Should we be talking more about Joe Thomas? [Archive]

massraider

12-26-2006, 10:50 AM

Let's assume Quinn is gone, and we have the #2 pick. For the sake of this argument.

Why aren't we talking more about the top tackle prospect? I have a feeling the main reason is because we just took Gallery at the same spot a few years back.

This sure doesn't mean that tackle isn't a need, does it? I can't imagine anyone is feeling good about the LT spot on our team, and I'm not sure a need on this team is more pressing.

So why not Thomas? Are the Raiders so unhappy with Jordan, that they'd forego the top O-lineman in the draft to take Peterson? I don't know.

Man, if there was a guy we could target in free agency that would solidify the left side, and move Gallery back to the right side, I'd be happy with Calvin, or AP, or even some RE prospect. Or if I thought we could get a LT for Moss/Porter/Jordan or something else, I'd be thinking differently.

But can this team afford to take a WR/RB at #2 with all these needs on the O-line?

I've made my decision. I want the least sexy, surest thing at #2. Joe Thomas.

massraider

12-26-2006, 10:53 AM

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/ot/joethomas.html

massraider

12-26-2006, 10:57 AM

BTW, there's one bowl game on tonight, and one of the top tackle prospects is playing.

Joe Staley, LT, Central Michigan. 6'6", 305, runs a 4.75. Holy crap.

Madturk

12-26-2006, 11:14 AM

Eeerily reminiscent of Gallery with longer arms:p I can't see the old man tpulling the trigger again after the Gallery debacle. I think we look to FA and the middle rounds to shore up the OL. I think there will be some good value there. Guys like Tony Ugoh, Satele, Mike Otto.

Rupert

12-26-2006, 12:00 PM

Actually, Gallery had the phenominal 10/20/40 numbers. Joe Thomas does not. What I've seen of Thomas doesn't have him off his center of gravity as much as Gallery was in college (and still is). I see Thomas as a definite upgrade over Gallery, but that's about where it stops. Right now a lot of guys would be an upgrade over Gallery, so....

CrossBones

12-26-2006, 12:11 PM

Weaknesses:
Is only one year removed from a major knee injury...Is not always as aggressive as you'd prefer and could show more of a killer instinct...Needs to get stronger, especially in the lower-body, and develop physically...Struggles a bit with power and the bull rush...Tends to play with a narrow base at times...Is still learning the position to a degree after playing tight end and defensive end early in his career.I don't think this warrants consideration for the 2nd pick in the draft. At least I hope not.

Crow

12-26-2006, 12:18 PM

I'd consider taking a tackle in Rd2, but you can keep Thomas. I still maintain that the coaching is why our line sucks rat tail. Joe Thomas would just be another victim.

Waiting till Rd2 for a tackle? Madness, you say? Seems to me that guys like Khalif Barnes, Michael Roos, Matt Light, Mike Gandy, among others have done quite well for their respective teams. While not dominating, they've all shown to be very good pass protectors and more than adequate run blockers. They just didn't have the upside of a Gallery, Shawn Andrews, Leonard Davis, etc.

Rd1 needs to be a trade down for Alan Branch. But, since I know that won;t happen, just give me the damn WR...I guess.

Tomorrow it'll be AP.

Winning next week sure would simplify things a bit. That'd put us in perfect position for guys like Branch and Marshawn Lynch.

RaiderIVlife

12-26-2006, 12:34 PM

Al ain't gonna' pass on a player that can put the ball in the endzone.

My gut tells me Petersen or Johnson...

hawaiianboy

12-26-2006, 01:23 PM

I've made my decision. I want the least sexy, surest thing at #2. Joe Thomas.

Odd how history seems to be repeating itself...

Playing the role of Eli Manning is Brady Quinn...
Playing the role of Robert Gallery is Joe Thomas...
Playing the role of Larry Fitzgerald is Calvin Johnson...

The year we took Gallery many Raider fans were scared to death we'd that we'd use such a high pick on the TE (Winslow) or WR (Roy Williams) that Al was rumored to be in love with... We ended up taking the least sexy, practical route and selecting Gallery...

As much as I wanted other players that year, I still have no problem with the theory of taking the franchise LT no matter how Gallery has turned out.... I partially agree with Crow in that I believe the Raiders themselves have served to break Gallery... Where would Gallery be at this point had we just left him at LT from day 1 even if that meant playing in a backup role the first year? Where would he be had he worked in the same blocking scheme the whole time?...

Selecting Joe Thomas wouldn't be the worst thing we could do, but how much better would he do in the Art Shell blocking scheme which has in two different stints proven to be death on offensive tackles?... Chief fans still complain about how 1st round draft bust Trezelle Jenkins confidence was shattered playing in the scheme when Art was OL coach there... I dunno maybe it's just a coincidence or maybe it's a case where a vet OT would pick it up better... I'd rather explore a trade for a guy like Tra Thomas if the coaching staff still has enough doubts about Gallery....

I still believe that unless Calvin Johnson runs a pedestrian 40, that Al would have to talk himself out of taking CJ... but as Ron Wolf said when predicting Al would take Gallery, Al puts a high value on pass protecting OT's...

If we do take Thomas, I'd still go after a veteran RT and play Gallery at LG and pull him the way the Bengals pull Steinbach...

massraider

12-26-2006, 02:20 PM

I don't think this warrants consideration for the 2nd pick in the draft. At least I hope not.

Find a player that has the words "Can't find anything" next to Weaknesses, and I'll be on board to draft him.

If I had to bet money, I'd say that he won't be our pick, but is Gallery's floundering a legit reason for passing on Thomas?

OT is still among the safest first round picks, if not THE safest. There have been some solid players taken later in the draft, as Crow pointed out, but that sort of implies that later round studs can't be found at other positions. That's not true, we know that.

Interesting that no one seems to be applying this theory to the Lions. Joey Harrington isn't keeping anyone from placing Quinn in the mock drafts at #1, but Gallery is the main (only?) reason why Thomas hasn't been slotted at #2.

Way too early to say what the Raiders may or may not do. Heck, Thomas could show up at the combine with a "loose knee", and wind up in the second round. It happens.

But with no O-lineman we can count on at his current position, not even one, looking at that position with our first pick is going to get some consideration in Oakland, I think.

Rupert

12-26-2006, 05:12 PM

But with no O-lineman we can count on at his current position, not even one, looking at that position with our first pick is going to get some consideration in Oakland, I think.
Precisely the reason it made sense to me.

BigTron

12-26-2006, 05:45 PM

At this point i just hope we upgrade any offensive position, i dont even care which one.

CrossBones

12-27-2006, 08:55 AM

Find a player that has the words "Can't find anything" next to Weaknesses, and I'll be on board to draft him.I'm just sayin' that these kinds of weakness seem alarming for a tackle who would be the second player drafted. I don't have the scouting report on Gallery but I think it may have looked better on the "weakness" side of the ledger...

Thomas...

• Is only one year removed from a major knee injury...
• Is not always as aggressive as you'd prefer and could show more of a killer instinct...
• Needs to get stronger, especially in the lower-body, and develop physically...
• Struggles a bit with power and the bull rush...
• Tends to play with a narrow base at times...
• Is still learning the position to a degree after playing tight end and defensive end early in his career.

Maybe somebody can straighten me out but that seems really sketchy to me. From what I remember, at least in Gallery's case the "exprets" were saying he was a "can't miss"...the best thing to come along since Orlando Pace. All in all it's a crap shoot but I dunno...I'd rather a play maker at this juncture.

Raider Nation

12-27-2006, 09:29 AM

I think all 4 of the top prospects in this draft will have question marks associated with them.

Quinn -- A product of Weis' system or the real deal? What about his accuracy and inability to win against elite competition (Michigan, USC)?

Thomas -- Doesn't have ideal strength and isn't aggressive enough at times?

Peterson -- Injury history? How much tread has been taken off the tires at OU?

Johnson -- Do you really build a team around the WR position?

Jack's sore libido

12-27-2006, 10:26 AM

I don't think taking a WR first necessarily means you're "building your team around him" ...

It just means he's the best player available to you.

jatfly

12-27-2006, 11:40 AM

I don't know much about the upcoming draft class, All I know is we need to find someone that can GUESS better then what they have in the past and also we need to get some luck some how!

I still think we go and get the QB we need in the FA market, and keep Walter to compete with that guy and then the Draft we go O-line, WR (since Porter and/or Moss are gone?) back up RB or Starting depending if you are talking to some of you all.

Raider Nation

12-27-2006, 12:00 PM

I don't think taking a WR first necessarily means you're "building your team around him" ...

It just means he's the best player available to you.

I disagree.

I think taking any player 1st or 2nd overall means you are building around him, regardless of position. My point is franchises historically have much more success building around QB's, RB's, OL's, and DL's than Wide Receivers.

Oakland took Robert Gallery with the intent of making him a cornerstone of that offensive line, did they not? Eli Manning? Reggie Bush? Vince Young? Mario Williams? All those guys were taken with the expectation of being a guy the franchise could build around.

Look at the Jets when they took Keyshawn. I don't think anyone would consider him a game-changing player. Larry Fitzgerald in Arizona? Fantastic player, but look at the lack of success that team has had. Now that may change in the future, but I think that would be due to the drafting of a franchise QB as opposed to the WR's.

This is just a personal philosophy, but I think any player selected in the top-5 is taken with the expectation of being a guy the franchise builds around.

Byron2112

12-27-2006, 03:15 PM

Man, I just can't see it... and what the hell is Art Shell's phylosophy in reguards to blocking?... be a Hall of Fame talent? :rolleyes:

Our Line is horrible, but I really believe with a scheme that assists them, with a center that can make the calls and adjustments competently, and with a productive vet thrown into the mix that the fellas can lean on... I think we can be ok. There is something to work with there and they are awfully young. Definatly need to add some talent, but I dunno if we need another 50 million dollar rookie there...

Tra Thoimas would be nice... dunno what it would take to get him here...

The thing that stands out to me, is that even though we went out and bought the best back in free agency, and aquirred the most explosive WR in history, we still have absolutly no playmakers on this offense :mad:

It's like we're right back to three seasons ago... Curry was developing into a playmaker before he blew himself out, and maybe he'll be one again, but we need some pop on this ioffense, and if Peterson is Steven Jackson or Frank Gore, I'd be happy to rebuild this O around him.

massraider

12-28-2006, 10:38 AM

I disagree.

I think taking any player 1st or 2nd overall means you are building around him, regardless of position. My point is franchises historically have much more success building around QB's, RB's, OL's, and DL's than Wide Receivers.

Oakland took Robert Gallery with the intent of making him a cornerstone of that offensive line, did they not? Eli Manning? Reggie Bush? Vince Young? Mario Williams? All those guys were taken with the expectation of being a guy the franchise could build around.

Look at the Jets when they took Keyshawn. I don't think anyone would consider him a game-changing player. Larry Fitzgerald in Arizona? Fantastic player, but look at the lack of success that team has had. Now that may change in the future, but I think that would be due to the drafting of a franchise QB as opposed to the WR's.

This is just a personal philosophy, but I think any player selected in the top-5 is taken with the expectation of being a guy the franchise builds around.

I'll root for Calvin Johnson if we draft him, but man, #2 overall? A WR? This team is in a position to take a WR at #2?

Look, I don't want to take an O-lineman with the #2 pick for the 2nd time in 3 years. But we're talking about playmakers? Offensive superstars?

The Bears went to the playoffs with Kyle Orton, 3 WR's you never heard of, and Thomas Jones in the backfield. Improving this line will make everyone look better.

TommyGirl

12-28-2006, 11:15 AM

I agree that improving the line will make everyone look better, but damn. They chose Gallery as a "can't miss" pick, and they still look terrible.

How 'bout free agency instead?

TheNextStep

12-28-2006, 11:31 AM

We don't exactly have a stellar history when it comes to drafting left tackles. Mo Collins was a very good gaurd. Matt Stinchcomb was a very good bench warmer. Robert Gallery was a very good rookie right tackle...

But we've yet to see one of them become a "respectable" left tackle.

massraider

12-28-2006, 11:45 AM

I agree that improving the line will make everyone look better, but damn. They chose Gallery as a "can't miss" pick, and they still look terrible.

How 'bout free agency instead?

My first choice. Wayne Gandy and Leonard Davis. That's the best out there. Throw a parade.:(

massraider

12-28-2006, 11:47 AM

TheNextStep

12-28-2006, 12:26 PM

No, we shouldn't have drafted Huff because of Cutler... but that's just my own personal sour grapes talking... ;)

007

12-28-2006, 01:08 PM

Should we not have drafted Huff because of Bates and Gibson?

No.

We shouldnt have drafted Huff because we needed players at other positions far more than a friggin safety at the seven spot.

Leinart, Cutler, Ngata, Wimbley and even Kiwanuka filled bigger needs, and have made stronger rookie impacts than our 'invisible safety'.

In hindsight I hate the pick, although at the time I thought it was okay...

Madturk

12-28-2006, 01:29 PM

Although I would have expected more from Huff this season, I'm not overly concerned (See Aso). I had pretty much wrote this guy off. I really think when we eventually cut him loose at FS, he'll be the playmaker we drafted. I like the fact that we're really building a solid secondary.

TheNextStep

12-28-2006, 01:29 PM

I'm actually still okay with the pick, though I think he'd be better at Free than Strong. Huff isn't a bad player... but he wasn't on my pre-draft "hot" list either. Cutler and Ngata are the two I remember liking quite a bit.

CrossBones

12-28-2006, 02:42 PM

No, we shouldn't have drafted Huff because of Cutler... but that's just my own personal sour grapes talking... ;)You quarterback loving rascal. :p

I like Huff although he hasn't made much of an impact. He'll be a stud though.

I do agree that at #7 I was shocked that Al took another safety precisely for the reason Mass mentioned .. (Bates and Gibson). I thought Al was done with picking safeties high. In fact when he didn't do something (like trading down) to take Sean Taylor I was convinced that we weren't drafting anymore safeties in the first round. Which just proves I have no idea what Al will do. Therefore he will draft Brady Quinn no matter what he has to do to get the pick! :p

Freakshow

12-28-2006, 03:15 PM

No, we shouldn't have drafted Huff because of Cutler... but that's just my own personal sour grapes talking... ;)

or Leinart...:rolleyes:

actually, i liked the huff pick and still do. he'll develop into a fine back imo. polamalu took a while to come around too and look at him now. at the time, taking a quarterback wasn't as ideal because we all felt we had something in AW (and some of us still do). our secondary is after all, #1 vs. the pass in the NFL so it's tough to say we made the wrong choice.

BigTron

12-28-2006, 03:22 PM

Dont blame Huff becasue WE drafted him #7 overall. All he did was come in as a rookie and play solid D on the #1 pass D in the NFL while keeping his trap shut. Its not his fault he was drafted over other people. He has done alot this season just by not getting burned and making tackles. Jeez cut the guy a break. I think he is having a very nice rookie campaign. We all want to see some more ballhawking etc. Maybe he should be a FS if thats what people want. He did have 2 FF's in the KC game. Either way when he is a future pro-bowler and develop's like Nnamdi did everybody will be eating their words...again.

TheNextStep

12-28-2006, 03:26 PM

Oh, don't get me wrong, Tron... I'm not bashing the guy. I'm just saying that he wasn't who I personally would have gone with. He's a decent player thus far and, yeah, I do think he'd be a better free safety.

Until he starts making game-changing plays somewhat consistently, that's the best I can say about ANY Texas Longhorn. ;)

TommyGirl

12-28-2006, 03:58 PM

massraider

12-28-2006, 05:09 PM

No.

We shouldnt have drafted Huff because we needed players at other positions far more than a friggin safety at the seven spot.

Darn good reason, IMO.

I kind of feel the same way about a WR at #2.

BigTron

12-28-2006, 05:11 PM

I think he will be a great player for us for years to come. People might be hard on him and compare him to waht Leinart and Cutler do, but thats pointless. If you rank him at SS he is higher on the list TODAY, than Cutler and Leinart are on the QB list IMO. I wouldnt have minded Leinart, Not yet sold on Cutler but am satisfied Huff isnt a bust after gallery is looking pretty bust'ed.

CrossBones

12-28-2006, 05:17 PM

I like Huff. I do think he might be more of a play maker at FS but that remains to be seen. I think most Raider fans were expecting Ed Reed production right out of the box. ::shrug:: -- he'll be fine but again a lot of people thought we should have traded down, picked up another second and taken Sean Taylor instead of staying at #2 and taking Gallery. Again ::shrug::

007

12-28-2006, 05:26 PM

Darn good reason, IMO.

I kind of feel the same way about a WR at #2.

Oh My God, we couldnt agree more!

It's like you are reading my diary, Mass! :o

Wanna hang out?

;)

Crow

12-28-2006, 05:31 PM

Huff's a baby. I'm of the opinion that NOT hearing a rookie safety's name is preferable to hearing it all the time.

Case in point: Remember the Pope and Dorsett years? Everytime I heard their name, I knew they got burned or missed a tackle.

See? It's all how you look at things.

The lady has a point.

How many times have we seen the back of Dorsett's, Pope's, or Gibson's jersey on TD replays? I can't remember seeing Huff get posterized to that degree at all this season. It's probably happened, but not so much that it just stands out like those other stiffs.

As for the "ballhawking" thing...he was never really much for INTs at Texas. Maybe coach Pagano can develop that aspect of his game much like he's done with Nnamdi. That'd be damn nice.

Hell, it'd be nice to see either of our safeties making plays in coverage.

CrossBones

12-28-2006, 05:47 PM

I'd like to see him do some "head hunting"...you call it ball hawking. :p

007

12-28-2006, 09:20 PM

How many times have we seen the back of Dorsett's, Pope's, or Gibson's jersey on TD replays? I can't remember seeing Huff get posterized to that degree at all this season. It's probably happened, but not so much that it just stands out like those other stiffs.

Not a lot of seventh overall picks get compared to Dorsett and Marquez fucking Pope though. Pretty easy to be an upgrade in that comparison.

Huff has been...To put it bluntly: Underwhelming.

Off the top of my head,

Gates had a big 20+ yarder along the sideline in game one that made him look silly, (Although the TD was against Gibby)

Heap had a sweet TD grab against him in game two right over top of him;

Winslow had a TD in game three;

He's gotten much better of late, but he still misses one tackle a game, and has not had a single wow play in the secondary...1 pass defended in fifteen games? Crazy. Especially considering how awesome Aso and Fabs have been.

As for the "ballhawking" thing...he was never really much for INTs at Texas. Maybe coach Pagano can develop that aspect of his game much like he's done with Nnamdi. That'd be damn nice.

I don't think it needs much developing. He wasnt thrown on much at Texas, and still set the school record for INT returns, and was a Thorpe award winner...The instincts and ball skills are there, we just use him wrong.

He isnt a strong safety.

Hell, it'd be nice to see either of our safeties making plays in coverage.

I do agree, although I think Schweig has exceeded my mediocre expectations for him this year. The guy belongs, although he is a mid-tier Free Safety starter, IMO (Whereas Huff could be a top 3 FS)

All in all, Im holding out hope that Huff becomes our Dawkins/Reed/Polamalu, but I still wish we went the Leinart-Cutler route.

BigTron

12-29-2006, 05:14 AM

I think Leinart and Cutler would be in therapy wiht Tim 'ouch' Couch. I bought a Huff jersey im not backing down!

TommyGirl

12-29-2006, 09:42 AM

I'd like to see him do some "head hunting"...you call it ball hawking. :p
No, no. Headhunting and ballhawking are entirely different phenomenon. Der. Don't you know ANYthing about football? :p

CrossBones

12-29-2006, 12:01 PM

No, no. Headhunting and ballhawking are entirely different phenomenon. Der. Don't you know ANYthing about football? :pOh shush. Go take a whirlpool or something. Trouble maker. :p

I was watching my old "live in the past" DVD's some yesterday and I loved to watch Atkinson and Tatum "taking people's heads off"...it was fun. Guess they don't allow those close line forearms anymore, huh? Still it was fun. 'Ya know the "criminal element" in the NFL and all that. Aaaaaaaahhhhh.

TommyGirl

12-29-2006, 12:26 PM

I understand. When you have so little of your life before you, it becomes necessary to live in the past. Poor guy.

CrossBones

12-29-2006, 12:59 PM

I understand. When you have so little of your life before you, it becomes necessary to live in the past. Poor guy.And all this time I was thinking you were not a mean person. :p

Freakshow

12-29-2006, 01:24 PM

Off the top of my head,

Gates had a big 20+ yarder along the sideline in game one that made him look silly, (Although the TD was against Gibby)

Heap had a sweet TD grab against him in game two right over top of him;

Winslow had a TD in game three;

OK - dude that's totally nit-picking. I know it was only off the top of your head but no safety, strong or free, is going to go an entire season without a few guys catching the ball on them. So in eleven other games you can't recall any others - not bad in my opinion. Like TG said, the less you hear about a rookie the better because it's almost always bad. Huff hasn't been a difference maker yet, but he's only going to improve and he's got some serious quicks and good instincts. I have high hopes for him and am glad we finally have a safety that can play the freakin position.

Crow

12-29-2006, 01:30 PM

I understand. When you have so little of your life before you, it becomes necessary to live in the past. Poor guy.
She can be a real bitch sometimes, huh?

;)

007

12-29-2006, 02:55 PM

OK - dude that's totally nit-picking. I know it was only off the top of your head but no safety, strong or free, is going to go an entire season without a few guys catching the ball on them. So in eleven other games you can't recall any others - not bad in my opinion. Like TG said, the less you hear about a rookie the better because it's almost always bad. Huff hasn't been a difference maker yet, but he's only going to improve and he's got some serious quicks and good instincts. I have high hopes for him and am glad we finally have a safety that can play the freakin position.

It was nitpicking and I DID say that he's improved.

Where is the big plays and solid tackling though?

The guy has been underwhelming, whether I nitpick or not.

Leinart would have been better. Or Maroney. Or Cutler. Or Kiwi. Or...:(

TheNextStep

12-29-2006, 09:45 PM

Speaking of offensive linemen, what's the ranking on that Center from Clemson?

RaiderIVlife

12-30-2006, 08:37 PM

I'm only in favor of taking a OL with our first pick IF we trade down a few slots and pick up extra picks. The extra picks could net players like Dewayne Jarrett, Michael Bush, a big DT, Jamarcus Russel, any combination.

Al Davis KNOWS that we need a solid offensive line to run his vertical stretch offense. So though I've been advocating a skill player, it wouldn't shock me to see us draft an OL with the first pick.....

Crow

12-31-2006, 08:36 PM

Speaking of offensive linemen, what's the ranking on that Center from Clemson?

Scott Wright @ NFL Draft Countdown has him as a late round/FA guy.

Height: 6-3 | Weight: 320

Strengths:
Has good size and a solid frame...Powerful with outstanding strength...Versatile and could project to a number of positions...Tough and a hard worker with good intangibles...Displays excellent balance and stays on his feet...Plays with superb leverage...Packs a solid initial punch to stun...A real mauler in the running game.

Weaknesses:
Is not very quick or athletic...Has limited mobility...Does not always play up to his impressive weight room numbers...Struggles with speed and in space...He has some minor durability concerns...Only started for two years and is still raw...His footwork leaves something to be desired...Potential might be all but maxed out.

Notes:
A state champion wrestler and shot putter in high school...Can reportedly bench 225 pounds an outstanding 36 times...Could also project to guard...An intriguing prospect who could be a workout warrior but he looks like a prototypical backup.