At Seasons End Ganther or Rock Who Do You Keep?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

I would rather have one of the quarterbacks than Spiller and I want no part of the quarterbacks.

The best offensive lineman available is the only choice that makes sense to me with our number one pick.

So if we are drafting #8 and Russell Okung, the top rated lineman and only tackle with a 1st round grade, is off the board the next best offensive lineman available is the only choice that makes sense? I understand we need to draft linemen but drafting a position just for the sake of drafting that position is foolish.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

So if we are drafting #8 and Russell Okung, the top rated lineman and only tackle with a 1st round grade, is off the board the next best offensive lineman available is the only choice that makes sense? I understand we need to draft linemen but drafting a position just for the sake of drafting that position is foolish.

at #8, I would think(hope) we try hard to trade down and pick up some extra picks.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

at #8, I would think(hope) we try hard to trade down and pick up some extra picks.

I would hope so too but I am happy with them falling in love with Orakpo and jumping on him.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

So if we are drafting #8 and Russell Okung, the top rated lineman and only tackle with a 1st round grade, is off the board the next best offensive lineman available is the only choice that makes sense? I understand we need to draft linemen but drafting a position just for the sake of drafting that position is foolish.

It is early but Kiper has 3 tackles in the top 14. I would argue that drafting a QB or RB and putting them behind this line would be foolish.

The "best player available" tact has given us below average results for quite a while.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

It is early but Kiper has 3 tackles in the top 14. I would argue that drafting a QB or RB and putting them behind this line would be foolish.

The "best player available" tact has given us below average results for quite a while.

I only see Okung in his top 25, 2010 NFL draft -- Mel Kiper Jr.: The newest Big Board (Dec. 9, 2009) - ESPN

I never advocated leaving this line intact. There are going to be some very good players available in free agency because of the uncapped year. Let's see how that plays out before assessing our 2010 OL based on the 2009 roster.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I only see Okung in his top 25, 2010 NFL draft -- Mel Kiper Jr.: The newest Big Board (Dec. 9, 2009) - ESPN

I never advocated leaving this line intact. There are going to be some very good players available in free agency because of the uncapped year. Let's see how that plays out before assessing our 2010 OL based on the 2009 roster.

My fault, I was looking at Scout's inc on ESPN's draft page.

Isn't the consensus that the uncapped year would prevent good players from hitting the market?

It would allow us to control JC and Rogers for example.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

My fault, I was looking at Scout's inc on ESPN's draft page.

Isn't the consensus that the uncapped year would prevent good players from hitting the market?

It would allow us to control JC and Rogers for example.

Only for 4th or 5th year players. The trigger for free agency will go to 6 years of service rather than 5. The biggest boom will be teams who are trying to escape large contracts with no cap ramifications. That's how we can potentially cut Portis, Randle-El, etc. with no damage financially.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Only for 4th or 5th year players. The trigger for free agency will go to 6 years of service rather than 5. The biggest boom will be teams who are trying to escape large contracts with no cap ramifications. That's how we can potentially cut Portis, Randle-El, etc. with no damage financially.

There are going to be cutting Portis arguments up and down over the next few months but I don't know if I would say no damage financially. Most of his '10 contract is guaranteed so we would be paying roughly 8 million to cut him and 10 to keep him.

Rosenhaus was a genius with his contract.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

There are going to be cutting Portis arguments up and down over the next few months but I don't know if I would say no damage financially. Most of his '10 contract is guaranteed so we would be paying roughly 8 million to cut him and 10 to keep him.

Rosenhaus was a genius with his contract.

I think that the FO was more foolish than Rosenhaus was genius; hence the constant restructuring. Not to take anything away from Rosenhaus.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

There are going to be cutting Portis arguments up and down over the next few months but I don't know if I would say no damage financially. Most of his '10 contract is guaranteed so we would be paying roughly 8 million to cut him and 10 to keep him.

Rosenhaus was a genius with his contract.

Cap wise I meant. I don't care about raw dollars, they're not my funds!