Login

SuperJville · 12-01-2014, 11:13 AM

Quote:How many games did Luke play at LT again last year?

I don't give a damn how many he played there.

He was a LT in college. He's a natural LT.

Let's not pretend that he's learning a new position or that he's a rookie, because he's not.

knarnn · 12-01-2014, 11:14 AM

Quote:I don't give a damn how many he played there.

He was a LT in college. He's a natural LT.

Let's not pretend that he's learning a new position or that he's a rookie, because he's not.

You mad bro?

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

**flsprtsgod** · 12-01-2014, 11:14 AM

Quote:we should have paid Monroe whatever he wanted. he wasn't AMAZING, but he was good enough. LT is harder to find than people realize... including our GM apparently.

Knowing your posting style you were most likely one of the ring leaders of the "Monroe Sucks!" crowd during his second year.

Irony, it's what's for dinner.

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

SuperJville · 12-01-2014, 11:17 AM

Quote:You mad bro?

I'm mad people continue with the bogus arguments like "Oh he's basically just a rookie" or "How many games did he play at LT again last year? Yeah, I thought so" as if that's some sort of argument-clinching comment.

Joeckel needs to get better. He's still very young, and he has natural ability, so he CAN get there. Will he? I don't know. I'm not waiting around for him to finally figure it out, if I'm Caldwell. Get a swing tackle in rounds 2-4 that can compete with Joeckel and Pasztor, and let the best 2 play.

MalabarJag · 12-01-2014, 11:22 AM

Quote:This, in a not so harsh manner.

Beatles has a terrible game and Luke gets the blame. Did anyone actually watch the game? Luke had one legitimate holding call and was beat once to the edge where Blake should have stepped up in the pocket for a wide open receiver. I counted no fewer than 3 "pancakes" and his run support actually improved, meaning no whiff on a downfield block. All season Beatles has been trash and Luke gets called out for a couple minor mistakes in what would be his rookie year? Come on. You can clearly watch the interior getting blown up.

1. Beadles failures do not excuse Joeckel's failures.

2. Both holding calls were legit, and he had at least one other I saw that wasn't called.

3. He was beat more than once in pass blocking. His run support amounted to grabbing the DE's jersey as he ran away from Joeckel's block.

4. He's NOT a rookie. He played five games last year, and has had two preseasons and two years to learn the playbook, two years worth of minicamps and training camps.

A good argument can be made that his injury limited his ability to improve this year, and he should be given more time. But to claim that his play yesterday was in any way OK is flat out clueless.

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Banatha · 12-01-2014, 11:22 AM

Quote:we should have paid Monroe whatever he wanted. he wasn't AMAZING, but he was good enough. LT is harder to find than people realize... including our GM apparently.

You are correct There are two reasons some rationalize trading him for peanuts.

1.That he did not want to be here. I never read one comment from Monroe saying he did not want to be here. In fact the opposite.

2. He was due to make X amount, and that's just too high. LIke it's the fans money or something. Was it too high? Combine the salaries paid to Joeckel and the salary of the high round draft pick to replace him if we go that route. We won't even get into the economics of lost games and what that cost the club.

Trading Monroe was one of the biggest bonehead mistakes Caldwell has made. Actually probably the stupiest, and Baltimore had to be laughing their butts off at the rookie Front office. Now here we sit after drafting two tackles at number one, and have a potential bust on our hands.

That move was worse than drafting Anger, at least we are not looking for a new punter and it was only a 3rd rounder.

The Jags have basically blown 2 top ten picks, and one was traded away because he was not a Superstar in Caldwell's mind, and have zilch to show for it. We just had to get rid of EVERYBODY, the Knightons and the Monroes and the Smith's, and my oh my could we use a linebacker and left tackle now.

Maybe Monroe wasn't a superstar, but his play was good enough that we did not have to worry about the left tackle spot and could use our top ten pick on other things, like trading down for some linebackers or tight ends.

MalabarJag · 12-01-2014, 11:25 AM

Quote:Knowing your posting style you were most likely one of the ring leaders of the "Monroe Sucks!" crowd during his second year.

Irony, it's what's for dinner.

Monroe sucked during his second year. After four years he had finally developed into a solid LT. Then we started the whole four year development process all over again by drafting Joeckel and trading Monroe. How is that in any way the smart thing to do?

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

B2hibry · 12-01-2014, 11:26 AM

Quote:I'm mad people continue with the bogus arguments like "Oh he's basically just a rookie" or "How many games did he play at LT again last year? Yeah, I thought so" as if that's some sort of argument-clinching comment.

Joeckel needs to get better. He's still very young, and he has natural ability, so he CAN get there. Will he? I don't know. I'm not waiting around for him to finally figure it out, if I'm Caldwell. Get a swing tackle in rounds 2-4 that can compete with Joeckel and Pasztor, and let the best 2 play.

Oh, you mean just like this year? They had 5 tackles competing in the offseason and low and behold there on the field. You actually saw one of the guys step in for Pasztor yesterday. The dude is young, but he isn't as trashy or the root of the o-line issues as this bipolar board believes. The so called veteran on the line is a huge issue.

[Image: Ben-Roethlisberger_Lerentee-McCary-Sack_...ayoffs.jpg]

**flsprtsgod** · 12-01-2014, 11:28 AM

Quote:Monroe sucked during his second year. After four years he had finally developed into a solid LT. Then we started the whole four year development process all over again by drafting Joeckel and trading Monroe. How is that in any way the smart thing to do?

Monroe has been terrible for the Ravens. He's reached his ceiling and the front office felt he wasn't the guy so they moved him. They feel that Luke has a higher ceiling and that's probably accurate. Smart.

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

StroudCrowd1 · 12-01-2014, 11:29 AM

Unrelated, but this thread title makes me laugh.

SuperJville · 12-01-2014, 11:31 AM

Quote:Oh, you mean just like this year? They had 5 tackles competing in the offseason and low and behold there on the field. You actually saw one of the guys step in for Pasztor yesterday. The dude is young, but he isn't as trashy or the root of the o-line issues as this bipolar board believes. The so called veteran on the line is a huge issue.

There was no competition at the tackle spot this year at all actually.

And they need to get someone in here that has starting potential, not just potential from some undrafted guy.

Get a guy in round 2-4 and see them take someone's job. It's good for business.

SpeedyG · 12-01-2014, 11:34 AM

Quote:I don't give a damn how many he played there.

He was a LT in college. He's a natural LT.

Let's not pretend that he's learning a new position or that he's a rookie, because he's not.

The funny thing is that when he was terrible at RT, all we heard were "he needs time to adjust. We need to move him to his natural LT position". So we did, and now its "oh he needs more time to adjust".

oface5446 · 12-01-2014, 11:34 AM

Quote:I don't give a damn how many he played there.

He was a LT in college. He's a natural LT.

Let's not pretend that he's learning a new position or that he's a rookie, because he's not.

Yea. Cause there is no difference between college football and the real deal. It's why there are a bajillion college qbs but not enough good enough to fill just 32 positions. Obviously a rookie who is not immediately a star, he is immediately a bust.

Because that's how it works.

Have you ever even had a job, man? I've had my current position for three years. I do it a lot better now than I did when I started. It's called gaining experience. It seems a foreign concept to you.

B2hibry · 12-01-2014, 11:39 AM

Quote:1. Beadles failures do not excuse Joeckel's failures.

2. Both holding calls were legit, and he had at least one other I saw that wasn't called.

3. He was beat more than once in pass blocking. His run support amounted to grabbing the DE's jersey as he ran away from Joeckel's block.

4. He's NOT a rookie. He played five games last year, and has had two preseasons and two years to learn the playbook, two years worth of minicamps and training camps.

A good argument can be made that his injury limited his ability to improve this year, and he should be given more time. But to claim that his play yesterday was in any way OK is flat out clueless.

I would still argue only the one was legit. I would also be willing to bet those other times you saw him "beat", the guard picked up the wrong guy and didn't pass off properly. It isn't as simple as hitting the guy in front of you. The Giants stunted damn near the whole game on the left side because of the very issue I just pointed out. Rookie or not, put the pitchforks away, he isn't that bad and he'll compete for the position again this off season. To insinuate a one year LT should play absolute mistake free football and hint he is the root of the problem, is flat out clueless.

B2hibry · 12-01-2014, 11:41 AM

Quote:There was no competition at the tackle spot this year at all actually.

And they need to get someone in here that has starting potential, not just potential from some undrafted guy.

Get a guy in round 2-4 and see them take someone's job. It's good for business.

No doubt he should compete for the position in the offseason. Heck, I want all the positions to compete. Put the best dude on the field no matter their draft status.

SuperJville · 12-01-2014, 11:41 AM

Quote:Yea. Cause there is no difference between college football and the real deal. It's why there are a bajillion college qbs but not enough good enough to fill just 32 positions. Obviously a rookie who is not immediately a star, he is immediately a bust.

Because that's how it works.

Have you ever even had a job, man? I've had my current position for three years. I do it a lot better now than I did when I started. It's called gaining experience. It seems a foreign concept to you.

You can stop with the insults and sly remarks. I've held a very good job for a long time, but that's besides the point.

I never said we need to cut him right now.

I said we need to bring in competition with him. You have a job, right? You think your boss should just assume you'll get better at your job, or should he bring someone in just in case? If you do it much better next year - great - you get to keep your job and everyone is happy.

If you're not performing next year, your boss has the right and the duty to make sure there's someone else on the staff that can do a better job.

SuperJville · 12-01-2014, 11:41 AM

Quote:I would still argue only the one was legit. I would also be willing to bet those other times you saw him "beat", the guard picked up the wrong guy and didn't pass off properly. It isn't as simple as hitting the guy in front of you. The Giants stunted damn near the whole game on the left side because of the very issue I just pointed out. Rookie or not, put the pitchforks away, he isn't that bad and he'll compete for the position again this off season. To insinuate a one year LT should play absolute mistake free football and hint he is the root of the problem, is flat out clueless.

kindly point to where anyone said Luke needs to play mistake free football.

SuperJville · 12-01-2014, 11:42 AM

Quote:No doubt he should compete for the position in the offseason. Heck, I want all the positions to compete. Put the best dude on the field no matter their draft status.

yep, we can agree there.

SuperJville · 12-01-2014, 11:43 AM

Quote:Yea. Cause there is no difference between college football and the real deal. It's why there are a bajillion college qbs but not enough good enough to fill just 32 positions. Obviously a rookie who is not immediately a star, he is immediately a bust.

Because that's how it works.

Once again, Luke is not a rookie.

MalabarJag · 12-01-2014, 11:45 AM

Quote:Monroe has been terrible for the Ravens. He's reached his ceiling and the front office felt he wasn't the guy so they moved him. They feel that Luke has a higher ceiling and that's probably accurate. Smart.

Monroe hasn't been 'terrible' for the Ravens. They chose to sign him to a long-term contract, so they must have found his play at least acceptable. He was slow changing to a zone blocking scheme, he was much better in the traditional scheme JDR and Mularkey used. BTW, the Ravens also use zone blocking, so he did eventually reach 'acceptable' as a zone blocker.

We had a known quantity in Monroe. We still don't know what we'll eventually have in Joeckel, but the results are not promising at this point.

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"