(02-07-2024, 03:48 PM)Caldrac Wrote:

(02-07-2024, 03:31 PM)SuperJville Wrote: In no world is he worth paying PLUS losing a 2nd.
If we can work a deal without losing a 2nd - fine.

This is debatable. Name a prominent receiver this franchise has ever drafted in the 2nd RD of Ridley's caliber. Because if your answer is Chark, Lee or Robinson you would be incorrect.

Also, even some of the recent decisions Baalke has made are questionable. Walker Little has not found a long term starting job on this roster going into year four. Tyson Campbell has had one good year out of three so far. He regressed significantly last year. Strange looks like, well, a strange selection considering how deep the TE class was. 

I am not sold nor convinced that you can depend on Baalke to make the best decision for this football team when it comes to the draft. In particular, on the offensive side of the football. 

You're not just going to plug and play another receiver into Ridley's position in 2024 and get that type of production. The odds are heavily stacked against us in that regard. We can play the "name the price" game all we want.

The reality is that, we're compounding a team that barely managed a .500 record two years in a row with further holes to backfill while also running the risk of Ridley running off to a direct competitor in this conference. It can and will inevitably come back to bite this team on the [BLEEP].

The other side of the coin though is that if you think TLaw is who you think he is, grabbing a young (AND CHEAP) guy of Robinson or Chark's ability should maximize the young WR's potential. Do you throw 15-20M of your cap at a WR who is aging, who didn't elevate the offense any more than it performed without him, or do you use that money to build the line in hopes that your existing commitments in Engram, Kirk, Zay et al are sufficient to maintain or improve?

I don't know the answer. But I do know especially that if we plan to do significant deals with Allen and eventually TLaw, we need to get younger and cheaper at a lot of other positions. If we sign on for 3 years of realistic commitment to Ridley at the expense of our weaker positions, do we just keep repeating the cycle of middling records and frustrating seasons?

Look at the chefs. They kept Kelce, he's a daggum cheat code. Best in the game at his position, no debate. Hill wanted his bag, and they let him walk. Their WR corps is primarily built through the draft. None of them may be clones of Hill, but they get production just the same and oh yeah, they also beat Hill and his new team in the playoffs. The goal shouldn't be to replicate the lost player. It's to find ways to get the job done in spite of the loss of that player.

IMO this is the biggest issue of this offseason. Allen is pretty much a given that we'll do what it takes to keep him around.  I think they delay on TLaw at least till preseason or so. But what do they do with Ridley. I can honestly see benefits on either side. Grab the popcorn, folks!

---