Option A or Option B?

[Au165]

(03-19-2019, 01:01 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: And you could be right about Glenn. I think they still need to address line in the first 3 rounds for depth and a year from now at least, but I don't want them to reach for a guy at 11. 

I keep seeing people act as if offense was the main issue last year, we lost our QB, #1 WR, #1 TE for substantial time and lost our #2 WR #2/#3 TE and HB for a couple games each. With that said we still finished 17th in points scored and 26th in yards. Our defense finished 30th in points allowed and 32nd in yards. We missed some guys on defense at times during the year, but to me the historically bad job at coverage by our linebackers and adding depth at CB need to be priority #1. 

The offensive line issues can be overcome, as I have said since last year, with good scheming. Lots of boot actions, lots of check and release, lot's of screens. All that said Mixon had a really solid year and the offense as a whole wasn't bad all things considered. The defense is just flat out exposed as they have to react to what the offense wants to do.

[Shake n Blake]

With option A, we're free to spend that 1st round pick on whatever...including LB.

With option B, we HAVE to take a Tackle...and what happens if the top Tackle is gone in the top 10?

For me, it's not that they brought back Hart. Hart was better than Ogbuehi at the very least. Miller is an average lineman and an upgrade, so I was happy about that move. Not every upgrade is an all-pro, but if you have a glaring weakness and replace it with an average player, that's a very good thing.

For me, it's the amount we paid Hart. It's also the timing of the Burfict release. Why wait til all the good free agents are gone? That money could've been used towards improving the 2019 team. Instead, it looks like the room created by the Burfict release will be "rolled over" into Mike's pocket. At least that's the optics of it to me right now.

Overall, I have 2 problems with this offseason:

1. We did not get the experienced DC (pretty much) everyone wanted. That's how Sean McVay did it, and if we hired Taylor thanks to McVay's success, why not mimic what made him successful? Del Rio was the obvious hire, yet we passed for whatever reason.

2. McVay had to address the Rams o-line. The Rams signed the best Tackle on the market (Whitworth). We had to address our o-line. The best we could do was an average Guard and bringing back Hart.

[Au165]

(03-19-2019, 01:29 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: With option A, we're free to spend that 1st round pick on whatever...including LB.

With option B, we HAVE to take a Tackle...and what happens if the top Tackle is gone in the top 10?

For me, it's not that they brought back Hart. Hart was better than Ogbuehi at the very least. Miller is an average lineman and an upgrade, so I was happy about that move. Not every upgrade is an all-pro, but if you have a glaring weakness and replace it with an average player, that's a very good thing.

For me, it's the amount we paid Hart. It's also the timing of the Burfict release. Why wait til all the good free agents are gone? That money could've been used towards improving the 2019 team. Instead, it looks like the room created by the Burfict release will be "rolled over" into Mike's pocket. At least that's the optics of it to me right now.

Overall, I have 2 problems with this offseason:

1. We did not get the experienced DC (pretty much) everyone wanted. That's how Sean McVay did it, and if we hired Taylor thanks to McVay's success, why not mimic what made him successful? Del Rio was the obvious hire, yet we passed for whatever reason.

2. McVay had to address the Rams o-line. The Rams signed the best Tackle on the market (Whitworth). We had to address our o-line. The best we could do was an average Guard and bringing back Hart.

We don't have to take a tackle, again plenty of day 2 guys who can start at RT day 1 without missing  beat. 

[*Synric*]

There is still only two tackles under contract when a team really needs four. The Bengals still need to take a tackle by the very least day two.

If they went with option B and didnt sign a tackle they would be forced to take at least two tackles in four rounds.

[Schmitbuck]

(03-19-2019, 01:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: I keep seeing people act as if offense was the main issue last year, we lost our QB, #1 WR, #1 TE for substantial time and lost our #2 WR #2/#3 TE and HB for a couple games each. With that said we still finished 17th in points scored and 26th in yards. Our defense finished 30th in points allowed and 32nd in yards. We missed some guys on defense at times during the year, but to me the historically bad job at coverage by our linebackers and adding depth at CB need to be priority #1. 

The offensive line issues can be overcome, as I have said since last year, with good scheming. Lots of boot actions, lots of check and release, lot's of screens. All that said Mixon had a really solid year and the offense as a whole wasn't bad all things considered. The defense is just flat out exposed as they have to react to what the offense wants to do.

Not sure if you are lumping me in with the 'people act as if the offense was the main issue last year' crowd since you quoted me, but the conversation was about the o-line, a part of the offense.  O line is probably getting the majority of the chatter on the board since we've made 2 moves on the o-line so far in FA. But with Glenn's injury issues, Boling being in his last year, and Hart being Hart, it's something that still needs to be a priority in the draft. 

[Whatever]

(03-19-2019, 12:35 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You could go with White at 11 and then use Smith at RT for a year and draft a Tackle in Round 2 to develop.

Once again, I go back to the fact that Hart is a bad tackle. If he were even average, this is a different discussion...but he's one of the worst starting tackles in the league. He gave up over 10 sacks. I saw only 3 or 4 tackles did that.

Andre can't stay healthy and can't even latch on as a backup anywhere else.  The guy is done.  He's a guy you sign off the street mid season to get you through a game or two, not a guy you trot out there #1 on the depth chart heading into camp.

Hart sucks, but the reality is that he was good enough that the offense could move the ball, score points, and win games until guys started dropping like flies.  We should be looking to upgrade, no doubt.  However, we shouldn't sacrifice the luxury of going BPA in the draft.  We did that last year.  We went into the draft with an obvious hole at C, were forced to take Price in the first, and Hopkins outplayed him.

[Shake n Blake]

(03-19-2019, 01:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: We don't have to take a tackle, again plenty of day 2 guys who can start at RT day 1 without missing  beat. 

I think you misunderstood my post. I said with "option B" we had to take a Tackle. We went with "option A" - so I don't think Tackle is a need at #11.

Overall, I agree with you. I think we'll look for a Tackle between rounds 2-5. That said, we don't NEED to take a Tackle anywhere, because Hart can hold down the starting spot this year. We may want an upgrade, but we don't have a giant hole at Tackle like we would've had we chosen "option B".

[Au165]

(03-19-2019, 01:38 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: Not sure if you are lumping me in with the 'people act as if the offense was the main issue last year' crowd since you quoted me, but the conversation was about the o-line, a part of the offense.  O line is probably getting the majority of the chatter on the board since we've made 2 moves on the o-line so far in FA. But with Glenn's injury issues, Boling being in his last year, and Hart being Hart, it's something that still needs to be a priority in the draft. 

My point is if we ran the same O line out there as last year it still wouldn't be as bad as if we ran the same defense out there. With that horrible O line Mixon still had a pretty awesome year and Dalton was having a standard year before injury. If we run the same defense out there we are looking at once again being on the verge of a historically bad defense. 

There is always something to be said for looking to the future but that is what Day 3 picks can be used for. Plus, cuts from training camp usually yield some veteran O linemen who were supplanted by rookies or younger players. 

[*psychdoctor*]

(03-19-2019, 12:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: I just wonder how Taylor play into that stuff. He knows what Saffold is and if he didn't make the move, why? Maybe it was FO, or maybe it truly was his plan is to go long haul so he wanted younger options. Is interesting though in this specific case because of Taylor's familiarity with him.

My fear is that Turner saw something in Hart and recommended to sign him to a 3 year contract.  Now, Hart may improve under Turner but I did not really see much improvement in Hart under Pollack who by most would be considered a better OL coach.  This is what worries me.  

[Au165]

(03-19-2019, 01:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I think you misunderstood my post. I said with "option B" we had to take a Tackle. We went with "option A" - so I don't think Tackle is a need at #11.

Overall, I agree with you. I think we'll look for a Tackle between rounds 2-5. That said, we don't NEED to take a Tackle anywhere, because Hart can hold down the starting spot this year. We may want an upgrade, but we don't have a giant hole at Tackle like we would've had we chosen "option B".

Yea, my point was either way we don't have to take a tackle. I keep seeing people throw out "we have to do X at 11" and really the draft has shown us it's not about just first round picks. It came across kind of strange but just trying to stem some of the panic around being forced into picking certain positions. 

[Au165]

(03-19-2019, 01:49 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: My fear is that Turner saw something in Hart and recommended to sign him to a 3 year contract.  Now, Hart may improve under Turner but I did not really see much improvement in Hart under Pollack who by most would be considered a better OL coach.  This is what worries me.  

The contract says 3 years, the money says one year and we will see. We have been at some pro days where the main attractions are O linemen, specifically Kansas State, so to me we aren't done looking for high end tackles.

[THE PISTONS]

(03-19-2019, 01:49 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: My fear is that Turner saw something in Hart and recommended to sign him to a 3 year contract.  Now, Hart may improve under Turner but I did not really see much improvement in Hart under Pollack who by most would be considered a better OL coach.  This is what worries me.  

Turner liked Hart's play. What he saw was enthusiasm while playing poorly. 

[Whatever]

(03-19-2019, 01:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: We don't have to take a tackle, again plenty of day 2 guys who can start at RT day 1 without missing  beat. 

If there are plenty of day 2 guys that are plug and play starters Day 1, Juwaun James wouldn't have just become the highest paid RT in the league.   Seriously, average starting RT's are getting $13 mil a year.  If you're a plug and play starter at The, you're going in 1. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-19-2019, 12:35 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You could go with White at 11 and then use Smith at RT for a year and draft a Tackle in Round 2 to develop.

Once again, I go back to the fact that Hart is a bad tackle. If he were even average, this is a different discussion...but he's one of the worst starting tackles in the league. He gave up over 10 sacks. I saw only 3 or 4 tackles did that.

The problem with the theory here, is that Andre Smith isn't a good tackle either.  And he's old.

[Au165]

(03-19-2019, 01:54 PM)Whatever Wrote: If there are plenty of day 2 guys that are plug and play starters Day 1, Juwaun James wouldn't have just become the highest paid RT in the league.   Seriously, average starting RT's are getting $13 mil a year.  If you're a plug and play starter at The, you're going in 1. 

Last year linemen drafted in the 2nd who started atleast 10 games....

Will Hernandez, Braden Smith, James Daniels, Connor Williams, Brian O'Neil. 

Fun fact....5 of 6 O linemen drafted in the second round started at least 10 games as rookies. This year will be o different, especially in a really deep tackle class that the difference between tackle 2 and tackle 7 is minimal.

[Shake n Blake]

(03-19-2019, 01:50 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, my point was either way we don't have to take a tackle. I keep seeing people throw out "we have to do X at 11" and really the draft has shown us it's not about just first round picks. It came across kind of strange but just trying to stem some of the panic around being forced into picking certain positions. 

Idk man...had we not signed Hart, I think we had to consider a Tackle ASAP. You never know how the draft will shake out, and if we'd let Hart go and ignored Tackle at #11, what happens if there was a run on Tackles? Or if all of our favorites were taken before our pick(s)? You can't look for perceived value when you have a gaping hole.

I think that's partially why we signed Hart. We paid to open up the draft a bit.

[*psychdoctor*]

(03-19-2019, 01:52 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Turner liked Hart's play. What he saw was enthusiasm while playing poorly. 

I think Taylor has a plan to select players who are positive, high energy (including coaches), to create more of team chemistry.  I think Taylor knows what he wants but is influenced by those he trusts.  

Give Hart another year and if his play doesn't improve with a new RG by his side, then I guess Plan C would be to draft Risner in Round two (just in case there is no improvement) with the hope he could anchor RT.  

I do also agree with others, that if White is there, Bengals should take him.  I also worry a little about Eifert.  I know the Bengals signed him but as a fan, I think they should save Eifert for Red Zone plays and possibly take Hockenson at 11.  If the Bengals go QB or Williams CB or DT (Wilkins) then it would seem they would have to go backer in round 2.  The next Tier of OT would fall in the round 3-5 range.  

[Au165]

(03-19-2019, 02:00 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Idk man...had we not signed Hart, I think we had to consider a Tackle ASAP. You never know how the draft will shake out, and if we'd let Hart go and ignored Tackle at #11, what happens if there was a run on Tackles? Or if all of our favorites were taken before our pick(s)? You can't look for perceived value when you have a gaping hole.

I think that's partially why we signed Hart. We paid to open up the draft a bit.

Nah, I think if Hart was off the board we would have went for a similarly priced veteran. They want a veteran swing tackle if history has shown us anything. It's why I still think Hart could end up the swing tackle even this year.

[Schmitbuck]

(03-19-2019, 01:48 PM)Au165 Wrote: My point is if we ran the same O line out there as last year it still wouldn't be as bad as if we ran the same defense out there. With that horrible O line Mixon still had a pretty awesome year and Dalton was having a standard year before injury. If we run the same defense out there we are looking at once again being on the verge of a historically bad defense. 

There is always something to be said for looking to the future but that is what Day 3 picks can be used for. Plus, cuts from training camp usually yield some veteran O linemen who were supplanted by rookies or younger players. 

You are all over the place. You were just talking to someone else about how we could get a starting RT on Day 2 (rounds 2 and 3). 

Regardless, I don't care. I think we need to address o-line in the first 3 rounds, but don't want to reach for a bad value guy at 11. That won't change barring a significant trade/injury/signing before the draft. 

[Au165]

(03-19-2019, 02:02 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: You are all over the place. You were just talking to someone else about how we could get a starting RT on Day 2 (rounds 2 and 3). 

Regardless, I don't care. I think we need to address o-line in the first 3 rounds, but don't want to reach for a bad value guy at 11. That won't change barring a significant trade/injury/signing before the draft. 

Right we can get a tackle on Day 2, no need to go for 1 in round 1 or even in round 2 for that matter (unless the value is there). Not all over the place at all, maybe read the context better?