Housh gets it

[Whatever]

(02-23-2021, 09:17 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: A few can take the top off and the game to me has evolved more and more away from #1 WR to 2/3 WRs.. the main point with any draft pick vs. veteran is you know what the veteran has done.. draft picks are still potential so does not matter if WR or tackle. I think the difference to me is how many holes we have.. we have many more on the line so that is going to have to get fixed in FA and draft and more pressing need.. so if adding a veteran WR helps us more than taking a draft pick away from Oline or other more pressing concerns so be it. 

You can get a solid veteran G for what you're going to pay for a #3 WR, though.  A lot of people are talking high end G/#3 WR.  Why not go high end G/solid G and know going into the draft that you've shored up the 2 weakest positions on your OL with proven players?  You're not talking a G at 5 and the G spots are by far the biggest weak points in our OL.  Fix them and you have flexibility to take the BPA at 5.  You can take Sewell if he falls and get that offensive weapon in 2-3. You can take Chase or Pitts, too, and maybe get that T to develop for a year behind Hart before throwing him into the fire in the 2nd, when there should still be some good ones available.  Why voluntarily put yourself in a position where you haven't done enough to help your OL so you have to go T at 5 and hope that they beat long odds and are better than Hart as a rookie?  It honestly feels like people are intentionally pushing FA plans that narrow all options at 5 down to best T available, which is very silly.