AU-panther

and again you deflect, you know good and well the biggest knock during the draft process concerning his ability to play LT at the NFL level was his physical traits. I'm not saying that is smart its just the way it was. Slater had the same issue, some teams saw him more of a guard, a lot of people look stupid now. It was doopey the way Rhule said it, the fact he specifically referenced just the arm length. I seriously doubt that's the only reason they don't think he is suited for LT, fans hear statements like that and take it very literal and run with it. The fact he signed Erving and Elflein the first week of free agency actually gives me more concern, but I actually said that when it happened.

you get so literal. Arm length is part of a players physical traits. Are you saying his physical traits aren't the main reason he fell? You are quick to criticize but you never ever give an opinion unless its after the fact and you know the results. What was the biggest knock in league circles concerning BC about playing LT during the draft???? You know the answer but you won't say it because it backs up everything I just said.

I thought you meant yards allowed was the best measure for a defense. I might have misread you. I think you were trying to say that was was people consider the best defense, which I don't' get either. I don't know if I've seen a universally accepted best defense ranking. In reality the best would probably be some situation and/or opponent adjusted ranking. Here is the problem with fans, they think in a vacuum. Good and bad are relative terms, fans though tend to create artificial benchmarks that they assign to good and bad. A good defense is the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens, anything else is bad. For most of the year we have been an above average defense relative to the rest of the league, which is somewhat impressive considering how bad our offense is. Our defense isn't elite by any stretch, there are probably only three teams I would consider that way, Pats, Bills, and Broncos. The next 10-12 teams are probably pretty close and all of those fan bases probably complaining about their defenses being bad since they aren't elite but in reality, they are above average.

You are actually hurting your argument here, we are 2nd in the league in yards allowed. 2021 NFL Team Total Defense Stats | ESPN NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Yards per Game | TeamRankings.com

I thought that is how we decide who wins and loses...

so points don't matter?

a lot of the same type of draft profiles that you referenced said the same thing I'm saying. I'm sure you saw his arm length referenced in those same articles. Also, I'm not saying every team passed on him just because they only looked at the arm length number in a vacuum. Arm length is part of a player's physical traits. Alot of teams had doubts about his ability to translate to LT at the NFL level because of his physical traits, that really isn't debatable. It wasn't because of his production at the college, it was great, It wasn't because of his testing, it was great. His level of competition hurt some, his age hurt some also, maybe his interviews were terrible, but mostly they had their doubts about him having the physical tools for LT. They just don't go around specifically referencing arm length to the press like Rhule.

so you have Ekwonu at OT2?

exactly. He was projected by scouts as a backup even though he had elite athletic testing and elite production. What does that tell you? Use some logic, the entire league had doubts about his measurables. Yes, scouts do factor in level of competition when looking at the production aspect of the evaluation puzzle, but that alone didn't drop him that much. Here again, I think it's stupid we aren't playing him at LT, lets see what he can do, what do we have to lose at this point but i think all of this "arm length talk" has kind of took a life of its own. I've got bigger issues with Rhule than that comment. If he would have said his physical traits are better suited for guard then I don't think people would have been so upset or it would have been as big of a deal. Honestly most of the league agrees with that. Personally, I thought he was a really good prospect at LG, with some of his quickness. I know if he can be an average LT that would be an upgrade for us but personally, I thought his best chance of being elite was at LG. I think the fan base would have been ok with that if we would have just committed to something.

If he had some of the best tape in all of college football at the LT positions what else could it be? Also his athletic testing numbers were elite. The only thing left were his measurables. Players get drafted on production, testing, and measurables. He was elite at 2 of those, but he made it to the 3rd round.

You don't draft a QB to win now. If anything, it's the opposite, you sign a vet QB and draft a lineman to protect him. Nobody expects you to win with a rookie QB. The only way you save your job with a rookie is showing improvement over the season.

Not to be an apologist for Rhule but BC had 32 teams pass on him for multiple rounds. Why is that? He probably had the best college tape of any of the OT prospects. Why did 32 teams pass on him multiple times? It's because of arm length. So in fact, these scouts didn't "throw out the rules" or he would have been drafted before he was. Rhule would be better served by not always being so open with his thoughts. He would have been better served not saying anything or saying maybe they think BC's skillset is better served at guard, which would have came across as much more logical than just blaming arm length. With that being said, I would definitely give BC a chance there to see what he can do, but to act like Rhule is the only person in the league who factors in measurables to decide where to play a player is ignorant.

I like this logic, I just think you could possibly get OT3, C1, or possible a QB that you like by trading down. Also who do you consider OT3? Ekwonu?

So nobody wants a stopgap or a retread, but they don't want to draft a QB either. So what is the answer?

I'm not crazy about drafting a center at 5 or 6 or either, but with a trade down I would consider it. I could really see a tempting prospect for a need of ours falling to that 12-15 range. C1 (Linderbaum), OT3 (Ekwano?), QB2 and/or QB3 (maybe Correll or Howell)

I agree they are probably moving up for a QB. Maybe for Pickett, mabye the next 2 QBs are Malik and Correl. My only point is that there is a chance that a QB you like might be in that 12-16 range. I could see there being a good bit of variance among teams for the top 4-5 QBs. Howell, or any of them for that matter, could easily be QB2 on one team's board and QB4 on another.

It might not be a crazy gamble. If we are picking 6-8 chances are the top LT(Neal) is going to be gone. Even if they QB you are hoping for doesn't make it to the point you trade back to you might still get LT3 (possible Ekwonu) C1 (Linderbaum), or the first guard off of the board.

If there is a QB there that you like, that is expected to go in the range, you take the QB. if not If there is a LT there that you like, that is expected to go in that range you take the LT if not you take best player available that fills a need. Dream scenario: You fall in love and are correct about a QB that is expected to be the 3rd or 4th QB taken, and you trade down to that 14-16 range and draft your QB and pick up a 2nd round pick in the process that you use of the O-line. Not to get the UNC fans too excited but Howell could fit that scenario. Picket at 7 or Howell at 14 plus a 2nd.

But it’s not a 90% vs 30% argument, fans always overate the top of the draft. True numbers are probably closer to something like 55% vs 45%. People made the same argument about staying out and taking Derrick Brown, they were convinced there was some huge drop off after pick 8 where there were no more elite players.

Most of this fan base would have a fit if they spent a #1 pick on a QB a year after spending a top 10 pick on a QB. They would start whining some gibberish about needing to protect him or give him weapons.

So now its hypothetical...LoL

Do you honestly think that the team would have passed on a comparable cost LT in free agency that they felt was better at playing the one position of LT than Cam Erving because they felt Cam was potentially better at various positions instead of the one position of LT? The answer is they wouldn't have. With Elflein they probably did like some of his versatility because on game days most teams only have 7-8 o-lineman active to cover 10 starting and backup spots, because of this all teams value versatility in their o-lineman. Rhule talking about versatility was mostly coach speak when selling players to the media and fans. In reality the amount he values it in the actual selection process is probably pretty similar to other coaches. He just happens to talk about it a lot and naive fans run with it. Part of the reason he talked about it was there was nothing else to talk about it. You couldn't talk about their pro blows? nope How about their really high PFF scores? nope You could talk about their injury history. That isn't really a selling point though is it?

It was actually a topic somewhat in the podcast, they were discussing how much Brady was to be blamed. Of course, Rhule is ultimately responsible for both, but it was just a question asking which was his biggest mistep. Also the versatility crap was a bunch of coach speak. People are overthinking it. Someone thought Erving could play LT at a high level and they were wrong. Someone thought Elflein could play guard at a high level and they were wrong. They didn't pick a bad LT because they were looking for versatility, they picked a bad LT because they don't know how to evaluate. During the process they probably appreciate versatility, any coach would but the main reason they signed Erving wasn't because he was versatile, that might have been a bonus in their mind but they signed him because they thought he could play LT. I get it you want Rhule gone, a lot of us do, but it might not happen.

I'm not missing any point, it was just a question based on the podcast. Yes, both could be considered a weakness, I'm just curious what people considered the bigger weakness of the two.

Same question for you, would have better personnel decisions on the offensive side of the ball or better offensive staffing helped more?