Reverse thoughts

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-03-2021, 11:53 AM)spazz70 Wrote: I agree but responding to this and the other posts...If you fix the OL in FA and use later picks to develop OL (if Sewell is not there) then it leaves you wide open for pick 5 (BPA or trade).  I do not want to see both OTs and our QB come into contract years back to back to back, which we will have if we draft a top tier OT this year.  That will be a nightmare and you know what the Bengals will do, drop one of the OTs and have another exposure on the line.

We have a ton wrapped up in FA defense if we resign one of Lawson or WJ3 and Alexander and probably another LBer.  With Reader and Waynes added last year already.  I think the OL needs fixed in FA and open the draft, that is all.  If you can upgrade the IOL and get a Leatherwood or one of the ND tackles in 2 then the offense should be in good shape, an improved running game and time for Burrow to throw.

I completely support "fixing the oline in FA" and trying to open up your options at #5, including a bounty of picks to trade back.  Perhaps I misunderstood when you mentioned the first two picks then going defense, because that wouldn't be the worst idea provided the back 75% of the draft would focus on the offensive side of the ball, given the relative lack of depth for the defensive side of the ball in the draft.

One of my goals is to give Burrow that transcendent weapon, though, and Chase or Pitts (not my first choice at all, but if they slide back and Smith and Waddle are also gone) could fill that role.