3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

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

How do we know that?   Steen, Opeta... lol.

It's silly to say anything isn't the need for next year.... especially if solution is unproven.   We don't know yet. 

Take the advice that you say is your motto....but then constantly contradict... keep an open mind to the possibilities. 

I just don’t see the stubborn locked in mindset on Gainwell. He’s third string at best currently. He’s been given every opportunity to succeed. At a position guys transition and peak the earliest at. I prefer the guy nobody preferred…or coveted…gave a chance…Scott fought to earn his place. I’ve actually thought plenty about with Sanders injured in the SB how we screwed up going Gainwell instead of Scott. I honestly believe Scott would have been our best option and done better. Done something at least. Sanders wasn’t healthy enough. Bad call there. He was the only difference making playmaker in that room…so giving him a shot I can’t annihilate coaches over. But results are bad call. Trying to give him a go is one thing…they actually stuck with him way too long. Gainwell didn’t do squat behind the best Oline against a mid level run defense. No way to ever know….but Scott should have been the guy snap one. Can’t ever prove he would have thrived. But the bar is so low of what Sanders and Gainwell accomplished he wouldn’t have been worse.

6 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

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.

Planet Ham with this.   Read the Grotz article from a dude that covers the team...bring you back to reality. 

But that said... I believe we draft RB next year day 2 or 3.    This way we lock in a piece for 4 years.  Similar to Sanders and Gainwell.  Good business to have those cheap pieces locked in for a few years. 

Am I the only one that believes coaches blew it and we would have won with Boston Scott that day?

11 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Jurgens was taken in the second…just last draft. But they still so obviously targeted Steen to convert to G. Guards aren’t taken, paid or valued near as much as a T. So third round is significant at the position. I’ll just repeat what it seems like you are the one acknowledging…RT is the only clear future need. We took a C last draft second round. Really high spot for a C. Third round this for a RG. So what more do you need me to answer than high draft capital was spent on C and RG. 

I'm glad you assume Jurgens is a shoe in at C. SO was Dickerson LOL

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

I just don’t see the stubborn locked in mindset on Gainwell. He’s third string at best currently. He’s been given every opportunity to succeed. At a position guys transition and peak the earliest at. I prefer the guy nobody preferred…or coveted…gave a chance…Scott fought to earn his place. I’ve actually thought plenty about with Sanders injured in the SB how we screwed up going Gainwell instead of Scott. I honestly believe Scott would have been our best option and done better. Done something at least. Sanders wasn’t healthy enough. Bad call there. He was the only difference making playmaker in that room…so giving him a shot I can’t annihilate coaches over. But results are bad call. Trying to give him a go is one thing…they actually stuck with him way too long. Gainwell didn’t do squat behind the best Oline against a mid level run defense. No way to ever know….but Scott should have been the guy snap one. Can’t ever prove he would have thrived. But the bar is so low of what Sanders and Gainwell accomplished he wouldn’t have been worse.

You are locked in and stubborn about him.    You can't see the possibility of him improving.   Might be because you get stubborn about your " I called it boys" like the non elite Sanders.... who when the $$$ was on the line took a back seat to Gainwell. 

He is the only one locked in for next year and you think he is going to get cut?   Lol.  Come on now.   

Open your mind here.  Take your advice 

6 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

It's silly to say anything isn't the need for next year.... especially if solution is unproven.   We don't know yet. 

Take the advice that you say is your motto....but then constantly contradict... keep an open mind to the possibilities. 

I am fairly open minded. But just hating the idea of over drafting Oline again. RG first round…I’m struggling to be open minded to that. RT I can see. 

11 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

And I said looking towards a potential first round pick next draft at RG …that’s the overkill part 

If,according to you it's already overkill why would we draft another one?. IDK how you differentiate between "overkill" and having depth players

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I'm glad you assume Jurgens is a shoe in at C. SO was Dickerson LOL

How many C get drafted higher than Jurgens was?

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I'm glad you assume Jurgens is a shoe in at C. SO was Dickerson LOL

How you doing GB... did the smoke make its way down?

Even look through all historical draft picks. Second rounder…at C….he better pan out. 

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I am fairly open minded. But just hating the idea of over drafting Oline again. RG first round…I’m struggling to be open minded to that. RT I can see. 

So a guy that could start over unproven guys...vs a backup to Lane for 3 years???    You can see drafting Lane's backup instead?

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Even look through all historical draft picks. Second rounder…at C….he better pan out. 

Dickerson.  Martin.   Plenty of Gs that could be drafted BPA late round 1.  Or round 2.  

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

If,according to you it's already overkill why would we draft another one?. IDK how you differentiate between "overkill" and having depth players

I differentiate first round G from being a depth choice. Not many G even go day one. I’m even going so far as I believe round three for Steen, a G, that’s a high pick for a G. QBs go too high. G are exact opposite.

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Even look through all historical draft picks. Second rounder…at C….he better pan out. 

We won't know how he plays at C ....or at least we hope so...until at least next year. Maybe longer.  

How he plays at G is irrelevant though to that conversation.   The RG spot is a question.   We just don't know yet if we have the guy who will play there in 2024 at a quality starting NFL level. 

Lane we know is fairly decent at RT.

30 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

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. 

UH why would we pay huge money to Cook when we could have retained Sanders?. Remember Cook? The guy we totally shut down when we played them?

2 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

So a guy that could start over unproven guys...vs a backup to Lane for 3 years???    You can see drafting Lane's backup instead?

You mean like drafting a RG on day two? Just did that. I don’t see Lane playing much longer. Three years is the max I could even envision. That’s the optimistic dream fan boy version of his career. But we are talking next draft. So that after this season for Lane. Leaving two years…at best for him to hold back a rookie. 

7 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

How many C get drafted higher than Jurgens was?

Dickerson was a C also

4 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Dickerson.  Martin.   Plenty of Gs that could be drafted BPA late round 1.  Or round 2.  

BPA plenty of G deserve first round picks. Doesn’t happen like that though. Pretty simply if a prospect is deemed not a good T but a G….he falls hard.

7 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

If,according to you it's already overkill why would we draft another one?. IDK how you differentiate between "overkill" and having depth players

If they think Steen is a long term RG... they won't draft RG first unless it's a can't pass up player.  

At this time to assume Steen is that guy...very silly.  It's why your idea is possible.  One of many possibilities that shouldn't be dismissed with arrogance.

8 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

How you doing GB... did the smoke make its way down?

You guys had it ALOT worse. We had 3 days in the 150,s you guys were WAY higher. I wasn't a "fog" here just a little tough for me to breathe outside

10 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I am fairly open minded. But just hating the idea of over drafting Oline again. RG first round…I’m struggling to be open minded to that. RT I can see. 

What if Jurgens just kicks butt and takes control of the RG spot

7 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

So a guy that could start over unproven guys...vs a backup to Lane for 3 years???    You can see drafting Lane's backup instead?

You actually just stated our third and second year players are the unproven more than a draft pick rookie

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

You mean like drafting a RG on day two? Just did that. I don’t see Lane playing much longer. Three years is the max I could even envision. That’s the optimistic dream fan boy version of his career. But we are talking next draft. So that after this season for Lane. Leaving two years…at best for him to hold back a rookie. 

You have payed attention over the years enough to know a 3rd round pick can easily flop.   To think it's a guaranteed thing he succeeds or that they pass up a guy they have rated like they did Dickerson...   very close minded.