BGC 2025 OL/PTP Thread

[One-If-By-Sea]

I just don't think after all the focus on the defensive side so far they can plausibly take another player as their first pick. So he might well be the objectively better choice, but it's not one they will make.

You could be right. They made the same mistake last year when they picked Polk over Cooper and Fiske. Hopefully Hunter falls to the Pats.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Yes it would be a big hit in the short-term but stranger things have happened. This is Howie we're talking about. He's been here before and came out ahead.

Also if you look at that contract and Im sure you have. I believe its 31M dead money before June 1st and post June 1st that 31M would be split into 2026 (10 in 25 and 21 in 26 or something close to that).
Something is going to have to give after next year. NFL players dont like playing with no guaranteed money on their deals. Something will happen by 26/27, which is a ways away in the NFL world, I know but that will be an issue. And theres already been some friction there. So again stranger things have happened. It's a long shot sure but my big point is we need to more aggressive when it comes to this stuff. I don't care if DK didn't want to be here. I'm just hoping we offered our 2nd RD and did everything we could.

There's a group of posters here who downplay the WR position and it's almost embarrassing considering the importance a WR1 has on the field vs dc's, to a young QB and your scoring/offense. There's too much evidence to ignore. No position is magically turning a poor team around. That's a silly thing to argue with respect. No is saying 1 player will transform your team. That said tere's too much evidence to ignore in terms of what a WR1 can do for a QB. And when you look at scoring offenses - points, yards etc it's plain to see what a top tier duo can do.

Comparing Brown to Moss & Rice isnt fair. There probably will never be a WR thats better than both but AJ Brown is already better imo if not he's absolutely on Irvin's level in terms of quality of WR.

If someone is giving us a 1st & 2nd this year and either a 1st or 2nd next year (I would prefer 27) we're moving outside the top 10 and that's a "good deal down" from 4 anyway you cut it.

I like a lot if what we've done tbh. Really like the Williams and Davis signings. I think if Barmore is back at even 80% we have the stuff there for a top 10ish D. I like both OL above esp Moses.

I love Graham but yea hes not a lottery pick.

You're 100% wrong about Hunter though. Hes WR1 in this class and if he had another year to develop in college would be WR1 next year too. 27 is the next big year for WR. That said every WR class is pretty good bc of the talent out there. That said there's a considerable drop off after Hunter/Tet. Hunter is the only blue chip prospect in the draft. Passing on him would be a big mistake. He's a special prospect. You don't pass on special esp at a premium position and esp when you have a young QB who's ready to roll NOW. Not next year. I wouldn't pass on Hunter. He could be 80-90% of Antonio Brown without the crazy.

I think you are misrepresenting many here by saying people downplay the importance of WR. You are right in the sense that we believe fixing the OL takes precedence over getting WR’s, but that’s not a dismissal of WR’s, just a difference in priorities when it comes to building a team. And when it comes to the draft even those who want LT fixed concede that they should take Hunter if he’s still there, and wait on the tackle until the 2nd pick if that takes place, so context matters.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I think you are misrepresenting many here by saying people downplay the importance of WR. You are right in the sense that we believe fixing the OL takes precedence over getting WR’s, but that’s not a dismissal of WR’s, just a difference in priorities when it comes to building a team. And when it comes to the draft even those who want LT fixed concede that they should take Hunter if he’s still there, and wait on the tackle until the 2nd pick if that takes place, so context matters.

Many here still refer to them as "shiny hood ornaments" and talk about them as such. Ignoring how important they've become recently. It has to be explained over and over how much they matter when it comes to the best scoring offenses, dictating defenses and so on. I get priorities but the above is very much true as well imo.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Many here still refer to them as "shiny hood ornaments" and talk about them as such. Ignoring how important they've become recently. It has to be explained over and over how much they matter when it comes to the best scoring offenses, dictating defenses and so on. I get priorities but the above is very much true as well imo.

I’m sure there are some who have called them that, but that’s also the nature of fan debate in general, hyperbole. However when you are making the argument for scoring in relation to wide receivers I think you are doing so without taking the strength or weaknesses of their Ol’s as part of the equation, and data out of context is meaningless. Case in point, 2 years ago KC won the Super Bowl with one of if not the worst receiver rooms in football, but their OL played well. This year KC got obliterated in the Super Bowl, largely because their OL played like ****. And the same happened when they had a very good receiver room against Tampa Bay. And the real argument that I feel is being made here is that WR is important, but OL is more important, and should generally be more of a priority. And most here would take Hunter if he was there, but the OT if Carter and Hunter are gone.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I’m sure there are some who have called them that, but that’s also the nature of fan debate in general, hyperbole. However when you are making the argument for scoring in relation to wide receivers I think you are doing so without taking the strength or weaknesses of their Ol’s as part of the equation, and data out of context is meaningless.

When people downplay WR by calling them "shiny hood ornaments" or pretend WR isn't as important as tackle for example. It's not hyperbole, it's them doing exactly that. Downplaying the position and pretending it's not as important as tackle. It's certainly not hyperbole when thats been their stance for years. Not an off the cuff comment to be funny.

For instance the post I responded to said "wr isn't going to magically turn a team around" or something like that. Nothing "magically" happens over night but Diggs was a lot for important to Allen's development than any tackle they brought in. What about what Chase did for Burrow? Washington's OL was very good but you really think Daniels has the year he did without Terry scoring almost 15 TD and why they brought in Deebo?


Who do you think dictates what a DC wants to do more, tackle or WR? The answer is obvious. Who do you think will impact a QB more, a OT1 or WR1? The answer is more than obvious. People that know what they're talking about on this issue understand you DONT need elite from your OL. It's more about your weakest link and chemistry. It's about "surviving" rather than "winning." That comes from speaking with and listening to actual coaches not fans with respect.

Case in point, 2 years ago KC won the Super Bowl with one of if not the worst receiver rooms in football, but their OL played well. This year KC got obliterated in the Super Bowl, largely because their OL played like ****.

And largely bc they had a guard playing tackle. Which is extremely relevant when you consider selecting Campbell at 4.

Let's not discount how lucky KC was last year on many fronts and having the #2 all-time QB.

Again I don't think anyone is discounting the importance of OL or tackle. It's just that WR has become just as, if not more important.

 

[Huckleberry1]

When people downplay WR by calling them "shiny hood ornaments" or pretend WR isn't as important as tackle for example. It's not hyperbole, it's them doing exactly that. Downplaying the position and pretending it's not as important as tackle. It's certainly not hyperbole when thats been their stance for years. Not an off the cuff comment to be funny.

For instance the post I responded to said "wr isn't going to magically turn a team around" or something like that. Nothing "magically" happens over night but Diggs was a lot for important to Allen's development than any tackle they brought in. What about what Chase did for Burrow? Washington's OL was very good but you really think Daniels has the year he did without Terry scoring almost 15 TD and why they brought in Deebo?


Who do you think dictates what a DC wants to do more, tackle or WR? The answer is obvious. Who do you think will impact a QB more, a OT1 or WR1? The answer is more than obvious. People that know what they're talking about on this issue understand you DONT need elite from your OL. It's more about your weakest link and chemistry. It's about "surviving" rather than "winning." That comes from speaking with and listening to actual coaches not fans with respect.

And largely bc they had a guard playing tackle. Which is extremely relevant when you consider selecting Campbell at 4.

Let's not discount how lucky KC was last year on many fronts and having the #2 all-time QB.

Again I don't think anyone is discounting the importance of OL or tackle. It's just that WR has become just as, if not more important.

Who do you think a defensive coordinator wants to face more, a team that is weak at WR but has a good OL, or a team that has a weak Ol but good receivers?

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Who do you think a defensive coordinator wants to face more, a team that is weak at WR but has a good OL, or a team that has a weak Ol but good receivers?

Would you rather play the Cardinals or Bengals? Cards have a much better OL but no one in their right mind would rather play Cinci. Who has a **** OL but could still put up 40.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Would you rather play the Cardinals or Bengals? Cards have a much better OL but no one in their right mind would rather play Cinci. Who has a **** OL but could still put up 40.

Would you rather play the Eagles or the Bengals? The Eagles have the best OL in football, and the Bengals have the best receiving tandem and a better QB?

 

[Huckleberry1]

Would you rather play the Cardinals or Bengals? Cards have a much better OL but no one in their right mind would rather play Cinci. Who has a **** OL but could still put up 40.

Bottom line BGC, I respect your draft knowledge and your contribution to this board, but I disagree with you on this, and that’s not going to change no matter how long this discussion goes. I think having a strong OL is second only to having a good QB in terms of importance to the team.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Bottom line BGC, I respect your draft knowledge and your contribution to this board, but I disagree with you on this, and that’s not going to change no matter how long this discussion goes. I think having a strong OL is second only to having a good QB in terms of importance to the team.

This is what I'm talking about. Despite evidence people think what they want. It's great to have an opinion but not smart to ignore evidence.

Also I was specifically talking about the tackle position. That was pretty evident. You can look at money and impact of the field among other things if you want. WR has caught up if not surpassed tackle.

No DC is scared of a team with a great OL but no wrs to score points. Which is what you said below.

Who do you think a defensive coordinator wants to face more, a team that is weak at WR but has a good OL, or a team that has a weak Ol but good receivers?

No serious football mind thinks this. Atl and Ari had top 10ish OL and no one is more scared of them.

 

[Huckleberry1]

This is what I'm talking about. Despite evidence people think what they want. It's great to have an opinion but not smart to ignore evidence.

Also I was specifically talking about the tackle position. That was pretty evident. You can look at money and impact of the field among other things if you want. WR has caught up if not surpassed tackle.

No DC is scared of a team with a great OL but no wrs to score points. Which is what you said below.

No serious football mind thinks this. Atl and Ari had top 10ish OL and no one is more scared of them.

BGC, as I said I appreciate your contribution to this board, but f you actually think that you are here to teach people what you think they should believe then you are woefully mistaken. You aren’t “ The Professor,” and we aren’t your “ students.”

 

[Boomer B]

Would you rather play the Eagles or the Bengals? The Eagles have the best OL in football, and the Bengals have the best receiving tandem and a better QB?

Sure, but the Eagles WR room is still probably top 3-5. We could only dream of Brown, Smith, and Dotson.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

BGC, as I said I appreciate your contribution to this board, but f you actually think that you are here to teach people what you think they should believe then you are woefully mistaken. You aren’t “ The Professor,” and we aren’t your “ students.”

You'd be surprised how many pms I get thanking me for posting A22 clips or asking me questions about a player.

There's nothing wrong with learning from those that know more about something than you.

Whether it's a rb hitting his aiming point alongside a TEs leg, pass rushers playing with high hands, a tackle dropping into a 45 or vertical set. Or simply what emlos means.

Yes part of the reason we're here is to learn. I didn't think that needed to be explained.

There's plenty I don't know when it comes to football but I also could explain more than most here. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

 

[Huckleberry1]

You'd be surprised how many pms I get thanking me for posting A22 clips or asking me questions about a player.

There's nothing wrong with learning from those that know more about something than you.

Whether it's a rb hitting his aiming point alongside a TEs leg, pass rushers playing with high hands, a tackle dropping into a 45 or vertical set. Or simply what emlos means.

Yes part of the reason we're here is to learn. I didn't think that needed to be explained.

There's plenty I don't know when it comes to football but I also could explain more than most here. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

Many here know more about football than I do, the difference is that they don’t act like they know it all, ands you definitely have that going on.

 

[BTTA]

Many here know more about football than I do, the difference is that they don’t act like they know it all, ands you definitely have that going on.

I don't experience it that way. I sense BCG's impatience at times with half baked arguments posing as fully baked ones, and similar. I've never felt like he was talking down to anyone.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Many here know more about football than I do, the difference is that they don’t act like they know it all, ands you definitely have that going on.

You get that from me saying "there's nothing wrong with learning" , "I'm not an expert" , "part of the reason we're here is to learn" or "I'm no expert"
I've said numerous times how much I don't know when it comes to coaching but that doesn't mean I can't share what I know with those that don't know as much. Not everyone has the time or that much interest but enjoy learning.

Not everyone is starting from the same point. Yes some of us know more than others when it comes to sports, financial matters and other stuff. Again part of the reason we're here is to learn and not just stay in the same place with the same thoughts and opinions from the 90's.

For instance most here thought Campbell had great tape and playing tackle in the SEC is a trump card. I'm not just saying "you're wrong dumbass" but explaining why in the hopes they're better for it. If that's acting like a "know it all" so be it but that's literally part of why I'm here.

 

[Huckleberry1]

You get that from me saying "there's nothing wrong with learning" , "I'm not an expert" , "part of the reason we're here is to learn" or "I'm no expert"
I've said numerous times how much I don't know when it comes to coaching but that doesn't mean I can't share what I know with those that don't know as much. Not everyone has the time or that much interest but enjoy learning.

Not everyone is starting from the same point. Yes some of us know more than others when it comes to sports, financial matters and other stuff. Again part of the reason we're here is to learn and not just stay in the same place with the same thoughts and opinions from the 90's.

For instance most here thought Campbell had great tape and playing tackle in the SEC is a trump card. I'm not just saying "you're wrong dumbass" but explaining why in the hopes they're better for it. If that's acting like a "know it all" so be it but that's literally part of why I'm here.

BGC, I have been polite, respectful, and given you credit for your contributions to the draft forum throughout this discussion, and since you returned here, and what I have gotten back from you is lectures: And do you know who else disagrees with your contention that WR is as important if not more important than the OL? Bill Belichick, who never used a 1st round pick on a WR, and who never prioritized the position over OL, who he used multiple 1st round picks on. And he built the greatest dynasty on NFL history. So maybe you should strut on down to UNC and teach Belichick about how to build a football team. I’m sure he will appreciate it. I know I sure do.

At this point I’m done with you. Good luck with your future and your draft site if you build one. And I actually mean that sincerely, but as for this site I’m done with your lectures. Adios.

 

[Brotherblues]

Many here still refer to them as "shiny hood ornaments" and talk about them as such. Ignoring how important they've become recently. It has to be explained over and over how much they matter when it comes to the best scoring offenses, dictating defenses and so on. I get priorities but the above is very much true as well imo.

People are stuck in that CHFF article from 20 years ago. And honestly, I get it, you don't NEED Chase or Lamb. But you can't simply refuse to upgrade the position. Last year they didn't have a single player you'd grade top 70 among all WRs. It's a critical deficiency that actively hurts Maye and his development. Critical deficiencies affect wins and losses way more than strengths.

 

[Rdforty2]

People are stuck in that CHFF article from 20 years ago. And honestly, I get it, you don't NEED Chase or Lamb. But you can't simply refuse to upgrade the position. Last year they didn't have a single player you'd grade top 70 among all WRs. It's a critical deficiency that actively hurts Maye and his development. Critical deficiencies affect wins and losses way more than strengths.

I'm not arguing to ignore the position. But, Id say adding Diggs(and to a much lesser extent Hollins) says we have upgraded the position from last year. Diggs was PFF's #21 WR. Certainly not advocating Hollins being a difference maker but he is a proven vet who can provide something we didn't have last year - X recriver routes with someone who knows what he's doing. It at least gives balance to the offense. And that doesn't include any growth from the 2 2nd year receivers.

I think the WR group is definitely better. Absolutely, 100%, need more juice. But I wouldn't say they've refused to upgrade the position.

 

[BTTA]

What I've seen over the past few years is a rise in fascination with superstar, super athlete WR's that parallels the rise in the popularity of fantasy football. And for many, that the desire to acquire one of those guys gets driven by the instant dopamine addiction, vs. scientific analysis of what WR's contribute to winning teams. To me, that's a corrupting dynamic to the purpose of these conversations.

And, rejecting that is far from rejecting the idea that the WR position is critical. It is the difference between, "We absolutely have to have a top 10 WR!" to "We absolutely need to have an above average WR group that requires the attention of the opponent's DC."

I look back at Pats championship teams in the 2010's and see a diversity of talent in both WR and OL...sometimes standout, sometimes kinda average. The coaching staff made due with some very average offensive linemen over the years. But there wasn't a team with average play at both position groups (including TE) that won a championship.