TribuneUK said

Your argument reminds me a bit of our old pal NOfalcon10, who'd argue endlessly that there was zero point trying to fix our 32nd ranked defense at all, and that we should instead plow almost all resources into boosting our offensive prowess. (Of course, it didn't help that he thought the answer was receivers like Denzel Mims, Andy Isabella and Kelvin Benjamin 😄😄)

Adding 'blue chip' skill position players to a team with holes at OL would be a bit like being lost in the desert with no food or water, but getting the Red Cross to airlift you a LayzeeBoy, so you'd at least be relatively comfortable while you died of thirst.

To be fair, you spent a lot of time pre-draft saying we didn't need to spend high picks on OL. Practically everyone disagreed with you IIRC. But I notice you now say:-



You can't have it both ways. You can't demand spending the high pick on your man crush TE (who wasn't even available at the pick), but also that the team should have spent multiple high picks on OL. As well as signing some 'serious FA o linemen", which as we all know are in such plentiful supply.

The team got the best OL it could in the first round. It then used it's meagre options to try to fix the rest of the unit. Just to be clear, I haven't tried to tell you that the team did enough to cover the problem, but I am comfortable saying that what they did was a hell of a lot more responsible than just not trying.

The idea that if they didn't get more 'serious' OL, they should just not have bothered at all is pretty ludicrous.

Click to expand...