Slappy Mc Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, ARTMONK HOF said: I know C.Lucas isn’t Joe Thomas but he’s not a bum either. He’s a decent LT, I actually thought he played LT better than C. Leno. Hopefully B. Coleman will show out and be the Starter. I disagree. I don't even think Lucas is serviceable. I feel we have a bottom 5 starting LT, right now. Couple that with a bottom 5/10 RT, our OTs are probably the worst starting duo in the league. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARTMONK HOF Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 8 minutes ago, Slappy Mc said: I disagree. I don't even think Lucas is serviceable. I feel we have a bottom 5 starting LT, right now. Couple that with a bottom 5/10 RT, our OTs are probably the worst starting duo in the league. I guess we were watching 2 different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARTMONK HOF Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Boyd is off the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offbyone Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said: I disagree. I don't even think Lucas is serviceable. I feel we have a bottom 5 starting LT, right now. Couple that with a bottom 5/10 RT, our OTs are probably the worst starting duo in the league. I don't think anything is wrong with Lucas, but we need a succession plan for both LT and RT. Maybe Coleman is the succession project at LT, but he is a project. No matter what we need something more at tackle. We have no swing tackle right now in case there is an injury. I would be calling Leno up and see if he wants a back up role. The approach they seem to be taking is they want to evaluate the roster and fix it when they know more in a year. We left known holes and we are hording cap space. Cause you can't just simply plug new players in and go once you figure out what you need. It takes time for players to gel and young ones to develop. Even if we solved the tackle problem in the draft this year, it would likely be at least 1 season before they are ready to be an nfl starter. This seems to be a long term rebuild approach. That Newton pick is really going to get scrutinized and should be if the oline struggles for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted May 7 Author Share Posted May 7 40 minutes ago, offbyone said: I don't think anything is wrong with Lucas, but we need a succession plan for both LT and RT. Maybe Coleman is the succession project at LT, but he is a project. No matter what we need something more at tackle. We have no swing tackle right now in case there is an injury. I would be calling Leno up and see if he wants a back up role. The approach they seem to be taking is they want to evaluate the roster and fix it when they know more in a year. We left known holes and we are hording cap space. Cause you can't just simply plug new players in and go once you figure out what you need. It takes time for players to gel and young ones to develop. Even if we solved the tackle problem in the draft this year, it would likely be at least 1 season before they are ready to be an nfl starter. This seems to be a long term rebuild approach. That Newton pick is really going to get scrutinized and should be if the oline struggles for years to come. It’s extremely hard to justify the Newton pick with there still being some decent tackles on the board. Hell, it’s hard to justify it over Cooper DeJean. According to Keim they were even considering trading up for Newton. It just smacks of being in love with a guy and picking him with blinders on. It’s the same thing Rivera did with Forbes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARTMONK HOF Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 4 minutes ago, lavar703 said: It’s extremely hard to justify the Newton pick with there still being some decent tackles on the board. Hell, it’s hard to justify it over Cooper DeJean. According to Keim they were even considering trading up for Newton. It just smacks of being in love with a guy and picking him with blinders on. It’s the same thing Rivera did with Forbes. I guess they followed their board and didn’t let need, affect their selection and went BPA. Since not being able to trade back into the 1st rd maybe they felt the Tackle talent left available would have been a reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e16bball Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 18 hours ago, lavar703 said: Doing absolutely nothing at OT is just ridiculous. I’m sorry, I get you want to build this thing but good lord, you cannot tell me this was your plan at OT while developing a young QB? The fact this entire group is okay with what we have is horrifying. I’ll take you one step further and say that I feel the same way about WR. They have McLaurin and Dotson (and basically nothing else), and they essentially stand pat. We draft a young QB who, for better or worse, really blossomed when he was able to exist comfortably behind a great OL and play point guard distributing the ball to high-end receivers. His top weaknesses include dealing with consistent pressure in the pocket and making contested throws to closely covered receivers (whether the issue is willingness to or ability to is a discussion for a different day). And apparently they knew from early on that he was their top option. They have more cap space than pretty much any team in the history of the sport, and they go into free agency and…do absolutely nothing to bring in any actual talent at either OT or WR? They cut Leno and let Samuel walk, and they replace them with Cornelius Lucas and Olamide Zaccheaus. Which is very likely a downgrade from last year at both spots. I’m not going to kill them for not filling those holes in the draft. Yes, it’s a little disappointing that Coleman and McCaffrey are both probably a little bit on the “needs more development” side of things. But filling immediate holes is not why the draft exists, and you shouldn’t draft that way. I applaud them for not trying to force it. But conversely, filling immediate holes is exactly why FA exists. They had absolutely nothing limiting their ability to put a better structure around this kid, and they’ve thus far chosen not to do so. I have no idea why. But that’s where we are at the moment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, e16bball said: I’ll take you one step further and say that I feel the same way about WR. They have McLaurin and Dotson (and basically nothing else), and they essentially stand pat. We draft a young QB who, for better or worse, really blossomed when he was able to exist comfortably behind a great OL and play point guard distributing the ball to high-end receivers. His top weaknesses include dealing with consistent pressure in the pocket and making contested throws to closely covered receivers (whether the issue is willingness to or ability to is a discussion for a different day). And apparently they knew from early on that he was their top option. They have more cap space than pretty much any team in the history of the sport, and they go into free agency and…do absolutely nothing to bring in any actual talent at either OT or WR? They cut Leno and let Samuel walk, and they replace them with Cornelius Lucas and Olamide Zaccheaus. Which is very likely a downgrade from last year at both spots. I’m not going to kill them for not filling those holes in the draft. Yes, it’s a little disappointing that Coleman and McCaffrey are both probably a little bit on the “needs more development” side of things. But filling immediate holes is not why the draft exists, and you shouldn’t draft that way. I applaud them for not trying to force it. But conversely, filling immediate holes is exactly why FA exists. They had absolutely nothing limiting their ability to put a better structure around this kid, and they’ve thus far chosen not to do so. I have no idea why. But that’s where we are at the moment. Ya I strongly agree here. There was more talent available at WR than OT in the 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troublez Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 8 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Ya I strongly agree here. There was more talent available at WR than OT in the 2nd. They drafted McCaffery and Sinnot..... They gave him weapons.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e16bball Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 49 minutes ago, lavar703 said: It’s extremely hard to justify the Newton pick with there still being some decent tackles on the board. Hell, it’s hard to justify it over Cooper DeJean. According to Keim they were even considering trading up for Newton. It just smacks of being in love with a guy and picking him with blinders on. It’s the same thing Rivera did with Forbes. They had two other picks after Newton with which they could have taken every OT who was on the board at 36. They didn’t want those guys at 50 or 53 either. Hard to just pin it on the Newton pick specifically. Not one OT came off the board from 29 to 55, which is related to what I’ve been saying relentlessly for months: after Morgan (and I guess Guyton), the OTs had some talent but were all bad right now, and they were almost totally interchangeable. A couple of them might hit, but it will mostly just be about the luck of the draw (and the quality of your development group). All those dudes who came off in the run we were in the middle of…Paul, Fisher, Suamataia, Rosengarten, Coleman, Wallace, Amegadjie, Glaze, Goncalves. I think they’re all extremely comparable value. I believe that once Morgan was off the board, the draft no longer offered any answers for 2024 starting OT. I think the team believed that too, and I think the league believed it as well. Taking someone like Paul or Suamataia at 36 is something prior regimes might have done, knowing what the biggest need is and taking the top guy left at that position, regardless of the value or actual ability. In all candor, I’m happy with what they did in the draft. I hate what they’ve done overall at OT (and WR), but to me, that’s more an indictment of what they did (or chose not to do) in FA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, Troublez said: They drafted McCaffery and Sinnot..... They gave him weapons.... Thats the debate right. I mean there were more talented WRs available at the top of the 2nd than the WR we took. But those guys are probably more top end starter types, and more likely out wide X type receivers. The WR we took is more of a slot guy. So if we identify McLaurin and Dotson as high end out wide WRs then the McCaffery pick makes sense. However, it could be argued that one of Dotson or McLaurin (McLaurin does a lot of damage over the middle of the field) should be the slot guy, and what we really need was a true X out wide WR with size. I think it is an interesting debate, and the nuances of who's better at what route running skills and such are beyond my abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSkinGM Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 12 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Thats the debate right. I mean there were more talented WRs available at the top of the 2nd than the WR we took. But those guys are probably more top end starter types, and more likely out wide X type receivers. The WR we took is more of a slot guy. So if we identify McLaurin and Dotson as high end out wide WRs then the McCaffery pick makes sense. However, it could be argued that one of Dotson or McLaurin (McLaurin does a lot of damage over the middle of the field) should be the slot guy, and what we really need was a true X out wide WR with size. I think it is an interesting debate, and the nuances of who's better at what route running skills and such are beyond my abilities. I tend to think of slot guys as smaller, quicker types--Like Dotson . McCaffrey- tough as nails rep. I hope he's a Playa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troublez Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, e16bball said: I believe that once Morgan was off the board, the draft no longer offered any answers for 2024 starting OT. I think the team believed that too, and I think the league believed it as well. Taking someone like Paul or Suamataia at 36 is something prior regimes might have done, knowing what the biggest need is and taking the top guy left at that position, regardless of the value or actual ability. This is how I feel and I am confused by the feelings of some patrons here in this group.... we spent 4 years saying Ron over reached; and then now, we don't over reach - however, its a problem all of sudden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted May 7 Author Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Troublez said: This is how I feel and I am confused by the feelings of some patrons here in this group.... we spent 4 years saying Ron over reached; and then now, we don't over reach - however, its a problem all of sudden. We had $100M in cap space and ended up with 4 picks in the first two rounds of the draft and our starting OT are Cornelius Lucas and Andrew Wylie. You can’t tell me with all of that at their disposal something better wasn’t available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Mc Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 29 minutes ago, lavar703 said: We had $100M in cap space and ended up with 4 picks in the first two rounds of the draft and our starting OT are Cornelius Lucas and Andrew Wylie. You can’t tell me with all of that at their disposal something better wasn’t available? To your point. The Jets both signed Tyron Smith AND drafted Olu Fashanu. I would have taken either in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts