Should we be talking more about Joe Thomas?

massraider

massraider

Usually Right
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
4,791
Reaction score
195
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think this warrants consideration for the 2nd pick in the draft. At least I hope not.
 
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.
 
Al ain't gonna' pass on a player that can put the ball in the endzone.

My gut tells me Petersen or Johnson...
 
massraider said:

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


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...
 
CrossBones said:
I don't think this warrants consideration for the 2nd pick in the draft. At least I hope not.
Click to expand...

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.
 
massraider said:
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.
Click to expand...
Precisely the reason it made sense to me.
 
At this point i just hope we upgrade any offensive position, i dont even care which one.
 
massraider said:
Find a player that has the words "Can't find anything" next to Weaknesses, and I'll be on board to draft him.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
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 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.
 
Jack's sore libido said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Raider Nation said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top