Like your weighting those positions so heavily…your choosing a second round player at those positions over a clear first round quality talent elsewhere.

4 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

I am considering any path...I didn't see anyone not considering any path. 

What I saw was GB bringing up a path...and you completely shutting it off as a possibility.  

If that wasn't your intention.  Then you need to consider the words you use and how you use then.   

That is pretty accurate. Think we’d be better having just rode withMailata Opeta than a first trade up for Dillard, second for Jurgens and third for Steen. My eyes a second on a C is massive. Third on a G is high. So looking towards a first round G next draft I called overkill. 

I’ve taken it a step further and pointed out how we’d be fine with minimum released Opeta. We all rather have a Dickerson level domination than fine. Dillard gave us squat. SB champion team so close last season. Could we have providing any beneficial so high draft pick than Jurgens? Obviously yes. Lost it all by three points. No options that could have got us over the hump? Practically no contribution from our draft class last year. I think it’s more than fair to point out how a contributing draft class at much less positions that don’t fit your formula for success could have got the job done. We did exactly what you are saying should be done. Incest in the lines. Davis, Jurgens….what…I know it’s crazy talk here…but what if we took a position that doesn’t fit your formula but they actually contributed to last years team? 

I think if we just didn’t have such a crappy P we are victorious.

But easily see us drunk at a parade if we took your no value RB instead of those two line picks. Sanders was injured. We had no RB contribution. 

I think it’s more than fair to consider how obsession with lines has been positive but also negative.

Jurgens didn’t contribute anything last year. So not even a debate about our team being better with any position player that did anything.

Ok... I'm going to look at 2024. 

1.  We can get a stud TE to pair with Goedert and use the 12 personnel group as the main formation 

2.  We can grab a stud WR to use 3 studs in the main formation 

3.  We could get DL to replace Graham and Cox

4.  We could draft a stud S

5. We could draft a CB

6. We could draft a LB to pair long term with Dean

7.  We could get a stud OL if he falls.

... on top of that... we could use free agency to get any combination of this.

I hope this post expresses correctly that I believe there are plenty of options and paths.

But for sure with the Eagles... I believe the lines are a strong possibility.  They have had success ...big time recently with that path.

Bob Grotz ...great article in the Trentonian about Gainwell  

Davis we trade up to take so high. Not only didn’t help. Was a liability in the SB. Are we all so stuck on this path thinking that QB, Dline and Oline are the best options? I’m especially pointing out Oline though here. I’m seeing the game evolving. Todays Dline are freaks of nature. Best Oline couldn’t carry our RBs to victory. That’s against Chiefs run D. Nobody gameplans scared to run on them. Niners I’ve been pointing out as an issue for a few years now. Our Oline I’m not relying on to dominate their Dline. Heck….won’t even win that matchup. So many ways to win games. Pouring everything into one spot and not putting forth a whole team I don’t and can’t agree with. I want the Dickerson’s…but top dominant playmakers come at every position. Give many of of those. Rosie and you don’t value RB and LB. League wide this is pretty much the thinking. But give me a playmaker at the lower valued positions over forcing trench picks. 

8 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Ok... I'm going to look at 2024. 

1.  We can get a stud TE to pair with Goedert and use the 12 personnel group as the main formation 

2.  We can grab a stud WR to use 3 studs in the main formation 

3.  We could get DL to replace Graham and Cox

4.  We could draft a stud S

5. We could draft a CB

6. We could draft a LB to pair long term with Dean

7.  We could get a stud OL if he falls.

... on top of that... we could use free agency to get any combination of this.

I hope this post expresses correctly that I believe there are plenty of options and paths.

But for sure with the Eagles... I believe the lines are a strong possibility.  They have had success ...big time recently with that path.

This is mostly all I’m saying. But the last one of the stud Oline falling isn’t what’s happening so much. Studs fall at the other positions…that’s who we pass up. We weight the trenches so heavily that we’ll take a 30th level quality alone level player over the 15th level at another position. 

We are so far away from talking about drafting a stud Oline falling to us. We just drafted a C in the second and a G in the third. Those weren’t guys falling to us. Jurgens didn’t slip out of the first round or anything. We are actively pursuing them higher than other teams. Opposite of drafting Oline that fall…

Did you hear draft gurus listing Jurgens and Steen as the surprising falling players? They weren’t even listing them as top players available to be drafted.

18 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Bob Grotz ...great article in the Trentonian about Gainwell  

Is it about his fight for a roster spot?

I’ve eye balled adding Dalvin Cook this whole time. Knew we wouldn’t give up draft capital and take on his enormous salary. But he got released. New contract and no compensation needed to the Vikes. 

I doubt you find much of anybody that argues he wouldn’t be an upgrade to our RB room.

So it solely comes down to money…what’s too much to give him to join our team?

15 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

This is mostly all I’m saying. But the last one of the stud Oline falling isn’t what’s happening so much. Studs fall at the other positions…that’s who we pass up. We weight the trenches so heavily that we’ll take a 30th level quality alone level player over the 15th level at another position. 

And this is what you didn't say.  It did not come across that way.  More so shutting down GBs idea as a possibility.  A little arrogantly done too. Maybe arrogant isn't the right word...maybe a word that can express combatative or adversarial better. 

I’m throwing out ten mil a season for four years. We don’t pay that. He was due more…but don’t think market for RB delivers him that anywhere. Gmen offered Saquan 13 he turned down. So you never really know. 

I did forget to add as a possibility.   RB could be as high as a day 2 pick...considering Gainwell is the only one under contract for 2024...  and nobody is under contract past that....  " as of now,"

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

And this is what you didn't say.  It did not come across that way.  More so shutting down GBs idea as a possibility.  A little arrogantly done too. Maybe arrogant isn't the right word...maybe a word that can express combatative or adversarial better. 

The way I saw it play out was I shot down the idea…however level you want to describe it(arrogant…whatever). But then FL came right back with a post practically making my point of RT being the only real thought to consider on Oline. So however you wish to describe my demeanor…seems FL thought and talked things out to practically agree with me.

Our RB room of Gainwell,  Swift,  Penny, Scott,  Sermon and Brooks...  can't guarantee any of them coming back other than Gainwell...so for sure RB could be a draft pick to lock in a cheap committee piece for 4 years.   Good business.

4 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

And this is what you didn't say.  It did not come across that way.  More so shutting down GBs idea as a possibility.  A little arrogantly done too. Maybe arrogant isn't the right word...maybe a word that can express combatative or adversarial better. 

I thought I just stated the case of why RG first round considerations aren’t the need 

Just now, joemas6 said:

Our RB room of Gainwell,  Swift,  Penny, Scott,  Sermon and Brooks...  can't guarantee any of them coming back other than Gainwell...so for sure RB could be a draft pick to lock in a cheap committee piece for 4 years.   Good business.

That position completely up on the air. Can’t see us drafting day one. About all I can determine right now. I’m not near guaranteeing Gainwell a roster spot next year. Heck I’m not sold he makes the roster this year. If we against all odds picked up Dalvin Cook….Gainwell hits the PS or leaves in my eyes.

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The way I saw it play out was I shot down the idea…however level you want to describe it(arrogant…whatever). But then FL came right back with a post practically making my point of RT being the only real thought to consider on Oline. So however you wish to describe my demeanor…seems FL thought and talked things out to practically agree with me.

So RT a position we have locked up with the best player at that position.... is the way to go in the event that neither Jurgens or Steen impress?   Yea... I don't see it that way.

I see RG as our question mark.  Because I think Jurgens will still get shot at C regardless of how he plays at RG.