15 thoughts - draft

[Proximo]

If they want an OT to protect their GOAT, why don't we want one to protect the most promising young QB the franchise has had since moving to AZ?

Well, one is 22 and super mobile, the other is 42 and a statue.

That might have more than a little to do with it.

 

[Solar7]

Well, one is 22 and super mobile, the other is 42 and a statue.

That might have more than a little to do with it.

I'll repeat it for emphasis from other threads... telling your QB to run away is not an offensive strategy.

It's a bonus that can help you here or there, not a reason to ignore getting him protection.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

If they want an OT to protect their GOAT, why don't we want one to protect the most promising young QB the franchise has had since moving to AZ?

Better ask Keim that one. After all these years, I am still dwelling on the fact that Al Davis once drafted a punter in R 1.

 

[Gandhi]

Yeah, but it would be a better analogy to see us picking up a pass catching TE than stacking the same position. If we had traded for Chandler and drafted another OLB, I could see it.

To be fair to myself, I was very careful to write “passing arsenal” instead of “wide receiver arsenal” for that very reason that you bring up. But I understand your point. It was most likely not set in stone beforehand that they would address the pass rush back then, while this time they pretty much know for certain that they can choose whichever passing threat they like (maybe minus one).

 

[WildBB]

I'll repeat it for emphasis from other threads... telling your QB to run away is not an offensive strategy.

It's a bonus that can help you here or there, not a reason to ignore getting him protection.

I don't see Keim ignoring it. It just might not happen in 1st. Also a good reason to trade down. We spent a lot keeping DJH and Gilbert/Murray are viable options. Pugh can kick out in a pinch.

 

[Solar7]

I don't see Keim ignoring it. It just might not happen in 1st. Also a good reason to trade down.

Refusing to invest assets in the line in the top two rounds year after year after year is basically ignoring it.

I would just love to have one elite, trustworthy OL on on this team, which we haven't had since I was born.

 

[DVontel]

Well, one is 22 and super mobile, the other is 42 and a statue.

That might have more than a little to do with it.

Lmao.

 

[Proximo]

I'll repeat it for emphasis from other threads... telling your QB to run away is not an offensive strategy.

It's a bonus that can help you here or there, not a reason to ignore getting him protection.

Taking away one sack a game is going to make very little difference if you have playmakers able to make plays.

Yes I understand constant pressure is a huge problem - but we did not have issues with constant pressure last year. It would be fine to take a tackle if they are really the best on the board, but it is not by any means a desperate need.

By all measures the defense was a far bigger issue than the OL was.

 

[Solar7]

Taking away one sack a game is going to make very little difference if you have playmakers able to make plays.

Yes I understand constant pressure is a huge problem - but we did not have issues with constant pressure last year. It would be fine to take a tackle if they are really the best on the board, but it is not by any means a desperate need.

By all measures the defense was a far bigger issue than the OL was.

Kyler Murray was the 5th most pressured QB in the league last year, but was the most elusive. It's not "one sack a game," it's letting Kyler have the time to not have to get skittish and run away the instant his RT engages the defender. It's hard to let playmakers make plays when every successful NFL offense is predicated on timing. And I don't mean counting to two-one-thousand before the OL lets the pass rush through.

I don't care how great Lamb is, the offense can't consistently succeed with everyone coming back to the ball because Kyler's gotta use his legs and have everyone break off their patterns.

But hey, we can agree on the defense. I'm in full support of the top defenders if we choose to go that route. All I want to do is prevent our QB from playing full-out hero ball.

 

[Gandhi]

Taking away one sack a game is going to make very little difference if you have playmakers able to make plays.

Yes I understand constant pressure is a huge problem - but we did not have issues with constant pressure last year. It would be fine to take a tackle if they are really the best on the board, but it is not by any means a desperate need.

By all measures the defense was a far bigger issue than the OL was.

I completely agree, Proximo! But I do not think Solar meant that they should ignore the offensive line all together. At least that is not how I read it. But it is true that it is not a plan to have your quarterback scrambling around. If he does that the play has already gone wrong.