We've got big trouble on the OL.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I absolutely agree. I believe that the real limiting factor to this offense was not the O-Line play but the play of the receivers.....Again, I agree. We appear to disagree as to the assessment of each unit. As a unit, I think the O-Line performed better and was less of a limitation on the offense than the WR corp.

For my taste terms like 'limiting factor' are too subjective and unquantifiable.
However, you can also look at production metrics.
And as unit, due to the scheme, the OL was better then the sum of the individual parts especially in the running game.
However the unit still give up too many sacks and too many QB hits (near tops in the league in both areas).
However individually, Moss, Gaffney and the rest of the receiving corps played at a higher level then individual members of the OL but specifically RT according to PFF.

Further, IMHO, the addition of a better indidvidual RT would not enhance the performance of the line as much as the addition of a game-breaking WR would enhance the receiver corp. The difference an individual can make within each unit is, in part, due to the nature the positions.

Again, this speaks to your evaluation of the receivers vs the OL and your individual football theory/philosophy about the essential components of a passing offense.
(i think you're making a huge leap when you call Garcon a game-breaking WR)
For me first and foremost I want to create an environment for the optimal comfort of my rookie QB.
Imo there is no question that improved RT play and the resulting fewer sacks, fewer QB hits, improved rushing ability-->improved playaction ability, increased QB comfort/poise are all vital to QB play, especially rookie QBs. (who are more dependent upon pass protection for their success because they tend to hold the ball longer.)

An average RT's weaknesses can be covered up/limited as part of the entire line's play in ways that an individual receiver can't.

I agree, but our RT play thus far isn't even league average.
And our receiving corps was at least league average with potential for improvement.

Except that people keep saying, as part of this discussion, the 3rd or 4th round pick should have been a tackle and that Cousins was a luxury pick. Again, I disagree.

I can't speak for what other people are saying.

The general consensus is that drafting for need over BPA gets you into trouble.

Why would you assume that I'm advocating need over BPA?

It would be a different discussion if there was someone on the board at RT that they thought could start this year (maybe next) - but I don't think that's the case.

This is just an assumption or speculation that the FO didn't see any RT they thought could start this year/next year.
And even if that was there view point we won't know whether or not there evaluation was correct for a year or more.

The faster Cousins develops, the faster our drop-off at QB becomes less catastrophic. The faster a RT chosen instead would have developed, the faster our line play becomes slightly better.

First, unless Cousin wins the back-up job he is a total non-factor this season where a RT could have impact and benefit this season.
Second, your scenario seems to project Cousins developing into a solid back-up QB (which is kinda difficult to assess for a QB that doesn't play) yet only projects the RT to make the OL 'slightly better.'
But, if both picks pan a RT vs a back-up QB I think its clear that a RT would have more benefit to Griffin the franchise QB and therefore has more benefit to the team.

Well, yes, of course it was a hope. I believe it was a reasonable hope given their performance - as young players with upside and, now, starting experience - that they would be more likely to step up to be average or better at the RT position than Hankerson, Moss, Banks or Austin would turn into a game breaking WR.

I know its cliche now but hope is not strategy nor a solid plan.
But even if the plan was to have hope imo it seems just as logical if not more logical to have 'hope' that the WRs play would improve: Moss doesn't break his hand, Armstrong having a QB that can contect deep like in 2010 where he was tops in 19.8 YPC, Hankerson bouncing back from injury etc..
vs 'hoping' that Jammal Brown not only stays healthy but plays better then he's played thus far.

Given the multiple off-season needs, you have to make some choices. Again, I thought the FO choice, given the in-game performances last year, was perfectly reasonable.

To each there own, its interesting to hear your reasoning.
Imo their decision to prioritize WR over RT was a mistake.
Every FO make thousands of choices and even championship teams make mistakes.
Hopefully RT won't prove to be an issue, especially in pass protection.

Question marks is putting it kindly. Our front seven better get to the QB quick.

There were some FA S that I liked better then ones we got.
Everyone raves about Madieu, but I guess I'll believe when I see it.
Tanard Jackson history of subpar tackling scares the beejesus out of me.
But, I think Reed is underrated as insurance against Meriweather flaking out.
And I like our 2nd year guy Gomes but don't know if he's ready to handle the responsibility of being a FS.
I really like the kid Bernstiens physical skillset, but he's probably fighting to make the team.