We're Saved !!! O-Line "Nailed"

[cymatica]

I think the OL philosophy can work great. Just need good talent evaluation and coaching. I'm no expert, but it sure looks like our o-line scheme is outdated/flawed

 

[onanygivensunday]

He worries you after one season? Plenty of people were worried about Britt after his first season. Give the guy a chance.

And plenty were worried with Unger's play when he was a rookie... they put him at RG and he was a liability there.

Definitely give the guy a chance.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I'm just gonna say it. The offensive line is the place Pete and John have chosen to skimp in order to afford their QB and defense.

It should be pretty obvious by now, as should their reasons. You have to skimp somewhere. And there are few teams in as good a position to skimp on the offensive line than the Seahawks, thanks to a quarterback who is able to produce despite his offensive line (because of his mobility). It was even truer when the team had a Hall of Fame running back with similar ability to out-produce his line. And when Seattle lost some of that effectiveness at both the QB spot (due to a knee injury that wasn't even the line's fault) and the RB spot (due to Lynch's retirement and Rawls' inability to stay healthy), the result was still 10.5 wins and a playoff run, one that ended due to a couple bad plays and the compounded effect of losing Earl Thomas.

So you could say that nothing about Seattle's performance under Pete and John's "skimp on the line" philosophy has indicated that it's not working. Unless you see a perennial 10-win team and playoff contender as a failure, in which case you just have to ask yourself if you think the Patriots were a failure between 2004 and 2014.

You aren't going to keep 22 Pro Bowlers on the same team. It's impossible. You have to skimp somewhere. And it's pretty telling that when Richard Sherman started mouthing off last year, he got a bunch of Seattle fans eager to trade him to some other team. It wasn't about the mouthing. Not really. Those fans sensed an excuse for the team to offload a large but earned contract and allocate more to the offensive line. A lot of people admitted it flat-out on this very board. Of course, it was a flimsy excuse, because Sherman's still the best corner in the game and his absence would still dramatically hurt this team against #1 receivers. But what can you say. Some people don't think about anything but the offensive line.

It is the weakest link. A few years back when Beast Mode was tearing it up and Russell was auditioning for Benny Hill it was the pedestrian receivers. I am 100% in agreement with your take. It's natural for fans to point out what isn't working, but sometimes they over react to both the causes and the solutions. The overall picture is we are a few plays from winning every game. That's fun football to watch.

I too agree (sort of) it seems to be Pete’s and the FO’s philosophy now, but it needs to be understood that (perhaps) by happenstance they did draft some phenomenal defensive players at or around the same time and by phenomenal I mean top ten (or higher) players at their positions.

These players were going to get paid one way or another either by the Seahawks or another team.

To the point of the OL, they have yet to draft a player that falls into this category, a top ten or better player at his position. Okung and Unger are quite possibly the best linemen the Seahawks have seen in the Carroll era and neither could be considered a top ten player at their position.

Then it begs the question do you pay an average player top ten money or let another team pay them? They are going to get paid, it’s just the nature of free agency in a hard-caped league.

Now, we can argue their scouting or player evaluation is sub-par and that’s why they have yet to find an elite player in this area, but given their draft position and the league wide need for offensive linemen it’s a lot like finding a an all pro CB or Safety in the 5 round. You just need to get lucky and so far they haven’t.

That’s not to say they won’t ever find one and if they do they won’t pay him or the “scrimp on the OL” is a hard fast line that they believe is the only way to build a winning team.

They have consistently paid players how they feel they fit our system on a league wide scale be they on the defensive or offensive a CB or RB, have let players go they feel are not worthy of elite pay, and traded or cut players they deemed to have made mistakes on their money for performance evaluations.

That said, I’ve seen nothing to convince me either Pete’s or the FO’s philosophy is one that would allow an exceptional lineman to walk away for the sake of another positional group, only that they are unwilling to overpay for average players, at any position, no matter how bad the position grades out.

One could answer your "they're just not drafting well" argument with the possibility that they aren't really trying all that hard to draft well there. They go out and get one-dimensional players that they can more easily cast off after their first contract.

 

[StoneCold]

I'm just gonna say it. The offensive line is the place Pete and John have chosen to skimp in order to afford their QB and defense.

It should be pretty obvious by now, as should their reasons. You have to skimp somewhere. And there are few teams in as good a position to skimp on the offensive line than the Seahawks, thanks to a quarterback who is able to produce despite his offensive line (because of his mobility). It was even truer when the team had a Hall of Fame running back with similar ability to out-produce his line. And when Seattle lost some of that effectiveness at both the QB spot (due to a knee injury that wasn't even the line's fault) and the RB spot (due to Lynch's retirement and Rawls' inability to stay healthy), the result was still 10.5 wins and a playoff run, one that ended due to a couple bad plays and the compounded effect of losing Earl Thomas.

So you could say that nothing about Seattle's performance under Pete and John's "skimp on the line" philosophy has indicated that it's not working. Unless you see a perennial 10-win team and playoff contender as a failure, in which case you just have to ask yourself if you think the Patriots were a failure between 2004 and 2014.

You aren't going to keep 22 Pro Bowlers on the same team. It's impossible. You have to skimp somewhere. And it's pretty telling that when Richard Sherman started mouthing off last year, he got a bunch of Seattle fans eager to trade him to some other team. It wasn't about the mouthing. Not really. Those fans sensed an excuse for the team to offload a large but earned contract and allocate more to the offensive line. A lot of people admitted it flat-out on this very board. Of course, it was a flimsy excuse, because Sherman's still the best corner in the game and his absence would still dramatically hurt this team against #1 receivers. But what can you say. Some people don't think about anything but the offensive line.

It is the weakest link. A few years back when Beast Mode was tearing it up and Russell was auditioning for Benny Hill it was the pedestrian receivers. I am 100% in agreement with your take. It's natural for fans to point out what isn't working, but sometimes they over react to both the causes and the solutions. The overall picture is we are a few plays from winning every game. That's fun football to watch.

I too agree (sort of) it seems to be Pete’s and the FO’s philosophy now, but it needs to be understood that (perhaps) by happenstance they did draft some phenomenal defensive players at or around the same time and by phenomenal I mean top ten (or higher) players at their positions.

These players were going to get paid one way or another either by the Seahawks or another team.

To the point of the OL, they have yet to draft a player that falls into this category, a top ten or better player at his position. Okung and Unger are quite possibly the best linemen the Seahawks have seen in the Carroll era and neither could be considered a top ten player at their position.

Then it begs the question do you pay an average player top ten money or let another team pay them? They are going to get paid, it’s just the nature of free agency in a hard-caped league.

Now, we can argue their scouting or player evaluation is sub-par and that’s why they have yet to find an elite player in this area, but given their draft position and the league wide need for offensive linemen it’s a lot like finding a an all pro CB or Safety in the 5 round. You just need to get lucky and so far they haven’t.

That’s not to say they won’t ever find one and if they do they won’t pay him or the “scrimp on the OL” is a hard fast line that they believe is the only way to build a winning team.

They have consistently paid players how they feel they fit our system on a league wide scale be they on the defensive or offensive a CB or RB, have let players go they feel are not worthy of elite pay, and traded or cut players they deemed to have made mistakes on their money for performance evaluations.

That said, I’ve seen nothing to convince me either Pete’s or the FO’s philosophy is one that would allow an exceptional lineman to walk away for the sake of another positional group, only that they are unwilling to overpay for average players, at any position, no matter how bad the position grades out.

One could answer your "they're just not drafting well" argument with the possibility that they aren't really trying all that hard to draft well there. They go out and get one-dimensional players that they can more easily cast off after their first contract.

I am not following. What is the down side to picking well and having a good player for 3 to 4 years until they get too expensive? Aside from displeasing the fan base.

 

[jammerhawk]

After looking at spotrac.com it needs to be clearly remembered by all commenting negatively about the OLine that the Seahawks pay their OLine the lowest of all 32 teams or only 10.24 % of their total cap averaging out at a mere $1.268 mil/player. This amount is more than 2% less than the 31st lowest paying team some $2.5 million less than that team, the Bengals.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/offensive-line/

All in all the additions of the year long deals for Joeckel and Aboushi subtracted from that should bring the reality of the situation into a clearer focus. The decision to go young and less expensive is a FO decision and clearly defined team decision. I'm unsure it is reasonable or fair to put the blame on Cable for this. The choice has been made 'to grow our own' so to speak and a very telling story will be told this season as whether this team decision has born any fruit.

There seems to be little relationship in terms of positional standing with the OLine spend.

 

[FidelisHawk]

One could answer your "they're just not drafting well" argument with the possibility that they aren't really trying all that hard to draft well there. They go out and get one-dimensional players that they can more easily cast off after their first contract.

There can always be “the shooter on the grassy knoll” theory. :lol:

I prefer to believe they haven’t had an opportunity to draft high enough for that kind of player they want, evaluate players incorrectly (thus can change the type of linemen they draft), or haven’t been as lucky as they have in other positions to find their “diamond in the rough” yet.

It could be they don’t value linemen at all as you suggest or they feel young linemen have more cap value (and therefore more upside) than the cheaper free agents they tend to bring in.

In any case, all these “theories” are possible, including yours, I just think (or at least hope) yours is the least probable.

 

[Seymour]

After looking at spotrac.com it needs to be clearly remembered by all commenting negatively about the OLine that the Seahawks pay their OLine the lowest of all 32 teams or only 10.24 % of their total cap averaging out at a mere $1.268 mil/player. This amount is more than 2% less than the 31st lowest paying team some $2.5 million less than that team, the Bengals.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/offensive-line/

All in all the additions of the year long deals for Joeckel and Aboushi subtracted from that should bring the reality of the situation into a clearer focus. The decision to go young and less expensive is a FO decision and clearly defined team decision. I'm unsure it is reasonable or fair to put the blame on Cable for this. The choice has been made 'to grow our own' so to speak and a very telling story will be told this season as whether this team decision has born any fruit.

There seems to be little relationship in terms of positional standing with the OLine spend.

I don't think anyone is not remembering this as that is half the debate. Yes 2% less than the Bengals at 31 in spending but you forgot to mention that the Bengals had the 13th ranked line and we the 32nd. Huge disparity there I'd say.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

One could answer your "they're just not drafting well" argument with the possibility that they aren't really trying all that hard to draft well there. They go out and get one-dimensional players that they can more easily cast off after their first contract.

There can always be “the shooter on the grassy knoll” theory. :lol:

I prefer to believe they haven’t had an opportunity to draft high enough for that kind of player they want, evaluate players incorrectly (thus can change the type of linemen they draft), or haven’t been as lucky as they have in other positions to find their “diamond in the rough” yet.

It could be they don’t value linemen at all as you suggest or they feel young linemen have more cap value (and therefore more upside) than the cheaper free agents they tend to bring in.

In any case, all these “theories” are possible, including yours, I just think (or at least hope) yours is the least probable.

I recall last year there was an article out about offensive linemen not being up to snuff with the running type of offense we operate out of. Therefore it would be difficult to gather any decent olineman and expect them to excel in that area of expertise without at least 2 years of experience behind them. They, in this extreme case, are having to learn on the run and during that run, are trying to learn how each other lineman is playing their position to help complement that teammate rather than disintegrating along with that teammate. During that 2 year timeframe, expecting the first year to be a learning experience in its own right may not be all it is cut out to be. Injuries to your teammate and changes by the coaching staff tend to slow the learning curve down a couple notches. As I believe Fant stayed in town to learn more about the position as he needed more experience, it is remarkable that he may come out better than people think for that decision to learn over taking time off like his comrades. If in fact he is a slower learner, then we may be ok after all with the experienced guys we gathered on the off season. That is of course maintaining the thought that they are good enough to excel in their position and put positive growth in the line. I also recall that it takes a bit for a line of new or different players to learn each others tendencies and that may make our line decline for the first few games in season before all tendencies are realized. Looks to be an interesting season. Carry on.

 

[jammerhawk]

After looking at spotrac.com it needs to be clearly remembered by all commenting negatively about the OLine that the Seahawks pay their OLine the lowest of all 32 teams or only 10.24 % of their total cap averaging out at a mere $1.268 mil/player. This amount is more than 2% less than the 31st lowest paying team some $2.5 million less than that team, the Bengals.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/offensive-line/

All in all the additions of the year long deals for Joeckel and Aboushi subtracted from that should bring the reality of the situation into a clearer focus. The decision to go young and less expensive is a FO decision and clearly defined team decision. I'm unsure it is reasonable or fair to put the blame on Cable for this. The choice has been made 'to grow our own' so to speak and a very telling story will be told this season as whether this team decision has born any fruit.

There seems to be little relationship in terms of positional standing with the OLine spend.

I don't think anyone is not remembering this as that is half the debate. Yes 2% less than the Bengals at 31 in spending but you forgot to mention that the Bengals had the 13th ranked line and we the 32nd. Huge disparity there I'd say.

Spotrac.com says last year the Bengals spent the 9th most money on their OLine which was ranked 2nd OA by the Huddle report

http://www.thehuddle.com/2016/articles/ ... atings.php

Last Year the same Spotrac says the Seahawks spent the 32nd most money by a larger difference than this season and were ranked 22nd in performance not 32nd. In terms of bang for the bucks it's hard to say which OLine was the better value.

This conscious FO decision may prove to be a huge mistake or may yield solid returns upon investment if the young players Seattle drafted grow into their jobs. Cincie with lots of cap decided to not keep Zeitler or Whitworth. Those two were replaced with less expensive and likely weaker players while Seattle has allowed it's youth to mature. The question will be stark at the end of the season whether this was sensible or bore fruit. Seattle however while still 32nd in spending more than doubled (actually closer to 2.5 times increased) it's cap committment to the OLine.

My view on this is this isn't Coach Cable's fault and he is dealing with the talent he has got or has been given. There is a FO OLine plan and many here don't think it will work but the team disagrees. Time will tell. We can disagree but need to be more responsibly critical of the results.

 

[FidelisHawk]

After looking at spotrac.com it needs to be clearly remembered by all commenting negatively about the OLine that the Seahawks pay their OLine the lowest of all 32 teams or only 10.24 % of their total cap averaging out at a mere $1.268 mil/player. This amount is more than 2% less than the 31st lowest paying team some $2.5 million less than that team, the Bengals.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/offensive-line/

All in all the additions of the year long deals for Joeckel and Aboushi subtracted from that should bring the reality of the situation into a clearer focus. The decision to go young and less expensive is a FO decision and clearly defined team decision. I'm unsure it is reasonable or fair to put the blame on Cable for this. The choice has been made 'to grow our own' so to speak and a very telling story will be told this season as whether this team decision has born any fruit.

There seems to be little relationship in terms of positional standing with the OLine spend.

I don't think anyone is not remembering this as that is half the debate. Yes 2% less than the Bengals at 31 in spending but you forgot to mention that the Bengals had the 13th ranked line and we the 32nd. Huge disparity there I'd say.

Spotrac.com says last year the Bengals spent the 9th most money on their OLine which was ranked 2nd OA by the Huddle report

http://www.thehuddle.com/2016/articles/ ... atings.php

Last Year the same Spotrac says the Seahawks spent the 32nd most money by a larger difference than this season and were ranked 22nd in performance not 32nd. In terms of bang for the bucks it's hard to say which OLine was the better value.

This conscious FO decision may prove to be a huge mistake or may yield solid returns upon investment if the young players Seattle drafted grow into their jobs. Cincie with lots of cap decided to not keep Zeitler or Whitworth. Those two were replaced with less expensive and likely weaker players while Seattle has allowed it's youth to mature. The question will be stark at the end of the season whether this was sensible or bore fruit. Seattle however while still 32nd in spending more than doubled (actually closer to 2.5 times increased) it's cap committment to the OLine.

My view on this is this isn't Coach Cable's fault and he is dealing with the talent he has got or has been given. There is a FO OLine plan and many here don't think it will work but the team disagrees. Time will tell. We can disagree but need to be more responsibly critical of the results.

I don’t like to pile on, but I will anyway.

The Bengals finished the season with a 6-9-1 record, the team that paid their line the most (the Browns) finished 1-15, clearly there is no correlation between how much you pay linemen and how well you play. If you continually stare at a single tree you’ll never see the forest.

But seriously, whether the Seahawks are perpetually at the bottom of this list is by choice or by happenstance doesn't change the fact this team has been very very good since John and Pete have been in Seattle.

If they have been very very good by choice (making correct decisions on how to build a team) or happenstance (just got lucky with a few decisions) it doesn’t change the fact they will always be robbing Peter to pay Paul and whomever Peter is will be on the short end of the salary cap stick.

There will come a time when cap money will shift from one position group to another, but unless the FO’s goes on a spending spree, in free agency (or by losing a lot of games), in the near future there will be no way to validate the contention this team can win more games, play better in the playoffs, or win more Super Bowls if they shift that money to the offensive line.

 

[cymatica]

Our o-line strategy can work great, with a good o-line scheme and coaching. I just don't understand why we implement zone blocking, while at the same time letting experienced players go and replacing them with rookies or players with literally no experience. How about keeping things as simple as possible until the unit has time to gel.

 

[vin.couve12]

I'll go on record and say that I think we'll see a pretty good improvement from last year just based on continuity alone. We had two rookies, a second year player, with one 3rd year player and another youngin' leading them. Only one of them is gone and even if his replacement fails we have a pretty viable option otherwise with some other variables that could give us some decent snaps in a pinch.

It's the continuity that I really like. Obviously they were bad last year, but made improvements by leaps and bounds and a few of them have had really good offseasons. The knee jerk reaction is that they all need to go and we need immediate bandaids, but the youth was profound last year. We'll see a pretty decent jump with or without the 3 viable players added in the offseason.

All that coupled with a renewed emphasis on the run game where the defense will need to actually read on some downs...RW will have more time.

 

[Smellyman]

Rushing stats:
Year Team Russell
2012 2579 489
2013 2188 539 SB Win
2014 2768 849 SB Loss (Hmm, maybe someone should have run that ball in :stirthepot: )
2015 2268 553
2016 1591 259

I think we all agree last year was a disaster when it comes to the Oline and our running game. The other years, despite Cable (or because of him :stirthepot: ) We were more than respectable. What caused last years decline. Inexperienced Oline, Running back by committee, injuries to Rawls and Porcise and Russell.

While no one can guarantee that wont happen again this year, the likely hood of getting bit by that many set backs is low. Seahawk's are going to kick butt next year. Unless of course, caveat, caveat, caveat emptor.

250 - 600 yards extra with a healthy RW running. Another 500 yards (probably) because since week 1 nobody had to fear the read option let alone defend it. Really highlighted the how bad the Oline is and was. RW to a huge extent inflated the rushing numbers.

 

[Jimjones0384]

I thought we were already talking about this?

We are but some people are a bit slow on the uptake and obviously don't look at current threads. It's too hard when there are 10 separate threads about the OL at all times because of .Net's negative fetish about the OL.

Case in point, all the Negative Nellies don't account for experience, continuity, or people playing in their correct and/or natural positions unlike last year. They will be average this year and that's all the Seahawks need. They admitted last year was a mistake. It's not going to happen again because there are too many "at least average" veterans in the mix to make it possible.

Hummmm...seems like we've heard this before. Too bad we gotta wait three more months for the opening game.

Why, are you hoping they fail? You just wanna be proven right that they will suck?

 

[jammerhawk]

After looking at spotrac.com it needs to be clearly remembered by all commenting negatively about the OLine that the Seahawks pay their OLine the lowest of all 32 teams or only 10.24 % of their total cap averaging out at a mere $1.268 mil/player. This amount is more than 2% less than the 31st lowest paying team some $2.5 million less than that team, the Bengals.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/offensive-line/

All in all the additions of the year long deals for Joeckel and Aboushi subtracted from that should bring the reality of the situation into a clearer focus. The decision to go young and less expensive is a FO decision and clearly defined team decision. I'm unsure it is reasonable or fair to put the blame on Cable for this. The choice has been made 'to grow our own' so to speak and a very telling story will be told this season as whether this team decision has born any fruit.

There seems to be little relationship in terms of positional standing with the OLine spend.

I don't think anyone is not remembering this as that is half the debate. Yes 2% less than the Bengals at 31 in spending but you forgot to mention that the Bengals had the 13th ranked line and we the 32nd. Huge disparity there I'd say.

Spotrac.com says last year the Bengals spent the 9th most money on their OLine which was ranked 2nd OA by the Huddle report

http://www.thehuddle.com/2016/articles/ ... atings.php

Last Year the same Spotrac says the Seahawks spent the 32nd most money by a larger difference than this season and were ranked 22nd in performance not 32nd. In terms of bang for the bucks it's hard to say which OLine was the better value.

This conscious FO decision may prove to be a huge mistake or may yield solid returns upon investment if the young players Seattle drafted grow into their jobs. Cincie with lots of cap decided to not keep Zeitler or Whitworth. Those two were replaced with less expensive and likely weaker players while Seattle has allowed it's youth to mature. The question will be stark at the end of the season whether this was sensible or bore fruit. Seattle however while still 32nd in spending more than doubled (actually closer to 2.5 times increased) it's cap committment to the OLine.

My view on this is this isn't Coach Cable's fault and he is dealing with the talent he has got or has been given. There is a FO OLine plan and many here don't think it will work but the team disagrees. Time will tell. We can disagree but need to be more responsibly critical of the results.

I don’t like to pile on, but I will anyway.

The Bengals finished the season with a 6-9-1 record, the team that paid their line the most (the Browns) finished 1-15, clearly there is no correlation between how much you pay linemen and how well you play. If you continually stare at a single tree you’ll never see the forest.

But seriously, whether the Seahawks are perpetually at the bottom of this list is by choice or by happenstance doesn't change the fact this team has been very very good since John and Pete have been in Seattle.

If they have been very very good by choice (making correct decisions on how to build a team) or happenstance (just got lucky with a few decisions) it doesn’t change the fact they will always be robbing Peter to pay Paul and whomever Peter is will be on the short end of the salary cap stick.

There will come a time when cap money will shift from one position group to another, but unless the FO’s goes on a spending spree, in free agency (or by losing a lot of games), in the near future there will be no way to validate the contention this team can win more games, play better in the playoffs, or win more Super Bowls if they shift that money to the offensive line.

This above is an excellent post, we don't disagree and your point is made clearly without any negative agenda.

The OLine strategy is certainly evocative of differences of opinion, some think the team would be better with a more dominant OLine and that is hard to argue against I certainly watch and agree at times. The problem for the FO at present is where should the money come from elsewhere on the team if money is really the answer to the problem? Otherwise the seeming league-wide present difficulties of finding pro ready college players needs to be factored while trying to maintain a team identity.

I like this offseason's approach, see if the running game can be returned to a dominating identity of the Seahawks by growing your own guys and adding some toughness. The choices made will be watched with interest and undoubtedly some suspicion. I'm excited to see how it turns out. As Fidelis has correctly observed $ spent on the OLine don't guarantee success nor does drafting lots of bodies if those players don't fit. I really think we need to be patient and watch the results. The team has not been horrible to watch since 2010 and even for most of the period before this FO which has done it better than ever before.

 

[Seymour]

....Spotrac.com says last year the Bengals spent the 9th most money on their OLine which was ranked 2nd OA by the Huddle report

I did not lookup money spent to confirm Bengals were 31 as I quoted you assuming that was 2016.

This years allocations (2017) I would personally not use at this point since final rosters are not even close to set yet.

Most of us are not asking to spend huge money, just put together a line that can compete and not waste our weapons, so please keep the Browns out of this. This year should be better most will agree, but a change of position could hinder that. And keep in mind that the front office admitted the error in placing too much reliance on our youth, and is attempting to do what myself and others are asking....to actually compete.

 

[jammerhawk]

OK

No probs, it is however true that the Seahawks have so far spent significantly less than any other team and even then have more than doubled the money spent on the OLine going forward this year. If spending means much.

In terms of Bang for the Bucks there is a reasonable case to be made their planned concept may be have a reasonable return. Besides if the running game can be clearly established the play action O will benefit the OLine in terms of passpro as the opposing D will need to respect the run at heir peril. This was not the case last season with a younger line and a running crew that was seriously nicked up all year.

Once the team can return to 120 yes or better with the run game stats show the team is hard to beat as the add spends less time on the field and the opposition gets forced into playing our game and not theism

 

[MontanaHawk05]

And keep in mind that the front office admitted the error in placing too much reliance on our youth, and is attempting to do what myself and others are asking....to actually compete.

As in, a 10-5-1 season and a playoff run, say?

 

[Seymour]

And keep in mind that the front office admitted the error in placing too much reliance on our youth, and is attempting to do what myself and others are asking....to actually compete.

As in, a 10-5-1 season and a playoff run, say?

Position group....not the entire team. A small anchor does not stop a ship.

 

[Jimjones0384]

....Spotrac.com says last year the Bengals spent the 9th most money on their OLine which was ranked 2nd OA by the Huddle report

I did not lookup money spent to confirm Bengals were 31 as I quoted you assuming that was 2016.

This years allocations (2017) I would personally not use at this point since final rosters are not even close to set yet.

Most of us are not asking to spend huge money, just put together a line that can compete and not waste our weapons, so please keep the Browns out of this. This year should be better most will agree, but a change of position could hinder that. And keep in mind that the front office admitted the error in placing too much reliance on our youth, and is attempting to do what myself and others are asking....to actually compete.

As has been asked over and over again, and to piggyback​ off of a previous post, who do you want to get rid of to do this? It sounds simple, just build a better line without spending a ton of money. But reality is, it's not that simple. What happens when robbing from Peter to pay Paul, creates an even greater weakness in a position group that doesn't have a top 5 player to make up for the inadequacies of the rest(Wilson)? We saw what happens when we lose DB's. We saw what happens when we don't have d line depth. If they cut or trade a couple of star players, cause that's what it would take, and those groups go way down hill, you same people would be on here pounding the table, mad about it. This is a lose/lose situation with most of you. I don't get it.

What's the solution to the problem? I see tons of people here pointing out the problems, just very few rational solutions to it. Please, GM's, let us know the answer. Then we can all write Paul and let him know pcjs has to go, and these fans with greater ideas need to be hired in their place.