micnificent28

A good LT isn't necessarily good. We don't know how good that is. Good could turn into average.. I don't want average vs hof. Yes positional value but the same could be said for better WR. If their grades aren't even close you go with the grade. I assume chase is miles ahead of slater.

A lot of you want to bargin bin hunt on wrs which i get, but I dont want to pass on a hof caliber talent like Chase for a maybe good LT like Slater... He played well vs Chase young is all i hear but what else...Give me the more talent players and i will bargin on the position with a deeper base pool after that.

this song was fire

If all those guys are gone I honestly go Chase... BPA with only one year on Anderson contract left take a top 4 player in the draft and set your wr core up for the next few years.

Most likely. But it looks like they plugging possible holes so they can draft bpa similar to what we are.

I'm not sure if he is significant enough to say no to Pitts, but I'm assuming he didn't take the job without assurances he wouldn't be tossed to the side. It could give minimum insight into the Bengals thinking tackle at 5. What say you?

I love pitts... he is who I want in my mind.. but in my heart I know we need sewell more so. Hes generational in terms of tackles and is only 20. He is the Pitts of tackles. We keep replaces tackles every season. End the struggle at LT.

I don't think WR is on the staffs mind. I mean hes a wonderful player but, with the holes at tackle te or even corner on defense.. I think they would go that route.

This is the correct answer in either order.

Late rounder rarely amount to anything... at best your looking to get the guy the jags are moving on for Lawrence.. tough to target a late round sleeper and project starter.

I'm a Pitts believer. If you think he is generational, and sewell and slater are just good, go with Pitts first online second. Class deep at tackle take the rarer talent first. Don't just force a need because it's been so long.

I mean it's a better solution than trading 3 first for a risk anyway....

I think the only bad pick to be made would be jones... of course I would rather have fields... maybe lance, pitts after that sewell.

this is the correct answer

No

I love sewell, and would be good with drafting him. The thing is Pitts is a once in 20 years guy, I hear the wr have been kicking the tackle problem done the road argument and that's right. But.. class is deep there. We also haven't really had a Redzone weapon..since I guess Benjamin? PItts has the longest reach ever recorded.. comes down to so you think sewell is a generation tackle and not Jack fisher one of those types.

The huddle is crazy... no to Pitts lol

Just saying

Thats why he is projected to go that high. He isnt the conventional tight end more a weapon/wr te

Pitts is my pick if not a qb... He is a generational talent.

You don't seen to be in high reguwefd around the huddle but in this one instance your absolutely right. We were out of the playoffs.. if your not fighting for a playoff spot you should be looking to build for the future and make it to the superbowl. Winning a meanless game against another bad team doesn't help. See what you have in Walker or Grier play backups plan for the off-season see who u can cut and live without who you want back so on. Shut down your stars take less wear and tear off their bodies.

Look at the image you showed, and the example you gave. There is such a thing as common sense. whatever point you just tried to make didn't apply to me looking up an actual term not a forum called the the huddle. You have to apply common sense to any argument. that is the part that goes over your head and his apparently. You want a Webster's definition for popular slang and it just doesn't work that way. Google search is very viable in doing most anything sure you can do some dumb stuff like you did and come back with poo information but, applying a bit of common sense and does this apply to the point I'm trying to make it works. That's a very bad example....

Just stop it bro. The only one who seems to be silly in this post is you. No one agrees with you, I just don't know how we can make this more clear to you besides just writing you off and saying you know what your right.

This isn't a research paper. I did a quick google search and showed the first thing that came up.There isn't a Websters definition for tanking in sports exactly..what are you trying to prove with this explanation of nothing to do with nothing. I STATED my point and proved what I was trying to say. You one of those guys who come into threads and say grammer* Please take several seats.