Some homers' opinions of the OTs that we may realistically be able to get at 19

[TD alt]

15 minutes ago, csx said:

OL or DL is my preference. Its a proven approach that doesn't involve racking your brain with analysis . Keep the trenches stocked. Especially over another WR. We are over due to invest draft capital there.

 

21 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I definitely see your point, but the issue to me is this:  Do we have the immediate urgency right now to draft a T in round 1 when there are other positions that could use starters from the draft?   Secondly, I find this draft to be weak this year, with about 14 players with first round grades (arguably).  I do not think the OTs in this draft are average, but there are more of them considered to be first round candidates based on the weakness of this draft.  Since we have 2 proven starters, maybe we should draft a project later and if we have the need next year, draft the OT then?  Your facts are indisputable, but we have to take our situation and the availability of talent at OT in 2026.  This is a very debatable topic--so I definitely see your view.

Is it really proven though? First, it's a five-year window. For as much as we want to laud Detroit and Tampa Bay, they've had their issues, and to be honest, we can't say with surety that either will even be in the dance this year. I guess what I'm saying is that, at the end of the day, team building is way more complex than saying just draft lineman on day one or day two every year, and you'll be in contention every year. It still comes down to actual team building, putting puzzle pieces together each season, and with an eye for the longer term (cap implications, talent, potential, chemistry, and all across all positions). It's highly complex. Lately, Howie Roseman has been a master of it all really. 

Secondly, PFF is really making a distinction between drafting tackles in rounds one through three versus four through seven (and UDFA).  I'm all for keeping OTs in the pipeline, but you still can't say that you have to draft them on day one when a lot of damage can be done on day two as well. 

Lastly, like it or not, it's indisputable that some classes are just better than others at certain positions. We made it a priority to draft Bryce in 2023--traded a king's ransom for him, when all we had to do was wait until 2024 when the draft was better stocked at QB. It's not necessarily a good thing to have a tunnel-minded view at the expense of the big-picture view, which comes back to the fact that team building is more complex and individualistic than trying to force a general formulaic approach to a specific situation.

[RumHam]

We aren't drafting a OT, LB, DT, RB, WR in the first round.

[strato]

6 minutes ago, RumHam said:

We aren't drafting a OT, LB, DT, RB, WR in the first round.

DE would be good. Agree on LB, want to agree on WR.

Okay…just a general thought…  our GM was a high level MLB. Our offensive coaches have WR roots merged with QB coaching. 
 

I think we should be expecting each of them to help us identify talent in their wheelhouse a round early. Even two rounds. Morgan ought to be able to look for a linebacker - in particular - and sometimes find, guys who have less hype but actually could sub for the hyped guys and not miss a beat. And you take them later and cheaper. 
Canales and Idzik, ditto with the WRs. We shouldn’t have to spend crazy assets to have quality on these rookie and lower interest FA deals. 

[MHS831]

3 hours ago, csx said:

OL or DL is my preference. Its a proven approach that doesn't involve racking your brain with analysis . Keep the trenches stocked. Especially over another WR. We are over due to invest draft capital there.

It is simple if you focus only on OT.  But there is the cap, talent levels that differ from year to year, and team needs that fluctuate, as you know.  While I would be happy with an OT and understand it, I am not sold on OT as the answer. I agree that the game is won or lost in the trenches, but I do not think over-drafting with the first round pick is the only way of addressing it--especially if it may be a year before you know what you have or reap the rewards.  We both agree that you have to stay ahead of it.  Just because you take a T in round 1 does not mean that you have met the need. Teams need qbs too, but drafting them too early in round one is usually disastrous

A few weeks ago, I was high on Freeling.  I still am (cautiously), but there are reasons to approach some of these tackles with a "Buyer Beware" approach.  Again, I am not against drafting an OT in round 1, but not if that OT has a late first or second-round grade.  That is not good value.  On top of that, put him in the garage for a year?  Take Freeling, for example.  Some project him to Cleveland at 6.  Really?  He is a fringe first rounder, IMO.  IF you want to give away draft capital to get a non-starter, that is how GMs get fired.

First, we can address Freeling’s seemingly massive improvement in pass protection. He did earn an outstanding 86.1 PFF pass-blocking grade in 2025, which ranked seventh among qualified FBS tackles. That was an improvement over his 65.3 mark in 2024. Georgia’s passing game was heavily built on play action and screens, which allowed Freeling to partake in just 95 true pass sets all season. That ranked just barely among the top 200 tackles in the country.  

Freeling earned a solid 75.4 PFF pass-blocking grade on those true pass set reps, but that pales in comparison to top tackles in the class, such as Francis Mauigoa and Spencer Fano. Mauigoa earned his 85.8 true PFF pass-blocking grade, second best in the nation, across 212 such reps, more than twice as many as Freeling.   What about Freeling's run blocking?  61.3--which is slightly above all tackles in the country.  So if you draft Freeling in round 1, you are getting a guy whose numbers were padded by play action and screens--but in pure passing sets and in run blocking, he was average when compared to every tackle in the country.

Elite?  Buyer beware.

Lomu?  Athletic, Can struggle in the run game and against power rushers.  Late first rounder-early second, imo.  Arms less than 34", which could scare some teams.

Proctor?  Can play high and the weight could be a problem he fights.  Personally, I see him as the best option for an immediate starter but his ceiling is lower.  

I realize all players have areas of concern, but I think you will see some of these OTs drop on draft day, with good reason.  

Fano?  32 inch arms may kick him inside to G.

You will respond that all OTs have question marks, and they do--but not researching the situation is not the answer.  Freeling is a stud athlete, and despite the stats, I like him, but not as depth at 19.  Proctor?  I get it if you needed your starter now, and speed rushers give him fits.  To adjust, his angle to block a 9 tech is nearly 90 degrees when it needs to be closer to 45 degrees.  That decreases the pocket, and a short QB can't have that. 

 

 

Edited 22 minutes ago by MHS831

[MHS831]

I worry about the OT situation, but I do not expect to see them invest a  first rounder after signing a starter until they get information about Ickey.  I see drafting Moton's depth, but not if you reach in round 1 to do it.

WR?  I am not happy with them either--the best WR in the draft was the second best WR on his team and the second best was a slot.

Edge?  Deep in this draft.  Want to build your future?  Take advantage of the deep talent pool at edge.  

LB? I love the expected day 2 collection. 

C?  The draft is deep and round 3 and after  is when to shop. 

Yes, we need a tackle and when we know more, we can be more strategic. IMO