Hawknballs":1xu43xfp said:
can't keep using the "we've done it before with a bad line" as justification for continually neglecting it or trying to patch it up with FA cast-offs and converted D linemen.
I'd say considering the investment in the last two drafts, and the fact that we don't have any D line conversion projects on the roster -- you should be somewhat pleased with the new direction.
Looks like we have 4 homegrown OL on this line, with three sufficiently high picks. Seattle is carrying Fant as a dev prospect, but otherwise have youth in the pipeline. Makes complete sense to get a couple bridge FAs to fill in the gaps this year.
As poor as Sowell and Webb are, they aren't Michael Bowie and Paul McQuistan poor.
I'd expect we'll allow the youth we have on the roster to percolate up next year. And possibly add another day 1 starter in next year's draft. Seems like a solid medium range plan for the OL to me.
It's a tired argument. Mostly because it's a 'grass is greener' kind of argument that absolutely NEVER concedes the opposite side of the coin. It's basically wishing for a Lineman fairy to just give you talent at no consequence or cost. Teams (often the best teams) skimp on the OL every single year. Patriots and Seahawks are the absolute worst in terms of investing in their lines. And we're the teams that are consistently the best year in and year out.
Why would I ever concede this theory that we need to (or should want to) have a 2005 Seahawks OL with a 2005 Seahawk's defense? It's plain stupid. The results -- not just for us but for other consistently great teams -- contradicts this notion every single year.
Denver may have the best OL in the last 4 years. They have had middling to bad OLs until now. What are the odds you think that they're going to be in the AFC Championship game this year (as opposed to the last three)?