(03-07-2024, 08:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote:

(03-07-2024, 08:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: Why waste a 3rd round investment for a one-year rental to begin with?  Because we thought we were that close to contending for the Super Bowl.  

In my opinion, the $20 million per year that we would have had to give Ridley to re-sign him would be much better spent on offensive linemen.  If we run the ball better, if we can pick up a first down on 3rd and 1, if we can protect our QB better, we don't even need Ridley.

Then there's something fundamentally wrong with their thought process and approach in that building. We were never one player away from the Super Bowl. Pretty naive to believe. 

And, as previously cited about that philosophy with the $20M being allocated to the offensive line, here's my problem with that. 

1. We've been hearing that now for three years. The guy still in charge of finding these players has swung and missed on this group more times than not. Including giving out contracts to players that cost the team games last year and had a perfectly good waste of a 2nd RD pick at LT rotting away to replace the $17.M cap hit now.

2. Immediately after the 2022 play-off loss to Kansas City, we kept hearing, "If Kirk just could have hauled in that one pass, If Agnew just could have held onto the football instead of fumbling it there, I can't WAIT for Ridley to be in the line-up next year! We're missing that, "DAWG!" that "Alpha!" on the outside as the kids say". 

That's a lot of IF's my friend. A lot of IF's. The same IF's we heard in the 2022 off season, the same IF's we heard in the 2023 off season, annnnnnnnd it's the same IF's we're hearing now in the 2024 off season. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

---

(03-07-2024, 08:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: Why waste a 3rd round investment for a one-year rental to begin with?  Because we thought we were that close to contending for the Super Bowl.  

In my opinion, the $20 million per year that we would have had to give Ridley to re-sign him would be much better spent on offensive linemen.  If we run the ball better, if we can pick up a first down on 3rd and 1, if we can protect our QB better, we don't even need Ridley. 

Last year, we had 120 running plays that went for zero yards or a loss.  That's about 7 times per game.  You can't win games that way.  So I really don't care that we failed to retain Ridley.  He's irrelevant if we don't have a much better offensive line.

Replying again because you tacked on the running plays. Again, my response still counters this point. They'll get the ground game fixed, they'll get more competence out of Etienne and then we'll still be pissing and moaning when we don't have a receiver on the outside that can separate at the top of his route, make the tough grab and not cough it up in a road game in the play-off's. 

I can see it now, we'll be in Kansas City, Buffalo or Cincinatti in January of 2025 and we'll see the same exact nonsense from the 2022 season. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I'll be the first one on here to say I told you so or I'll HAPPILY eat my crow if I got this wrong. PIN IT. I don't care. I just have a hunch.

I'm just saying, constructing a roster involves choices.  You can't have it all.  I'd rather allocate the money we would have spent on Ridley to the offensive line.

In regards to your answer #1 above, it sounds like you are saying we should give up on our offensive line because we have tried and failed to improve it in the past.  Is that what you're saying?

---