Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Originally posted by Chance:
Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Originally posted by Chance:
Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Originally posted by Chance:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by Chance:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by Chance:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Once again I didn't like that they paid only a little investment into the O-line position. Something that got the 9ers kicked outta the playoffs. Pretty much putting out the same O-line as last season.
What would you have done differently? Who would you have paid, and what FAs would you have not signed in order to pay a G or C. I understand the frustration, but we had so many needs across the roster, so I guess what was the more ideal path?
I would've given Alijah Vera-Tucker that contract he got. I would've signed Wyatt Teller or Braden Smith who can play both Guard or Tackle in a pinch. They continue to spend chump change on the O-line and expect premium results.
So you sign Vera-Tucker over Evans? Assuming Vera-Tucker would want to sign here, which is not a given.
It's hard to take these arguments seriously when you're not looking at the roster moves thus far holistically. We've improved in areas of serious need. We're going to have question marks like every other team. We still have a draft to help bring in competition. I fail to see the dour mood with some of you guys considering the haul of players we brought in on reasonable contracts.
And how did you know Nate Hobbs, Vederian Lowe or Brett Toth wanted to sign here? Again you asked what I would've done differently and I would've put more money into the O-line than they did so far.
I asked which players we signed that you would have not signed and instead allocated towards oline instead. It's a simple question. We don't have infinite money at our disposal, so which players would you have not signed in order to sign Vera-Tucker for example?
I think it's a bit of a fallacy to tell people they have to be armchair GMs as good as the pros just because they're dissatisfied with the results on the field. I don't tell the chef how to source ingredients and cook meals when I go to a restaurant, I just evaluate the quality of the food. We're consumers of a product, and I think the premise of this question is flawed.
Horses**t, it's a fair question. When you're rubbing your off-season crystal ball, you don't get to rail against decisions on one hand, then don't tell us which decisions would have been better. That's called having your cake and eating it too.
Otherwise, we might just sit back and patiently wait to see how these decisions play out before jumping off bridges. That's my point.
Woosah buddy. The original complaint was about the general lack of attention to OL, which is a fair complaint across a number of seasons. Trying to corner someone into doing the GM's job better than him strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.
Kolohe's complaint was that we didn't spend significant money on the oline this offseason. And I asked which players we signed with our allocated cap would he give up to sign a FA. In essence what position shoulf suffer to elevate another position on the roster? This whole board is full of such discussions.
This is not forcing someone into an unreasonable argument. Thats absurd. Especially when my point has always erred on patience instead of crystal ball reaction on a GMs actions—which is more in line with your 'let the experts cook' analogy.
we haven't even had the draft and people are already freaking out.
The disconnect for me is this complaint spans multiple seasons, and asking someone to be patient while detailing the moves they would have made this offseason to address a long-standing grievance with the front office's philosophy overall just seems fallacious. The front office has been given a lot of patience in terms of building the OL, and it continues to end seasons for us.
Edit: I also take your point that complaints without suggestions are just complaints, and they're working with finite resources / options. Maybe I'm just sympathetic to this complaint because I share it and want to see impactful efforts to improve here.
The issue I'm concerned about is what we're doing right now, not what we did or didn't do in season's past. Each season has unique challenges in putting together a roster. For the longest time I thought McKivitz needed to be replaced, but the FO stuck with him and he's turned into an average player on a decent contract.
For whatever reason this team has put a higher value on other positions. But we don't always get a look at what the team sees, either from within the building or from the league, or even draft, perspective. If they've determined that value doesn't live with paying a G good money, then they're going to continue to try and find value in that position. Ultimately, very few teams are strong top to bottom and some areas are relegated to finding value at certain positions. The hope is the team does in fact find value instead of finding turnstiles.
I guess I'm just in the boat of wait-and-see. In other years the oline has been really good in a single area, or at least overall serviceable. We still have a draft to go, and we still have a couple guys young and vet, that would be nice to see how they develop under our system. Laken turned out pretty good, maybe Jones or Toth follow a similar path. Maybe Colby blossoms in year two. Maybe a rookie pushes Brendel. There's still a lot of offseason and a lot of questions, oh, and a draft.