Three In Mix For Job If Falcon Tyson Clabo Leaves

by Dave Choate on Jun 23, 2011 1:00 PM EDT in Falcons News

Though he's fresh off a Pro Bowl berth--or perhaps because of it--Tyson Clabo may not be back with the Atlanta Falcons in 2011.

Should that happen, the Falcons are obviously going to have to make plans. As D. Orlando Ledbetter notes, the team has made it clear they're ready to re-structure the line. That's true if Clabo leaves, if Harvey Dahl leaves, or if Justin Blalock leaves.

I thought I'd take a quick look at the three candidates who have a shot at taking over for our boy Clabo, in the unfortunate event that he heads to less red and black pastures.

Follow along after the jump.

Garrett Reynolds: A classic mauler in the run game, Reynolds has had a couple of years in the Falcons' system to mature. He wasn't known for his quick footwork when he came out of college, but I have no doubt he's improved over that time.

The problem with Reynolds is he's essentially an unknown, but that's true of every candidate for Clabo's job. He's also unlikely to be the second coming of Clabo. That said, he's a bruising guy who can be the kind of wall at right tackle that the Falcons have always needed.

I like Reynolds' chances of starting better than anyone's, honestly. I'm just not entirely sure what to expect.

Jose Valdez: Valdez is an even bigger unknown. He's supposed to have some positional versatility, which will help for a team that's crazy for guys who can play multiple spots along the line.

What I do know is that Valdez is supposed to be a diamond in the rough, a tackle with considerable strength and quick feet. Like most prospects of his caliber, Valdez needs some seasoning, but he's probably got as much upside as Reynolds. The primary question is whether he's ready.

Will Svitek: The least likely choice, because he's never proven himself to be anything more than a decent backup. If Reynolds wins the job, Valdez might hang in the practice squad and Svitek may be the backup.

More than likely, however, Svitek will continue to back up Baker. It's handy to have someone who is at least an option at both tackle spots.

I would ask you to weigh in with your own analysis.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If Clabo leaves

I would expect one of two things to happen. The F.O. will look at other FA veterans that can compete or take over the starting right tackle role. Or name Reynold the starting right tackle. I don’t see any one else on our squad presently that can handle those duties. My hope is that we sign Clabo, Blalock, a FA DE the first day free agency opens. We have to have our O and D lines right before we get anything else done.

by Fear Me on Jun 23, 2011 1:21 PM EDT reply actions

13-3 Should you restructure line

now ? I’m not the biggest Clabo fan but if it comes down to Clabo or Blalock I think you keep Blalock. I don’t think you leave the current LT with a new partner.

A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice.

by FrozenFinger on Jun 23, 2011 2:44 PM EDT reply actions

uhhhhhhhh

we are talking about the O Line here….
ya know , the guys that keep Ryan off IR, the guys who pave the way for Turner, The Heart of our Team….

These guys have done well over the last 3 yrs
Matter of Fact , the only guy I Question is Sam Baker

we lose more than 1 of these guys, we are in Big Trouble
Rebuild the Line ????

are you guys High?
This is a Good O Line and needs to be kept intact at all cost
AT ALL COST

http://www.myspace.com/shredsplace

http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Thigpen/100001812990216

by Shredman on Jun 23, 2011 3:20 PM EDT reply actions

they've been good

not spectacular. Plus, history has shown that the OLine Coach can get the backups ready to play, and do so well. As a group, they were average in run-blocking and a little better in pass-blocking. Ryan has gotten used to getting rid of the ball quickly, which is one (major) reason why they did grade well in pass-blocking.

Furthermore, every team gets to a point where they need to evaluate their oline and move forward. This appears to be that time for the Falcons. If it works out (the correct decisions are made) it’s another issue we won’t have to worry about for another 4 years or so.

by KMarch on Jun 23, 2011 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

we lose more than 1 of these guys, we go from Super Bowl Contender to 3rd place in NFC South….Cleveland is Already Liking their chops at the thought of a top 10 pick, which is what they will be getting if we lose more than 1 of these guys….

http://www.myspace.com/shredsplace

http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Thigpen/100001812990216

by Shredman on Jun 23, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions

we need tackles

I think we have plenty of capable guards. Resign the tackle whoever else can be replaced easier

by DEMBIRDZCUZ! on Jun 23, 2011 4:53 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

I doubt we pick in the top 10 if we lose 2 of our lineman

That’s an exaggeration at best. Paul Boudreau is one of the best line coaches in the league and our line has always been known to be not that talented or athletic. The reason we don’t run screens is that the line isn’t athletic enough to get out there. It can definitely be improved, and that’s not going to happen by keeping the same personnel. If this was the ‘95 Cowboys line being rebuilt then yes, that might cause us to fall to 6-10. But replacing 2 undrafted, unathletic guys who play better than their ability (because of a great line coach) shouldn’t be too hard. They are all better run blockers than pass blockers. It is much harder to find good pass blockers. They are helped greatly by Ryan’s quick release (as a new line would be too). The backups we have are mauling run blockers. I don’t see a big drop off if we put some of them in. Also, do you really want to commit a 5 year contract to a guy who is 29?

I say keep Blalock and let Clabo and Dahl walk. Put Johnson and Reynolds in on the right side. Reynolds looked quite good in the games he played as a rookie in 2009. Then Hawley can replace McClure in 2012 and we can look for a new LT if Baker doesn’t improve.

by Mosugo on Jun 23, 2011 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I like this!

Keep Blalock, and it pains me to say i think we could be ok without Clabo and Dahl only because of who would replace them. Johnson is an absolute MONSTER gaurd. And the coaching staff seems to LOVE Reynolds. I will shed a tear when McClure leaves for sure but Hawley will develop into a good center in this league imo.

by falcolicmsudawg33 on Jun 24, 2011 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions

Unknown

All of the offensive linemen mentioned are unknowns. Due to the stability of the OLine, there has been scant playing time. I have no idea how any of them will do as a starter, and if folks are honest, they will admit they don’t either.

I do know that if you lose three starters from a quality offensive line, you are going to have some problems short to mid term (season) at a minimum and if you replace them with three guys that have never been starters in the NFL, watch out.

by Whopper Dawg on Jun 24, 2011 10:18 AM EDT reply actions

Reynolds has played

In 2009 and played well. Also I wouldn’t say our O line is quality. It can be upgraded and the only way to do that is to change the personnel.

by Mosugo on Jun 24, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Reynolds

Yeah, he played in four games and started none. Now, I feel better.

If the guys on the bench are better than the starters then they would be the starters, yes?

So, you think our OLine is not of quality? That means it is of poor quality. I will admit that it is not the best in the league, but it is far from poor.

Just because you change personnel doesn’t mean you have an upgrade, you can also get worse.

The change out you are in favor of, IMO, would lose tons of experience for really unproven players (the way you prove yourself is in games). Even if you are talking about changing three long term starters on a line that has been together for years with other veterans, there will still be a major adjustment period. Swap out three positions with three newbies and you are asking for trouble, additionally it would leave the current weak link (IMO) Baker still in place.

Not a receipt for success IMO, Ryan better get his track shoes ready.

by Whopper Dawg on Jun 24, 2011 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions

In terms of time from snap-to-pass

Ryan was already one of the tops in the league, often due to the hazardous pass-blocking he received last year. It would be hard to imagine it could get significantly worse. If you go back and look at all the hits Ryan received as he was releasing the ball three things stand out:
1) Our pass-blocking has to get better.
2) It’s amazing Ryan completed as many passes as he did.
3) It’s more amazing Ryan got up after some of those hits.

We’ve got a franchise QB, so we can’t settle with quality if it leads to what I described above. I trust TD, Smitty, and Boudreau to know what these bench guys are capable of. A lot of times with lineman it isn’t about who’s the most talented, but who has been in the system the longest. TD’s drafted OL every draft to prepare for this very moment.

by KMarch on Jun 24, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Clarification

by ‘tops in the league’ I mean quickest time from snap-to-pass in the league.

by KMarch on Jun 24, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I didn't say it was poor

I just said it wasn’t quality. I agree with you, our line is pretty much average. Do we stand pat with average or take a risk and try to upgrade knowing it could backfire? I say we try to upgrade, the pass blocking can’t possibly get much worse. One of the reasons we never complete deep passes is that we have to max protect to allow Ryan enough time in the pocket for guys to get downfield. That means only 2 or 3 players out in routes. That’s easy to defend. Our O line is in my opinion the reason for our poor deep passing game and our poor screen game. Those are the two things people on here complain about the most.

by Mosugo on Jun 24, 2011 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Also I never advocated letting all 3 walk

by Mosugo on Jun 24, 2011 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Unknowns

I think anyone would have to agree that those three backup linemen are unknowns. They simply have not had the playing time. They have not been worked into the liineup on a rotational basis, their playing time is scant to none. With the health of our OLine and the tightness of the bird’s games, I can understand why they didn’t play much, as the coaches wanted to go with their best OLine. And to me, that is a key point, if they were this good and an upgrade over the current line, they would be starters all ready. Maybe they got a lot better over the off-season, maybe they will all work out, but right now all you have to go on is the “in TD we trust” mantra.

by Whopper Dawg on Jun 24, 2011 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions

everyone starts an unknown

so yes, you’re correct. But by your logic Chris Redman would still be the starting QB. At some point you do have to accept the ‘mantra’ because not only do they know a lot more about football than anyone here, but they are much better acquainted with these players. As TD has said repeatedly this off-season, they’ve been preparing for the current OLine situation for the last few years. So, quite literally, I’ve got to ‘trust in TD,’ and quite frankly, I don’t see why I shouldn’t with his track record.

by KMarch on Jun 24, 2011 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions

They won't improve if they don't play

The current O line will not improve period. If anything they will begin to decline considering their age. So you have to accept the potential to be better for the risk of being worse.

by Mosugo on Jun 24, 2011 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions

accept the potential to be better for the risk of being worse.

Eh?? Seems like a big role of the dice to me. You are defining potential as simply change. If you buy into that, then let’s change everybody, it might be better or it might be worse, what the hell??

Be careful on this one, for example, take Johnson for example, a previous poster said he was a beast. Maybe so, but he has yet to play a down of NFL football.

If he had been in some sort of rotation and kicked some ass, then I would say giddy up. Maybe we plug him in.

But, taking two to three linemen out that have been together for years, and replacing them with players that have next to nil game experience, you are just asking for it.

But what the heck, in TD we trust.

by Whopper Dawg on Jun 25, 2011 2:56 AM EDT up reply actions

But by your logic Chris Redman

Not really. There is a huge middle ground in terms of rotational play, seeing how players react in game situations, adjusting coaching and playing time dependent on game performance and experience. Game performance and experience is what it is all about, yes?

Also, there is the evaluation and selection process of the draft, think Jones will start first game this year? I guarantee you he will, there is no doubt.

So, if they have been preparing for this for years, then why the lack of playing time? If they are truly ready to step into starting roles, then they progressed greatly in the off season, as not one has started a game yet. Believe me, there is a reason why.

You jettison two to three starters from a line that has been together for years and replace them with no experience, you gonna have problems.

But sleep well, “in TD we trust”.

by Whopper Dawg on Jun 25, 2011 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions

I think your 100% correct

Game performance and experience is what it is all about, yes?

The starting OLine’s greatest asset is not skill, but communication. For that reason (and the one you stated above), the backups don’t start or get much/any gametime. Unlike the DLine (which I’m guessing you’re referring to), Smitty/MM don’t prefer a rotation on the OLine because communication is so essential, and a rotation is the surest way to break that chemistry. I don’t know any teams that rotate their OLine mid-game, save for injury. Thus, it’s not necessarily a position or unit where the most (potentially) talented or biggest guys should step in right away. They learn from the Vets which have earned their starting roles, in this case, on this unit.

by KMarch on Jun 25, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions

PB is a great coach, but i disagree, do all ya can to keep our right side intact, lota yds on the ground coming from that side, let Blaylock walk and put GR in at LG … you also have to consider the time or lack there of factor, no otas ect, dont matter how good PB is, guys need time to understand our schemes and Gel, you cant replace 3 of the 5 starters on your line with no off season and expect to be anything but alot worse off….

http://www.myspace.com/shredsplace

http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Thigpen/100001812990216

by Shredman on Jun 24, 2011 10:44 AM EDT reply actions

But Blalock is our best OL!

I can understand if you think those guys (Dahl and Clabo) would be better in Pass-blocking, but honestly, the guys behind them are bigger and should be much more adept than their predecessors at Run-blocking.

I don’t think there’s any way we have to replace all 3 of the OL. I’m guessing 2 is much more likely, though.

by KMarch on Jun 24, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs