(03-09-2021, 10:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(03-09-2021, 09:15 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: But Cam Robinson isn't good either.  The question wasn't whether the OT would be "good".  It's whether he would likely be better than Cam Robinson.  He likely would and we would have an additional $14 million to upgrade other areas. The original answer is correct.

No, the rookie would not likely be better than Robinson. College linemen take at least a season to grow to NFL standards, having Robinson here means we aren't running some 21 year old second or third rounder out there on opening day. Hopefully neither of these options are what happens, I'd rather have a better LT brought in if we can find one, but it's almost always better to have a vet start on season Day 1 over a rookie. Not to say we don't need to upgrade, we do, but a rookie there is not a good idea.

I'm not sure why you are talking about a second or third rounder.  We do have the #25 overall pick which is a first rounder.  We'll have to agree to disagree on whether that player would be better.  I think he would.  I understand that there's a learning curve, but it's also not that hard to play better than Robinson as he has been one of the poorer tackles in the league.  We also save $14 million that could be used to upgrade other positions.  I'm not saying I like the idea of relying on a rookie, but I hate the idea of relying on Cam Robinson and I hate the idea of wasting $14 million on him.  Some lists don't even have Robinson ranked in the top 100 free agents.  I would try very hard to sign Trent Williams, consider trades and then only rely on a rookie on as a last resort.

---