Why Not?

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 12:17 PM)SladeX Wrote: I’m ok with TB being gone ONLY if it means we get top notch OL help. Mentioned this at the start of the off season. I’m not convinced this has to happen in order to robustly address the OL, but what I Don’t want to hear is that retaining TB prevented us from getting (insert your stud FA OL here).
I’m not holding his postseason play against him, there’s no need in order to support the argument. But when it comes to addressing the OL, it’s all hands on deck time. Has to happen, one way or another. If that way involves letting TB go, so be it.

I dont disagree and my shitting on Boyd's play in the SB is in response to the argument he is so reliable and a vet, etc. The SB is the true test, thats not when a player runs the wrong route and drops balls - of course Boyd is talented and in my opinion he is over qualified for that spot as it is priority 4 in our offense? He is expensive and has more value right now to other teams.

But he is going no where so its just hypothetical.  But if a team is very serious about going to the SB and has a real need like we do with the oline, with very few but expensive options, we need to take a very serious look at every single spot that is overpaid and make difficult decisions.

We have 1 decent affordable option at RT tackle in T Brown. Tunsil trade may not be realistic but the absolute best. Armstead will be expensive and guaranteed dollars will be high.  We will have to outbid several teams for Jensen or Bozeman at center.  Will we value the guard spot enough to pay for one?

Not to mention we have zero 3-T DT's on the roster, missing a CB and TE as well.  Any spot we overpay for a less priority position impacts higher priorities.  

We agree Oline > WR3, but do we? For every spot? I do. 

What about CB1 or CB2 > WR3?  I do. I think a solid starting CB is more valuable than WR3.

TE is more subjective based upon one's idea of the offense.