deride all things McKenzie, spur reaction, or simply troll?Originally Posted by stephkyle7:28664551
Last edited by Renz13; 06-23-2014 at 04:43 PM.