We've got big trouble on the OL.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

If you're making an argument about improving the receiving options no one would disagree with you.
But, I think the more applicable question is which position RT or WR played at higher level/lower level?.

I absolutely agree. I believe that the real limiting factor to this offense was not the O-Line play but the play of the receivers.

Originally Posted by 30gut

There is a difference between assessment of a unit like the OL vs an assessment of the individual players.

Again, I agree. We appear to disagree as to the assessment of each unit. As a unit, I think the O-Line performed better and was less of a limitation on the offense than the WR corp. Further, IMHO, the addition of a better indidvidual RT would not enhance the performance of the line as much as the addition of a game-breaking WR would enhance the receiver corp. The difference an individual can make within each unit is, in part, due to the nature the positions. An average RT's weaknesses can be covered up/limited as part of the entire line's play in ways that an individual receiver can't.

Originally Posted by 30gut

This is the crux of the decision.
There seems to be the implication that there hands were tied.
When the reality is they made a choice.

I agree it was a choice. I think it was the right choice. You & I appear to disagree. I don't remember if it was you, Goat or Chico talking about the limiting factors on offense, but it seems clear to me that the WR's were a significantly bigger limitation to this offense then O-Line was or, specifically, the RT was. Because of that, rather than prioritize a RT, the FO made the more reasonable choice of trying to obtain a WR who could be a game breaker.

Originally Posted by 30gut

I like Cousins as a prospect. But its a whole other discussion whether there was a need to develop a back-up from this draft. Cousins pick strikes me more as 'amassing talent rather then building a team'. (Bellichick IIRC)].

Except that people keep saying, as part of this discussion, the 3rd or 4th round pick should have been a tackle and that Cousins was a luxury pick. Again, I disagree. The general consensus is that drafting for need over BPA gets you into trouble. It would be a different discussion if there was someone on the board at RT that they thought could start this year (maybe next) - but I don't think that's the case. By my count, 10 tackles had come been selected before we took LeRib. Either 12 or 13 had been selected before Cousins. IMHO, that player would not be part of our discussion here. Zebrie Sanders and Massie may prove me wrong but, then, hindsight is 20/20.
The faster Cousins develops, the faster our drop-off at QB becomes less catastrophic. The faster a RT chosen instead would have developed, the faster our line play becomes slightly better.

Originally Posted by 30gut

We had 3 young players that showed they could come into a game and not vomit on themself.
They played well, given the situation they were thrust into.
But, that doesn't make them starting caliber they are still unknown quantities as long term starters.
They proved themselves to be solid depth anything beyond that is a hope.Much like Jammal Brown playing better and staying healthy is a hope.

Well, yes, of course it was a hope. I believe it was a reasonable hope given their performance - as young players with upside and, now, starting experience - that they would be more likely to step up to be average or better at the RT position than Hankerson, Moss, Banks or Austin would turn into a game breaking WR. Given the multiple off-season needs, you have to make some choices. Again, I thought the FO choice, given the in-game performances last year, was perfectly reasonable.

Originally Posted by 30gut

The safeties and nickelback are question marks heading into the season.

Question marks is putting it kindly. Our front seven better get to the QB quick.