Gonna be fascinating if it's Clowney.

Because the "Clowney is an inconsistent, overrated, unreliable POS compared to Frank Clark" crowd is gonna do a HELL of an about-face.
[Reply]

The safety they drafted in the second round didn’t work out but this new one they took in the 2nd will
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

Meanwhile the dl has atrophied into a big bag of shit
[Reply]

All of which simply disregards the things that we HAVEN'T done that we could've done to address this DL in the margins.

Barnett, Armstrong, Key, Green and a slew of other relatively young, relatively cheap options were available in the 2nd wave of FA.

We did nothing. It isn't about just chasing old broke-dicks. This FA class had a lot of younger guys who look to be ascending. All of whom easily fit within our cap structure.

Yes, we absolutely could've done a TON more to address this DL.
[Reply]

And my response was it's nowhere near the need that the DL is. And that while I'm not opposed to adding talent to the safety group, the DL needed far more early attention than S.

And I still see no way to argue otherwise.
[Reply]

There’s only so much a GM can fix in an off-season. These past 2, Veach is trying to fix this defense, and maintain as flexible a cap structure he can, so that he can be active in the trade market and with potential vet camp cut pickups.

Have to give him credit, he’s not half-assing things with the aggressive reconstructions of the OL,LB and DB squads.

There wasn’t much to work with depth wise in the draft at DL. Signing Clark was a function of lack of options, salary cap constraints with his contract, and most of all, the hope that the pride and professionalism of Clark will make him worth an expensive roster spot on a SB contender.

I wouldn’t be surprised at multiple DL selections by Veach in the next draft, or trading those assets for a player during camp, especially if Frank is toast, suspended or get pulled over and searched again this summer…:-)
[Reply]

If Veach wanted Ingram bad enough, he would be a Chief.

I wanted Ingram back, because our defense was considerably better with Ingram at DE and Jones inside. I assume Jones stays inside at least.

With the resources that are or can be available, I just have to think another move is coming.

I don’t think it’s 69-D chess by any stretch. I’m thinking Ingram was a backup plan for something else.

I lean towards thinking we’ll trade for Quinn. Seems to make a lot of sense.

My preference would’ve been to draft a DL or two preferably, and add 2-3 FAs on 1-year deals. Throw numbers at the group instead of a couple big splashes. Sorta like the Browns did last offseason.
[Reply]

Mobile QB's are gonna be a headache for us again this year. Hope our new WR corps can keep us in shootouts
[Reply]

Let's GOOOOOOOOOOOO
[Reply]

I think they were trying to light a fire under him and get him to play fast again.

He was being tentative - still not acting as though he trusted his health. I think they benched him as a last resort to get him playing 'healthy' again. And ultimately it worked.

The didn't demonstrate any dissatisfaction with him at all down the stretch.

Now as to concerns that he may walk next year - so what? It's safety. Guys are drafted who contribute immediately at safety all the time. Right now our Defensive Line is a mess. Address the loss of Thornhill if/when it happens.

I just don't see a Taylor Rapp sort of safety as being such a unique, impossible to find, hard to train up asset that you have to take him a year early when you're looking at a truly bad DL. Those guys can be found and utilized every single year.
[Reply]

I don’t disagree, but I don’t want them drafting for need, so I had no issue with the Cook pick seeing as I like the player too.

Is it what I would’ve done?

No, I would’ve taken Jones, but as long as they draft good players, I’m good.

I guess this doesn’t bother me as much because I’m confident that they will invest most of their resources on the DL next year.

I don’t think Veach lied when he said that DL was a huge need. I just understand that he’s selective, and it didn’t quite work out this offseason aside from Karlaftis.
[Reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this.

As I said - he's not in an impossible situation. But it's fair to say that we're damn near in June and he's REALLY backed himself into a corner.

I said a few weeks ago that I think he has a deal he's discussed on Quinn and is looking at potentially getting Brown's deal done before pulling the trigger. But man, he doesn't have much leverage left there at all. And losing Ingram is worth being concerned about as Ingram would be a hell of a guy to have on this line even WITH Quinn.

Mostly because Frank Clark Fucking Sucks.
[Reply]

I think you should probably cool it on the 5D chess thing with Veach. People think he's a good GM and get excited about any draft class that has this many picks in it. Whatever. When you've hosted 4 straight conference championship games, fans tend to trust and heap praise on the GM even if it's unfounded.

And even then, yeah, every dog has his day in the NFL draft. It's probably true that Veach sniped Buffalo by trading up for McDuffie. He was confident that people wouldn't trade up ahead of him for Skyy Moore. He's not playing 5D chess, but in the past year or two he's tended to make more good moves on draft day than a lot of other GMs
[Reply]

And again - that's fine.

"It didn't work out the way he thought it would" is a wholly reasonable response.

But it requires an acknowledgement of Veach's fallibility. Something all these limp-wristed fence riders who downvote anybody who dares question their God are unwilling to consider.
[Reply]