FA Tackle Signed

[nfoligno]

One, that is part of my issue w/ this move. IMHO, Angelo never sees the BPA as an OL. I personally believe that our staff simply does not value OL as highly, and thus OL does not rank as high on our draft board, and thus is why they are never the best player available. I would argue the only time we actually draft OL relatively early is when we are drafting for need, and not BPA.

 

Man, I would love to know where Williams was on our board last year, and how many BPA options we passed to take our need pick.

 

Two, I just am not a big fan of the BPA theory. We have too many major needs to simply take the BPA. If the BPA were a RB, would you advocate taking him? What if the BPA were a LB? That is a position some would argue as a need for us. I think drafting a LB would be a nearly wasted pick.

 

I am not saying we should take a major reach for a need, but I do think we should be looking at a select group of needs. If, when looking at our board, there is not a player that fills one of those needs w/in a few slots of where we are drafting, then trade down.

 

I would rather reach a little for a top tier need than take the BPA at a position not in need, or in low-tier need.

 

I agree. He seems like an upgrade to last years tackles. We still need a couple of OL in the draft. But these types of moves let us consider BPA

[bowlingtwig]

One, that is part of my issue w/ this move. IMHO, Angelo never sees the BPA as an OL. I personally believe that our staff simply does not value OL as highly, and thus OL does not rank as high on our draft board, and thus is why they are never the best player available. I would argue the only time we actually draft OL relatively early is when we are drafting for need, and not BPA.

 

Man, I would love to know where Williams was on our board last year, and how many BPA options we passed to take our need pick.

 

Two, I just am not a big fan of the BPA theory. We have too many major needs to simply take the BPA. If the BPA were a RB, would you advocate taking him? What if the BPA were a LB? That is a position some would argue as a need for us. I think drafting a LB would be a nearly wasted pick.

 

I am not saying we should take a major reach for a need, but I do think we should be looking at a select group of needs. If, when looking at our board, there is not a player that fills one of those needs w/in a few slots of where we are drafting, then trade down.

 

I would rather reach a little for a top tier need than take the BPA at a position not in need, or in low-tier need.

I love this move. This guy is younger than St. Clair and has much more experience starting than St Clair. He is going to cost us huge bucks and IMO he is an upgrade to St Clair. People complain about the amount of sacks that he gave up last year but St Clair allowed 2x what he did. None of us REALLY liked St Clair. We liked because he knew the system and could swing back and forth. If Williams can stay healthy we will have succeeded in at least upgrading the Oline. Of course NFO I am like you in the point that I would be pissed if we ignore Oline now. This move gives us options now with the 1st pick. I would have no problem waiting until the 2nd round now to draft Oline. I want us to at least draft Oline on the 1st day. I would prefer Britton with the 1st pick though.

[azbearsfan]

One, that is part of my issue w/ this move. IMHO, Angelo never sees the BPA as an OL. I personally believe that our staff simply does not value OL as highly, and thus OL does not rank as high on our draft board, and thus is why they are never the best player available. I would argue the only time we actually draft OL relatively early is when we are drafting for need, and not BPA.

 

Man, I would love to know where Williams was on our board last year, and how many BPA options we passed to take our need pick.

 

Two, I just am not a big fan of the BPA theory. We have too many major needs to simply take the BPA. If the BPA were a RB, would you advocate taking him? What if the BPA were a LB? That is a position some would argue as a need for us. I think drafting a LB would be a nearly wasted pick.

 

I am not saying we should take a major reach for a need, but I do think we should be looking at a select group of needs. If, when looking at our board, there is not a player that fills one of those needs w/in a few slots of where we are drafting, then trade down.

 

I would rather reach a little for a top tier need than take the BPA at a position not in need, or in low-tier need.

 

Well BPA for me would be in a select group of positions. If you read Biggs Blog, you can kind of tell what positions we are scouting: OL, S, WR, DE, maybe TE.

 

In any case, I dont think this signing will mean that JA ignores OL until the fourth round. But now maybe we go WR first and OL in the second. But who really knows with JA.

[nfoligno]

Yea, it isn't that I have a problem w/ the player, his contract, or signing him over St. Clair. If we had signed St. Clair, even for the low amoung we had been offering, I would have had the same reaction. I posted some time back that I felt we were best served by NOT re-signing St. clair, as I felt that only lessened our changes of drafting OL early.

 

Now, I think the chances are near zero we draft OL early. Not only do I think we pass on OL in round one, but I think we pass in round two as well. In round 3, maybe w/ our conditional pick, but more likely we will look in the 4th and later.

 

In fact, I will throw out this projection. We take one OL w/ either the conditional 3rd or 4th, then two more between our 6th and multiple 7th. Angelo will pretend he stressed the OL w/ so many selections, and even crow about the several more undrafted rookie OL FAs he will add.

 

Meanwhile, we will have:

 

-another WR we can't develop,

-another DE so deep on the depth chart he won't get an opportunity, an injury will be thought up and he will be red shirted, er, I mean IR'd.

-another DB who will play special teams,

-another LB who will receive tons of advice from Jamar Williams on how to keep the bench warm

-and another RB who will wonder why AP is still getting carries before him.

 

I love this move. This guy is younger than St. Clair and has much more experience starting than St Clair. He is going to cost us huge bucks and IMO he is an upgrade to St Clair. People complain about the amount of sacks that he gave up last year but St Clair allowed 2x what he did. None of us REALLY liked St Clair. We liked because he knew the system and could swing back and forth. If Williams can stay healthy we will have succeeded in at least upgrading the Oline. Of course NFO I am like you in the point that I would be pissed if we ignore Oline now. This move gives us options now with the 1st pick. I would have no problem waiting until the 2nd round now to draft Oline. I want us to at least draft Oline on the 1st day. I would prefer Britton with the 1st pick though.

[nfoligno]

You never know w/ any GM. All you can do is guess and predict based on past.

 

Angelo has had 23 draft picks on day one. He has drafted OL in 3 of those slots, two of which were in his first year. Since then (2002) Williams was his only OL draft pick. Further, I would argue the two times he drafted OT in the 1st, it was a need pick and not BPA pick. Further still, he has drafted 5 or 6 OL in rounds 6 and 7. So my point is, historically, Angelo does not draft OL early. Especially after his two "big" FA signings were both OL, I just have a hard time seeing him following that up w/ a day one OL draft pick.

 

I think you know I would love it if he did, but just am not holding my breath.

 

I do agree w/ the draft philosophy for the most part though. I disagree w/ the idea of pure BPA, but agree more so w/ the idea of drafting BPA at a select group of positions. Problems I have here are (a) I do not necessarily agree as to what our top tier, or even 2nd tier, need areas are and ( do not have a great deal of faith in our "board". As we have a defensive scout background GM, I feel he gives heavier weight to the defensive prospect when creating our board, and thus we grade defensive players higher than offensive (especially OL). Thus, while Angelo will honestly say he may be drafting the BPA according to our board, it is how we set up that board which I question.

 

Well BPA for me would be in a select group of positions. If you read Biggs Blog, you can kind of tell what positions we are scouting: OL, S, WR, DE, maybe TE.

 

In any case, I dont think this signing will mean that JA ignores OL until the fourth round. But now maybe we go WR first and OL in the second. But who really knows with JA.

[madlithuanian]

Barring one...

 

I think drafting a LB would be a nearly wasted pick.

[madlithuanian]

That is sad...and scarily true.

 

Meanwhile, we will have:

 

-another WR we can't develop,

-another DE so deep on the depth chart he won't get an opportunity, an injury will be thought up and he will be red shirted, er, I mean IR'd.

-another DB who will play special teams,

-another LB who will receive tons of advice from Jamar Williams on how to keep the bench warm

-and another RB who will wonder why AP is still getting carries before him.

[ChileBear]

Yea, it isn't that I have a problem w/ the player, his contract, or signing him over St. Clair. If we had signed St. Clair, even for the low amoung we had been offering, I would have had the same reaction. I posted some time back that I felt we were best served by NOT re-signing St. clair, as I felt that only lessened our changes of drafting OL early.

 

Now, I think the chances are near zero we draft OL early. Not only do I think we pass on OL in round one, but I think we pass in round two as well. In round 3, maybe w/ our conditional pick, but more likely we will look in the 4th and later.

 

In fact, I will throw out this projection. We take one OL w/ either the conditional 3rd or 4th, then two more between our 6th and multiple 7th. Angelo will pretend he stressed the OL w/ so many selections, and even crow about the several more undrafted rookie OL FAs he will add.

 

Meanwhile, we will have:

 

-another WR we can't develop,

-another DE so deep on the depth chart he won't get an opportunity, an injury will be thought up and he will be red shirted, er, I mean IR'd.

-another DB who will play special teams,

-another LB who will receive tons of advice from Jamar Williams on how to keep the bench warm

-and another RB who will wonder why AP is still getting carries before him.

Thought it, but didn't want to say it. My gosh, do we have do do this again JA? Draft to BUILD the team, going after guys that can help now and also will keep us out of having to draft for need every frickin' year.

[bradjock]

One, that is part of my issue w/ this move. IMHO, Angelo never sees the BPA as an OL. I personally believe that our staff simply does not value OL as highly, and thus OL does not rank as high on our draft board, and thus is why they are never the best player available. I would argue the only time we actually draft OL relatively early is when we are drafting for need, and not BPA.

 

Man, I would love to know where Williams was on our board last year, and how many BPA options we passed to take our need pick.

 

BPA??? Who would you have rather had? Look at the first round from last year:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft

 

With the exception of Matt Forte in round II, there were no studs we passed up, other then o-lineman.

 

Two, I just am not a big fan of the BPA theory. We have too many major needs to simply take the BPA. If the BPA were a RB, would you advocate taking him? What if the BPA were a LB? That is a position some would argue as a need for us. I think drafting a LB would be a nearly wasted pick.

 

Let's see, the BPA could be: DT, DE, OT, OG, QB, WR, CB, Safety . . . so there's a damn good chance the BPA will be a position of need. Cause we have tons of needs.

 

More importantly, what our the best "BPA" options this year at #18??? Unless someone falls, and with the exception of linebacker, the BPA will be a WR or OT. Both are major needs, both are likely to be the BPA, and everything indicates we'll be taking one or the other.

[Mongo3451]

Meanwhile, we will have:

 

-another WR we can't develop,

-another DE so deep on the depth chart he won't get an opportunity, an injury will be thought up and he will be red shirted, er, I mean IR'd.

-another DB who will play special teams,

-another LB who will receive tons of advice from Jamar Williams on how to keep the bench warm

-and another RB who will wonder why AP is still getting carries before him.

 

Like Hester and Berrian. (throw in Olsen too)

Like Anderson his rookie year.

Like Tillman, Vasher and McBride

Touche'

Like Forte. AP will be lucky to have a locker this year. I know you meant Wolfe, just being an ass. Sorry.

 

That is sad...and scarily true.

 

 

Thought it, but didn't want to say it. My gosh, do we have do do this again JA? Draft to BUILD the team, going after guys that can help now and also will keep us out of having to draft for need every frickin' year.

Man you guys are getting cynical. LOL! I do think with the new OT being signed, it lessens the demand of OT in round 1&2. If we really look at it with fresh eyes, we have the opportunity to be vastly improved on OL. Williams has to be an upgrade over St. Clair, nuf said. Omiyale and Schaffer look to be an upgrade over Tait, who obviously had nothing in the tank. Overall, I love the move.

 

Here's where I am with you guys. I fear as you do that Angelo thinks it's complete. I think we all want one more 1st day OL. I think what JA has done is given himself the opportunity to draft the best OT or OG he can get his hands on, while having the greater ability for BPA. I would prefer OL to be a strength and am optomistic Jerry will give us one more. If he does not, I will vent.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I like the addition and question why some think we got the shorter end of the stick b/c Cle got there choice of the RT. CLE didn't want to pay Shaffer, but wanted to retain him if he restructured. He's a NFL starting RT that is better known as a run blocker according to CLE fans. He is an upgrade over Tait and St. Clair IMO. This allows us to keep Omiyale at LG which our staff believes is a upgrade over Beekman. Now we come down to RG and Garza, which I'd like to see this battle at TC hoping the winner of Garza, Buenning, Beekman upgrades that position. We are looking at a better unit already which is what we all wanted. St. Clair is a great guy, but I'm glad we moved on. Shaffer gives us a RT we know can start and Omiyale is insurance if Williams can't hang at LT. I still want to see the Bears add another RT and G, and as much as I have man love for Britton, If we feel Nicks, Britt, Robiske, DHB is a higher need, I can live with that.

 

Yet again, Angelo adds a player under the medias radar, I like it that way. We filled another need and opened up options so were not pigeoned holed when draft.

 

I do fear what nfo mentioned about JA going nuts elsewhere and avoiding OLine totally, but until draft day is over I'll hold those thoughts.

[AZ54]

We still might get our wish of Oline early in the draft but I think now there's a good possibility it's an OG in Rd 2. Williams is an unknown but by the second half of the season should be better than St Clair, Omiyale at LG, Kreutz, Duke, Shaffer. I think across the board the line is better than what we started with last year. On top of that there are now realistic options at depth. Omiyale can still be our backup OT with Beekman stepping in for him. Garza coming off the bench doesn't bother me much either. He's not great but as a backup I like him.

 

On the flipside we could now add a starting caliber WR in RD 1 and possibly a true FS in Rd 2. Pick up the backup RT in Rd 3. Overall we should have upgraded all our key positions of need and be starting the season with an Oline that has much more depth than what we had last year and with these guys we should be able to open some good holes for Forte.

[nfoligno]

BPA??? Who would you have rather had? Look at the first round from last year:

 

With the exception of Matt Forte in round II, there were no studs we passed up, other then o-lineman.

 

Not my point. I simply wonder whether Williams was truly the "BPA" on our board, or whether he was the best OT available. My point is, I believe we do not rank OL as highly as we do other positions, and thus OL is always lower on our board. So when Angelo says we drafted the BPA on our board, I believe it is true, but question the creation of our board in the first place.

 

As for last year specifically, there were a group of DBs who were drafted near our spot. I wonder if our board actually had Williams graded over all of them, or whether we simply took the best OT available.

 

Understand, I am NOT knocking our taking an OT. That isn't the point. My point, and I realize it is one I will NEVER be able to prove, is simply the belief that we do not, when creating our board, grade OL as highly as we do other positions.

 

More importantly, what our the best "BPA" options this year at #18??? Unless someone falls, and with the exception of linebacker, the BPA will be a WR or OT. Both are major needs, both are likely to be the BPA, and everything indicates we'll be taking one or the other.

 

Besides LB, WR and OT, there are several DL who many project around our pick. It would not surprise me at all if our board had several DL ranked above the WRs and OTs.

 

As for your saying the BPA will likely be WR or OT, I would agree if we were talking about my board, your board, or many others, but I just wonder if Angelo's board would have an OT ranked up there, as well as wondering how many defensive players he would have graded higher than the WRs.

 

Try to understand my point here. Angelo is a former defensive scout who worked his way up the chain. I think he has a defensive bias when looking at players. Thus, when grading players and creating his board, I think he simply favors defensive players.

[nfoligno]

Honestly, I am not sure how many truly dislike the signing of Shaffer if looked at as an individual move, w/o considering other aspects. I have no issue w/ Shaffer. I pointed out the swap situation only because I thought it funny when considering Angelo's previous comments, but that is truly a minor issue. I was never a big fan of St. Clair. I liked him for depth, but little else, and didn't like the idea this year or last of "planning" on him as a starter. To me, St. Clair is a nice backup plan, or plan B, but I just never liked the idea of him as Plan A.

 

No, the greater issue is the expections this creates leading up to the draft. Anything can happen, but while I will continue to hope, I will not be holding my breath. The issue is not just the signing, but how that affects further moves. I said some time back I didn't want to re-sign St. Clair for the same reason. I simply see VERY LITTLE chance Angelo will draft an OL early after watching him address OL in FA.

 

Remember, Angelo talked last year about how he does not like to draft OL in the first place. He said he believes OL takes longer to adapt to the NFL than most other positions, and doesn't like to draft a guy who may play well for another team after being developed by us. He said that is why he prefers to sign veterans who have already been developed. So, heading into the draft, I simply can not see him doing what he doesn't like to do in the first place. I think Angelo believes he has added two starters, and will look to the later rounds for depth, but not be looking early in the draft for more immediate upgrades.

 

To me, this is just the status quo. Angelo has continually sign bandaid OL, and while that has provided a few short term payoffs, they are just that. Short term. And when combined w/ the lack of OL in the draft, there is never anyone ready to take over when those short term FAs need to be upgraded.

 

I like the addition and question why some think we got the shorter end of the stick b/c Cle got there choice of the RT. CLE didn't want to pay Shaffer, but wanted to retain him if he restructured. He's a NFL starting RT that is better known as a run blocker according to CLE fans. He is an upgrade over Tait and St. Clair IMO. This allows us to keep Omiyale at LG which our staff believes is a upgrade over Beekman. Now we come down to RG and Garza, which I'd like to see this battle at TC hoping the winner of Garza, Buenning, Beekman upgrades that position. We are looking at a better unit already which is what we all wanted. St. Clair is a great guy, but I'm glad we moved on. Shaffer gives us a RT we know can start and Omiyale is insurance if Williams can't hang at LT. I still want to see the Bears add another RT and G, and as much as I have man love for Britton, If we feel Nicks, Britt, Robiske, DHB is a higher need, I can live with that.

 

Yet again, Angelo adds a player under the medias radar, I like it that way. We filled another need and opened up options so were not pigeoned holed when draft.

 

I do fear what nfo mentioned about JA going nuts elsewhere and avoiding OLine totally, but until draft day is over I'll hold those thoughts.

[nfoligno]

One. If we added Duke in the 2nd, I would be far happier. While maybe not the Oher/Britton - Duke combo I would love, adding Duke, to go along w/ the 2 OL FA additions would be much better than expected. I simply have a tough time seeing him drafting Duke now.

 

Two. If we do not draft Duke, or any other OL ready to start now, will our OL be upgraded w/ Williams, Omiyale and Shaffer. Likely. Not absolute, as Williams and Omiyale are really unknowns and Shaffer is coming off a horrible year, but I will say I think our OL would be upgraded w/ these three starting. At the same time, I think the question has to be asked. How much of an upgrade? When you have one of the absolute worst units in the league, simply upgrading that unit doesn't say much.

 

Statistically, our defense last year was better than the year before, but if it still sucks, how much can you hang your hat on their not sucking as bad as the year before. I didn't just want an upgrade. I didn't want to go from a bottom 5 OL to a mid or low 20s ranking. I felt there was a legit opportunity to take a weakness and make it a strength. Could that still happen? Maybe. But if we believe that Omiyale and Shaffer will be that good, I think our expectations may be a tad high.

 

We still might get our wish of Oline early in the draft but I think now there's a good possibility it's an OG in Rd 2. Williams is an unknown but by the second half of the season should be better than St Clair, Omiyale at LG, Kreutz, Duke, Shaffer. I think across the board the line is better than what we started with last year. On top of that there are now realistic options at depth. Omiyale can still be our backup OT with Beekman stepping in for him. Garza coming off the bench doesn't bother me much either. He's not great but as a backup I like him.

 

On the flipside we could now add a starting caliber WR in RD 1 and possibly a true FS in Rd 2. Pick up the backup RT in Rd 3. Overall we should have upgraded all our key positions of need and be starting the season with an Oline that has much more depth than what we had last year and with these guys we should be able to open some good holes for Forte.

[ChileBear]

Man you guys are getting cynical. LOL! I do think with the new OT being signed, it lessens the demand of OT in round 1&2. If we really look at it with fresh eyes, we have the opportunity to be vastly improved on OL. Williams has to be an upgrade over St. Clair, nuf said. Omiyale and Schaffer look to be an upgrade over Tait, who obviously had nothing in the tank. Overall, I love the move.

 

Here's where I am with you guys. I fear as you do that Angelo thinks it's complete. I think we all want one more 1st day OL. I think what JA has done is given himself the opportunity to draft the best OT or OG he can get his hands on, while having the greater ability for BPA. I would prefer OL to be a strength and am optomistic Jerry will give us one more. If he does not, I will vent.

". . .getting cynical"??!! Heck, I have been cynical ever since Jimmy Mac was thrown to the ground by that Pucker schmuck and we got bounced from the playoffs. That was the start of cynicism form me.

But yes, I feel we have improved the OL with Omiyale and Schaffer, "vastly" is yet to be seen. But I do feel better now that at the beginning of the month.

Oh, and I'm sure that Angelo is feeling he's solved the OL and he's already penciled in the seventh round picks for OL, or he's lining up some UDFA for his speed dial. He may have given himself (and the team) a great opportunity to draft the best OT or OG, but the ole cynicism says he feels it would be overkill and moves on, no matter who is there when we pick in rd. 1 or 2.

[Stinger226]

One. If we added Duke in the 2nd, I would be far happier. While maybe not the Oher/Britton - Duke combo I would love, adding Duke, to go along w/ the 2 OL FA additions would be much better than expected. I simply have a tough time seeing him drafting Duke now.

 

Two. If we do not draft Duke, or any other OL ready to start now, will our OL be upgraded w/ Williams, Omiyale and Shaffer. Likely. Not absolute, as Williams and Omiyale are really unknowns and Shaffer is coming off a horrible year, but I will say I think our OL would be upgraded w/ these three starting. At the same time, I think the question has to be asked. How much of an upgrade? When you have one of the absolute worst units in the league, simply upgrading that unit doesn't say much.

 

Statistically, our defense last year was better than the year before, but if it still sucks, how much can you hang your hat on their not sucking as bad as the year before. I didn't just want an upgrade. I didn't want to go from a bottom 5 OL to a mid or low 20s ranking. I felt there was a legit opportunity to take a weakness and make it a strength. Could that still happen? Maybe. But if we believe that Omiyale and Shaffer will be that good, I think our expectations may be a tad high.

There is a chance a high draft pick may not start right away either. I think the best we can do is bring in a couple of more bodies, perferable high picks and hope it can jell with the other additions. I think the biggest thing is, if the OL is bigger it will make a difference in the running game right away and hope it jells into a better than average line.

[madlithuanian]

Man Chile...I don't think I was ever so livid when that happened... That was the cheapest shot in sports history... The football karma gods didn't take kindly to us. Not only did the scum sucking Packers KO our chances at being a dynasty with that move, they then got Brett Favre for over a decade to continue to poison us. I just hope some good karma starts flowing our way...

 

". . .getting cynical"??!! Heck, I have been cynical ever since Jimmy Mac was thrown to the ground by that Pucker schmuck and we got bounced from the playoffs. That was the start of cynicism form me.

[AZ54]

Without Duke or similar Rd 2 OG/OT talent I see some upgrade but not the type of upgrade that would give me confidence that we'll be able to dictate to teams what we want to do on offense. That's a bit of an over the top statement and I don't presume for our offense will suddenly become top 5. Rather just that it would be nice to see us able to do one of these two: run the ball effectively against an 8-man front (say consistent 3+ yard gains) or when we pass not to always see someone forcing Orton to move around the pocket.

 

To get that now we have to add some elite young talent early in the draft. Add Britton and you can probably feel confident in our pass protection. Add Duke and you can probably hang your hat on consistency in our running game. At this point I'd take either.

[nfoligno]

Or, add both and dictate both the run and pass. Add Duke, and let him compete (beat out) Garza. AND add Britton, and let him compete (beat out) Shaffer.

 

If we did this, we would have (a) upgraded our starting OL short term ( upgraded our starting OL long term and © upgraded our depth.

 

Trust me, i realize this is a pipe dream, but am I not allowed to dream?

 

Without Duke or similar Rd 2 OG/OT talent I see some upgrade but not the type of upgrade that would give me confidence that we'll be able to dictate to teams what we want to do on offense. That's a bit of an over the top statement and I don't presume for our offense will suddenly become top 5. Rather just that it would be nice to see us able to do one of these two: run the ball effectively against an 8-man front (say consistent 3+ yard gains) or when we pass not to always see someone forcing Orton to move around the pocket.

 

To get that now we have to add some elite young talent early in the draft. Add Britton and you can probably feel confident in our pass protection. Add Duke and you can probably hang your hat on consistency in our running game. At this point I'd take either.

[ChileBear]

Or, add both and dictate both the run and pass. Add Duke, and let him compete (beat out) Garza. AND add Britton, and let him compete (beat out) Shaffer.

 

If we did this, we would have (a) upgraded our starting OL short term ( upgraded our starting OL long term and © upgraded our depth.

 

Trust me, i realize this is a pipe dream, but am I not allowed to dream?

Dreaming is a good thing. I too would love to see it happen. How much better would our O be if the line were solid? Keep on dreaming

[Stinger226]

Or, add both and dictate both the run and pass. Add Duke, and let him compete (beat out) Garza. AND add Britton, and let him compete (beat out) Shaffer.

 

If we did this, we would have (a) upgraded our starting OL short term ( upgraded our starting OL long term and © upgraded our depth.

 

Trust me, i realize this is a pipe dream, but am I not allowed to dream?

If we fixed the OL for years to come, I would be ok with that. I dont think you can fix everything in one year anyways. Dont you think Buening will be competing for Garzas spot this year? He was a starter and is 20lbs heavier than Garza. The upgrade may already be on the roster in Buening. The only reason he out in Tampa was an injury and should be fully recovered now.

[nfoligno]

I have no problem w/ Buenning, but I am not giong to factor him in my plans. That doesn't mean he can't step up and win a job. It just means I have not seen enough to warrant planning around him.

 

If we fixed the OL for years to come, I would be ok with that. I dont think you can fix everything in one year anyways. Dont you think Buening will be competing for Garzas spot this year? He was a starter and is 20lbs heavier than Garza. The upgrade may already be on the roster in Buening. The only reason he out in Tampa was an injury and should be fully recovered now.

[AZ54]

I wouldn't mind at all if we did that. Grab Britton and Duke and ride that Oline for the next 6-8 years. Buening and Garza and Beekman can compete for backup roles. Grab a WR or FS in Rd 3.

 

There's just no way I see JA doing this. If we're lucky he'll grab one of OT/OG in the first 2 rounds. The other is either WR or FS (in Rd 2). I have a suspicion the hole at FS is a bigger need in the coaches eyes, bigger than a WR. The reason...because few people are talking about it and in typical JA fashion he likes to hide his true intentions. If we have a shot at one of the top 2 FS in Rd 2 I think that's our pick. OL/WR in Rd 1, FS in 2, OL/WR in Rd 3.

 

I'd like to see JA approach this like a 3 pick draft and not worry about the late rounds. We don't need the depth and/or special teams players. Trade down/up to get 3 picks early enough in the first two rounds to get the three players we need.