Which statement holds true?

[FakePlasticTrees]

47 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

True but you have to be convinced that the QB you are getting is elite. If your evaluation is that Wilson, Lance, Jones, Trask are all equal in terms of risk and not "sure things" it isn't illogical to pass on them. 

It hurts a franchise just as much to invest in something far from a sure thing(See the Trubisky's of the league).

This is where scouting and then coaching are invaluable. If you find "that guy" then you do what it takes to get him. The perfect example was Kansas City and Mahomes. Last season was an opportunity lost with Herbert and those opportunities are always in short supply. I hope we find that guy in this draft because I know that guy is not currently on our roster. I am at least encouraged that Hurney and the staff seemed to recognize Herbert's talent, but I recognize that there are no guarantees.

[Mistuh Jones]

I'd say you need both. If not Elite LT, you need a damn good one. Same with QB IMHO 

[4Corners]

[Mr. Scot]

1 hour ago, WarHeel said:

There aren’t any absolute truths in football.

The Falcons suck.

 

 

 

(cheap, but I couldn't resist)

[WarHeel]

43 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The Falcons suck.

 

 

 

(cheap, but I couldn't resist)

Well played 

[MasterAwesome]

This is kinda begging the question, in that it's based on the presupposition that the OT/QB we may potentially draft will be equal in ability at their respective positions.  It is very likely that Sewell is going to be a much better OT than Wilson/Lance will be QBs.  So it's more like choosing between a likely elite LT vs. a good/above average QB.  Obviously the draft is a crapshoot and their career trajectories could drastically deviate from pre-draft analyses, but this seems to be the consensus across most draft boards (i.e. Sewell is a considerably better individual prospect than Wilson or Lance).

If we want to go ahead and adopt that presupposition, then of course it's better to have a franchise QB and mediocre LT than a franchise LT and mediocre QB.  A franchise QB is the most important piece to the puzzle and is generally much more impactful to a team's success than an LT, which is only one of five pieces on your o-line.  You can have a franchise LT and still give up immense pressure from the other side of your line.  It's like having a shutdown corner that can shut one side of the field down, but the other side is manned by straight swiss cheese.  You can exploit that pretty easily.  Yeah, it certainly helps to have an elite LT...but your o-line operates as a cohesive unit and therefore is generally only as strong as its weakest link.

That being said...I would love to even just have a consistent "mediocre LT".  We've been trotting out garbage there for way too long.

[cardiackat88.]

8 hours ago, ncfan said:

1. There are plenty of Good QBs who have played well with subpar LTs.  Cam, Watson, Luck.  To name a few.  But an avg QB with a good LT, while have you above .500.  He wont win you games if the rest of the team D etc struggles.

Exactly.

Ask Joe Thomas and Joe Staley.

[bandu]

Year in and year out picking  teen to yearly twentiyish in the draft because of a strong run game by addressing the oL

or they find a field General at QB whom can lead this team to greatness.

oh yeah & Lt is helluva a risk in the draft even more so than a QB...

...so of course my answer speaks for itself

[WarHeel]

13 minutes ago, bandu said:

Year in and year out picking  teen to yearly twentiyish in the draft because of a strong run game by addressing the oL

or they find a field General at QB whom can lead this team to greatness.

oh yeah & Lt is helluva a risk in the draft even more so than a QB...

...so of course my answer speaks for itself

Genuinely curious. What’s your rationale here?

[Manna]

Didn't Clausen have Gross?

[WarHeel]

Just now, Manna said:

Didn't Clausen have Gross?

Clausen wasn’t mediocre. He was comically awful.

[JawnyBlaze]

QB elevates the line more than line elevates the QB. The QB is the limiter. Great OL won’t make a bit of difference with a mediocre QB because the overall success is capped at mediocre. A great QB can overcome a mediocre line (see Cam’s whole career). We would have had a lot more success with Cam and that line if he’d ever been given the kind of weapons we have now and had remotely competent playcalling/coaching. 

[JawnyBlaze]

15 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

Genuinely curious. What’s your rationale here?

Proportionately, there have been as many terrible LTs taken high as QBs lately. Some of the league’s best have been found in the late first or later. (This is off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure it would hold true under scrutiny)

[JawnyBlaze]

Greg Robinson for one was supposed to be a can’t miss prospect.