Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins
I just don't understand how you could justify taking a QB at #4 (being a weak QB class according to pundits) and ignoring the disgusting play by the offensive line last season.
Given the success of first round tackles over the past few seasons, to me taking a QB with that #4 is not an option. If Okung is not available at #4, then the next best solution is to trade down and get more picks and still pick up a tackle with the first rounder.
Honestly, with the uncapped year free agency is going to be pretty bad, and most of your young talented players are going to be RFAs. Trading picks for players is something that I don't want to see happen in this team for a loong time. And to me saying "we'll take care of the line with the later rounds" sounds a lot like Vinny Cerrato.
|
1.) I never said that we should take a QB at #4.
2.) Just because it's a weak QB class doesn't mean that Bradford isn't worthy of a top ten pick (He would have been the #1 QB off the board last year if he didn't return to school)
3.)If Okung is gone and we can't trade back who do you select?
4.)Cerrato didn't really address the line with later picks, he always seemed to go for LB's and speacial team players in the later rounds.