Sry, not sry. Let's get a juggeraut together

[saX man]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Okung and Daley are capable. So was Dan Morgan, but he might actually have been better at staying healthy than Okung is at this point in his career.

Counting on them makes about as much sense as counting on Matt Kalil to be "really finally healthy this time".

Unless you get Taylor Moton under contract, you're looking at rebuilding all five positions and trusting that task to the guy who thought Greg Little was the left tackle of the future.

And that's the situation you want to throw a young quarterback into?

No.

I'm not suggesting keeping Okung.  I was speaking to the current state, not how I would build it. 

[nctarheelreincarnated]

1 hour ago, 4Corners said:

Sam Howell 

I was on the Howell train before the season, but I didn't realize how important John Heck was. Sam Howell's pocket presence is ass. 

[saX man]

I guess the hard line being drawn is some want to secure a good OL before getting a QB.  I say, if you have identified the QB you want, you get him and build the best line you can around him. 

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, saX man said:

I'm not suggesting keeping Okung.  I was speaking to the current state, not how I would build it. 

Your exact quote: "So many bitch about the OL situation but honestly, we're better than the Byron, Nate Chandler, Todd Steussie days."

That's not even remotely true.

Our OL situation is in fact worse than its been in a long long time, and it's not something you can just easily fix by throwing a bunch of lower round draft picks at it.

You 'go out and get your mother f'ing QB" without having the ability to protect him, you just set yourself up to film David Carr, the sequel.

[4Corners]

20 minutes ago, nctarheelreincarnated said:

I was on the Howell train before the season, but I didn't realize how important John Heck was. Sam Howell's pocket presence is ass. 

Yeah, disagree here. Howell has good pocket awareness and will only improve. 

[nctarheelreincarnated]

1 minute ago, 4Corners said:

Yeah, disagree here. Howell has good pocket awareness and will only improve. 

Yeah, I've watched the game all year. His pocket presence isn't good. He had issues against Virginia, and Florida State. Also, his decision making sometimes makes me scratch my head. 

[4Corners]

1 hour ago, nctarheelreincarnated said:

Yeah, I've watched the game all year. His pocket presence isn't good. He had issues against Virginia, and Florida State. Also, his decision making sometimes makes me scratch my head. 

Yeah, this is your opinion. A QB makes a couple questionable throws and now all the couch QB coaches are Bill Parcells. 

[nctarheelreincarnated]

16 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

Yeah, this is your opinion. A QB makes a couple questionable throws and now all the couch QB coaches are Bill Parcells. 

No, that's not it at all. You get defensive when talking about UNC. I'm just giving my personal opinion on him, he seems to think he'll have all day in the pocket or something sometimes. I don't get it. 

[Carolina Cajun]

14 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Chris Reed...

Not true, Greg little is somehow worse.  as soon as he hits the field, you know that Teddy is gonna get blown up.

[saX man]

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Your exact quote: "So many bitch about the OL situation but honestly, we're better than the Byron, Nate Chandler, Todd Steussie days."

That's not even remotely true.

Our OL situation is in fact worse than its been in a long long time, and it's not something you can just easily fix by throwing a bunch of lower round draft picks at it.

You 'go out and get your mother f'ing QB" without having the ability to protect him, you just set yourself up to film David Carr, the sequel.

I believe it's the case so we'll agree to disagree.  The OL with Bell/Chandler was an absolute nightmare and I can't even begin to think how that would look without a mobile QB.  If we had a more mobile QB, the question is, how would it compare?  I can guess your answer so it is what it is as Fox would say.

Also--Not spending a 1st round pick does not negate the ability to build from the lines out.  I'm not looking for David Carr the sequel, we can address both but I just believe this draft has a minimum 3 QBs with legitimate, perennial all-pro potential.  Priorities can change with availability and I just really like what I've seen.  It's worth that shot.

Also--Plenty of people were pretty confident we were going to be improved going into this season on the OL because we just did a mini-retool. Added Okung, got Miller, hoped Paradis would improve a year removed from injury, and then looked to Daley & Little's development along with Moton holding strong.  We've been doing these mini retools to no success.  Doesn't mean it can't work.   

So yes, the combination of drafting lineman and picking up FAs hasn't coalesced but it doesn't mean we can't get it right.  That's how you find players in this league. 

We drafted Little in the 2nd, we thought we grabbed a C in Paradis and then a starting G in Miller.  All seem to be duds but it's not some neglected area, just one our scouts and management have been failing at putting the right guys together.  We've been addressing it with failure each season.  Could easily be looking at Bakhtiari & Dawkins plugged in at LT if we played our cards right so we've been close to getting that LT everyone has been pining for since Gross left.

I'll throw a hypothetical:

Let's say we  up #8.  Use our 2nd rounder and a future 1st/2nd to get to #3 (checks out with value charts), we've still got 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

1-QB, 3-C, 4-LB, 5-OG/T, 6-OG/T

All I'm saying is there's countless avenues to success and I'm not drawing some black & white line of gambling on a first round lineman.  If you found your QB, go get him.   Doesn't mean you can't still concurrently address the OL.

[Snake]

How many times are we going to ignore the oline? QBs don't make Olines better but Olines make QBs better. Probably shouldn't ignore where the real money needs to go. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, saX man said:

I believe it's the case so we'll agree to disagree.  The OL with Bell/Chandler was an absolute nightmare and I can't even begin to think how that would look without a mobile QB.  If we had a more mobile QB, the question is, how would it compare?  I can guess your answer so it is what it is as Fox would say.

Also--Not spending a 1st round pick does not negate the ability to build from the lines out.  I'm not looking for David Carr the sequel, we can address both but I just believe this draft has a minimum 3 QBs with legitimate, perennial all-pro potential.  Priorities can change with availability and I just really like what I've seen.  It's worth that shot.

Also--Plenty of people were pretty confident we were going to be improved going into this season on the OL because we just did a mini-retool. Added Okung, got Miller, hoped Paradis would improve a year removed from injury, and then looked to Daley & Little's development along with Moton holding strong.  We've been doing these mini retools to no success.  Doesn't mean it can't work.   

So yes, the combination of drafting lineman and picking up FAs hasn't coalesced but it doesn't mean we can't get it right.  That's how you find players in this league. 

We drafted Little in the 2nd, we thought we grabbed a C in Paradis and then a starting G in Miller.  All seem to be duds but it's not some neglected area, just one our scouts and management have been failing at putting the right guys together.  We've been addressing it with failure each season.  Could easily be looking at Bakhtiari & Dawkins plugged in at LT if we played our cards right so we've been close to getting that LT everyone has been pining for since Gross left.

I'll throw a hypothetical:

Let's say we  up #8.  Use our 2nd rounder and a future 1st/2nd to get to #3 (checks out with value charts), we've still got 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

1-QB, 3-C, 4-LB, 5-OG/T, 6-OG/T

All I'm saying is there's countless avenues to success and I'm not drawing some black & white line of gambling on a first round lineman.  If you found your QB, go get him.   Doesn't mean you can't still concurrently address the OL.

The line with Bell and Chandler had Ryan Kalil, Chris Scott and Travelle Wharton in the middle. Plus we had Geoff Hangartner for depth. If you're seriously going to try and argue me that the line with Matt Paradis, Chris Scott and John Miller is better than that, I'm gonna ask what you're smoking.

The first severe flaw in your thinking is the belief that getting a franchise quarterback is going to cure everything. Ask Cam Newton if he agrees.

The second is impatience.

You want it fixed right now. But if you want true, long-term success, that's not the way to go. And it's definitely not the way to go with our current front office.

[saX man]

Just now, Snake said:

How many times are we going to ignore the oline? QBs don't make Olines better but Olines make QBs better. Probably shouldn't ignore where the real money needs to go. 

I have no problem doing what we can by all means to get a great OL together.  Let's do it. 

I'd take no issue if we grab a OT high and it turns into a Trent Williams or Ronnie Stanley.  Just feel in looking at the specific prospects, we've got 2 QBs after Lawrence that are nearing can't miss in my book.

So, I'd prioritize those two prospects (not the QB position) over OL with that first pick

[saX man]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

The line with Bell and Chandler had Ryan Kalil, Chris Scott and Travelle Wharton in the middle. Plus we had Geoff Hangartner for depth. If you're seriously going to try and argue me that the line with Matt Paradis, Chris Scott and John Miller is better than that, I'm gonna ask what you're smoking.

The first severe flaw in your thinking is the belief that getting a franchise quarterback is going to cure everything. Ask Cam Newton if he agrees.

The second is impatience.

You want it fixed right now. But if you want true, long-term success, that's not the way to go. And it's definitely not the way to go with our current front office.

It's not a cure and I'm not looking for a quick fix.  I am seeing to specific prospects that warrant a re-look at our prioritization; which I agree should be lines out.  OL>QB. 

From my view, take out Fields and Wilson, I would not be pushing for a Trask or whoever over OT in the first and would honestly be open to a MLB, OL, heck even a CB.  

I am seeing a level with them that is just too appealing at this juncture.  Again, does NOT mean you can't still address the line.  Not taking a LT with our first rounder does not mean we're neglecting the position.  I'd sure as hell take it, but I'm not dying on the hill that it needs to be prioritized there no matter where the value is or who is available.