(03-12-2021, 08:34 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(03-12-2021, 07:35 PM)Predator Wrote: You have no idea if any of these guys would be a huge upgrade especially their rookie year. Actually the chances are pretty slim that they could even play up to Cam's level this coming season.

You keep talking about protecting your QB yet you advocate cutting our most experienced LT and taking a LT in the late first or early second, which means there are question marks on how they will perform if they are still sitting there, and take a chance on that rookie being able to protect our rookie franchise QB's blindside.

That's not committing to protecting him. That's just being extremely callous and cheap.

In reality you are taking a unhedged high risk bet with our QB at stake just so we can say we made a halfassed effort to get a good LT.

Your foolhardy approach to "upgrading" LT could force us into a position that we may have to play someone that makes Cam look like Boselli if things don't happen to fall in the right place.

I don't know why you aren't grasping this concept. Experienced does not equal good. Cam is ranked near the bottom on almost every list of starting OT's in the NFL, so even if we find an average LT in the draft, he'd be a little better than what we now have. That's not just my opinion. Just watch ESPN and follow the "experts" outside of Jacksonville, who do this stuff for a living. Very few people outside of this team have a decent opinion of either one of our OT's. How is keeping a bad LT, a good move? You have to take risks in order to get better. You are apparently too "gun shy" to try and get better, so you settle for the garbage you have. That makes no sense!

Being callous and cheap is keeping a subpar LT like Robinson and expecting him to magically become good enough to protect Lawrence's blindside. 

It's not a high risk bet. It's relatively low risk, because our OT's are so bad. Take those rose colored glasses off and see what everyone outside of Jacksonville sees. Our starting OT's are not good. They aren't even average. We HAVE to take a risk, if we wanna take that next step. What if we did get stuck with the #2 pick instead of #1 and Trevor was gone? Would you avoid taking a QB, because they might be worse than Minshew? I certainly would hope you'd still take a QB. It's the same difference with OT.

I agree with you on the need to upgrade our tackle spots.

But at what point do you draw the line regarding the availability of a better option in the draft?

In the last two to three days, three more teams-Minnesota, Las Vegas  and Kansas City-were added to the list of teams needing to address that same position.  All of those teams that need a T-specifically a LT-pick ahead of us except Kansas City.

Ruling out for the moment the possibility of us trading up in the first round (more on this in another post to come), there is a good chance there will be a substantial run on the position.

Conservatively speaking, these are the teams that could use a T (besides us)

2.  Jets
3.  Miami
5.  Bengals
6.  Eagles
8.  Panthers
9.  Broncos
13.  Chargers
14.  Vikings
17.  Raiders
18.  Miami
19.  WFT
20.  Bears
21.  Colts
23.  Jets
24.  Steelers
25  ---------------------------------------------Jaguars

27.  Ravens (assuming a Brown trade)
31.  Chiefs

This list excludes Dallas, Denver, San Francisco (if they lose Williams), and Seattle, who could have a pick ahead of us if they are dumb enough to trade russell Wilson.

The chances of there being a run at the position ahead of us are high.  So assuming there is a run at the position on some late rising Ts, at what point would it not be worth taking a T in the first round?

---