Thought you nailed it by stating it’s a balance and resources limited. It’s all about asset allocation.I agree with your premise in abstract theory, but it is not nearly so simple in practice.
First of all, the. Idea of strict BPA is both flawed and subjective from the start. How do you directly compare a WR to a corner to determine which is the best player, for example? You can make a judgement on which might have more value to a specific team's circumstances, but that's not the same thing.
Second point would be that teams don't make those choices in a vacuum. We drafted 3 O-line players last year, with the assumption that they would likely take time to develop to their full potential. Do you really even know for sure what we have at this point?
Yeah, if a guy we took has some inherent flaw that isn't likely to be overcome, then replace him without delay. If that is not evident, then we have to move on with building the rest of the team.
It's a balance, because resources are not unlimited.
I'm not against any rational path, and the current regime has given me no reason to distrust their big picture plan.
If they think Sewell is the best way to go, or Parsons, or Pitts, I'll let it play out.
Well, if Hunt Kindley and Jackson all bust..... your right, were screwed.Pro Football focus had Jackson ranked 37th out of 38 tackles rated ( that's not playing well) as for Hunt he managed a 20th out of 38 ( decent if you consider his rookie season. Kindley joined Jackson with a poor ranking of 38 out of 40 guards ranked. Conditioning and injuries were probably why his play suffered.
Another year of NFL conditioning and experience could help our 2nd year players take the next step but if they don't this team is going to be in a world of hurt no matter how many new shinny offensive weapons we draft.
While I agree with how crucial the OL is .... next gen stats show Brady with nearly the same Time to throw as Tua ... many of the stats that may alude to OL play are kind of close .... it's not a tell all necessarily and I'm not a stat hound ... but it may indicate we need better talent at the receiving position ...I get the sarcasm but you can't deny the sinking/falling of your entire team and it's relationship to the OL.
Hell just look at the recent SB.
Tampa had great OL play the entire playoffs and especially during the SB.
Look at KC and how they looked once Mahommes really had to start running for his life.
All of a sudden those great pass catchers etc didn't matter.
OL play is crucial to team success.
While I agree with how crucial the OL is .... next gen stats show Brady with nearly the same Time to throw as Tua ... many of the stats that may alude to OL play are kind of close .... it's not a tell all necessarily and I'm not a stat hound ... but it may indicate we need better talent at the receiving position ...
shows Mahomes had an extra half a second back there ....
NFL’s Next Gen Stats captures real time location data, speed and acceleration for every player, every play on every inch of the field. Discover Next Gen Stats News, Charts, and Statistics.nextgenstats.nfl.com
Wasn't trying to argue a point or start a feud ... just not sure how much of our offenses passing struggles were more a product of talent at WR or OL ... sure probably the easy answer is a combination ... but I'm not really sure which pick elevates the team right now and that is the pick I want for our team .... top 10 I think most are thinking first day starter...Interesting that you didn't think to include less than 1 year experience/coming off major surgery(Tua) vs. Been around since the leagues inception(Brady).
Biggest difference between Miami and upper echelon teams like KC Buffalo GB NO SEA: PLAYMAKERS.Exactly and one of them was Eric Fisher. No one talked about it that much but cmon - if those guys played, Mahomes has time to throw and it’s a different game. Since you can’t stash 1st round backups on the depth chart, you have to chalk that up to bad luck and **** happens. Doesn’t make more of an argument that we should take ANOTHER T in round 1 this year.
If the receiver demands double teams then it helps your offense far more than the difference between an elite tackle and an average one.I've been debating this with myself for a while. What does an elite receiver bring to the team vs an elite tackle? To me if the tackle provides additional protection to the QB and provide better running game support it would seem that will help the offense further than a receiver. But can a good receiver also move the needle that much? At the end of the day we all agree that an offensive weapon will be the first pick here, not sure if Grier/Flo agree though.
IMO you're better off with 7 good OL than 2 or 3 great OL and 4 or 5 scrubs. And having your salary cap overly allocated to one offensive lineman makes that difficult. An elite WR, on the other hand, can make a huge difference, especially if he is a great fit with your offense and QB.See if he's actually there at 18, but Tevin Jenkins makes a lot more sense for Miami. He's really good, an elite athlete, and a natural RT who has played RT. Instead of reshuffling your entire OL, you kick Hunt to RG, where he has a higher ceiling, and you just need a Center - or you need Skura to play well.
The idea is becoming more popular, so I assume most here have come across it, but your worst offensive lineman is more important than your best. It's a weak-link unit, and the difference between a good and elite offensive lineman is relatively negligible.
When you're drafting OL Top 10, you're paying for relative certainty, because, again, the difference between good and great isn't worth the difference in draft capital.
But, if you have good filters, and know what to look for, WR is just as likely to hit as OT in the 1st, and the difference between elite and good is much more significant at WR. Obviously, a lot of the NFL hasn't figured out what to look for in WR's. They draft guys who require too much projection, or they draft guys who have shown you exactly what they are (thinking of Ruggs) with the hope they'll be more.
So, it's not wrong to say that OL is a better bet in the 1st. It just lacks nuance.