10 hours ago
I really did not like any pick we made in terms of risk (Stewart), value/reach and opportunity cost (Knight & Fairchild), or redundancy/positional needs (Carter, Rivers, Brooks).
But that does not mean I have beef with the players themselves. Carter in the 4th is perfectly fine in and of itself.
It appears Golden thought we needed serious upgrades to the LB room. We signed Burks and Giles-Harris in FA and drafted Knight and Carter.
I just think the triple dip at LB (quadruple if you count Giles-Harris), G, and RB was a bit much when we did nothing at S, DT, CB, and TE (counting Gesicki as WR, though I guess we brought Grandy back).
But that has nada to do with Carter the player. But LB4 is not where I'd have been looking. LB5 with Pratt still here.
But, doing it at LB does make the most sense (or G), especially if we run more 4-3 and/or 3-4.Though waiting this long to cut Pratt, and probably not being able to reinvest his $$ elsewhere puts a bit of a damper on things. Not done yet, though, hopefully.
But that does not mean I have beef with the players themselves. Carter in the 4th is perfectly fine in and of itself.
It appears Golden thought we needed serious upgrades to the LB room. We signed Burks and Giles-Harris in FA and drafted Knight and Carter.
I just think the triple dip at LB (quadruple if you count Giles-Harris), G, and RB was a bit much when we did nothing at S, DT, CB, and TE (counting Gesicki as WR, though I guess we brought Grandy back).
But that has nada to do with Carter the player. But LB4 is not where I'd have been looking. LB5 with Pratt still here.
But, doing it at LB does make the most sense (or G), especially if we run more 4-3 and/or 3-4.Though waiting this long to cut Pratt, and probably not being able to reinvest his $$ elsewhere puts a bit of a damper on things. Not done yet, though, hopefully.
