Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I agree that they coukd still take a tackle at #27 if one fell to them that they liked. They could play him at guard next to Trent so he could learn from him. It would also make it easier for him to slide in and replace Trent if he gets injured. At least it gives them more flexibility at 27. They don't need to pick OL. They can go with DL, WR or DB. Depends on who's there when they pick.
So you want to draft a OT and convert him to a guard? Like I just posted how many times has a tackle drafted high been pushed into guard for a couple yrs then pushed out to LT? It doesn't happen like that very often….and not all these OTs can play guard to begin with. What if someone like Lomu (who I think can't play guard) plays like ass as a LG, then what? You got a backup OT who can't get on the field for a couple years. Total waste of a first rd pick.
i agree with this i also brought up in a thread earlier i cant really think of a player who was drafted as an OT to play G then actually moved to OT. If he plays bad at G do you feel comfortable putting him at OT? If he plays well and you move him to OT now you have the OG and OT as a question mark.
I dont like the idea of musical chairs for OL if someone plays well there keep them there. With the Trent signing and OT makes a lot less sense in first round but a G still makes sense