Dr. Who

Why is that exactly?

Next time I see him, I'll let him know.

I think they stick at 9, but I wouldn't rule out a trade up from 40.

He's definitely better than those who think he's a questionable starter.

No, it's just you.

Still think they need at least a developmental OT and a RB under 30 as well.

I think they bumbled Josh Allen's rollout. I don't think they imagined he would start that early. A vet like Anderson (McCarron isn't that) should have been there from the get go. In the end, however, Allen may be better for having faced that adversity. It might seem almost unreal to have a credible line in front of him and wrs who are NFL caliber and capable of making plays for their qb. I am certainly encouraged by where the team is now, so I don't agree with the view that Beane is incompetent.

Sometimes I can't help myself, but I agree, one shouldn't.

I think Waddle is good depth. I doubt you want him starting. If Dawkins gets moved to guard, they still need a solid OT. The fact that they are courting Spain makes me think they are keeping Dawkins at tackle, though I do think he has potential to be dominant at LG.

LT and LG are both projections. I think there is a somewhat small chance Dawkins could develop into a better LT than you imagine. I think the chances are pretty good he could be a very good LG, though one is still speculating there. I'd like to move him, but right now there isn't a LT to replace him on the roster and I don't see one I would take at nine. I would trade back into the latter part of the first if Dillard is still there, though even then, would you start a rookie at LT? I kinda doubt it.

Well, you repeatedly come on here and badmouth Allen as a qb. You want him to keep running because you think he's inaccurate and not much of a passer. I don't think you're going to see Allen stop running. Having time to see the field and throw, having wrs who can reliably catch the ball and with speed to stretch the field may benefit both passing and running. They're not mutually exclusive options.

Ah, my reading comprehension not so great Sunday morning/early afternoon. I do like the idea of how much flexibility McDermott's D gains with three very athletic lbs. I can see Edmunds racking up sacks as an occasional edge rusher, too.

Keuchley is the floor for White? Okay, if true and if he's there, you gotta take him.

I doubt he falls to nine. My question is about lb. Don't we normally have two lbs on the field? If you draft White, are you thinking of playing Edmunds at DE as an edge rusher? You're not getting value if Milano, Edmunds and White aren't on the field for most snaps. Outside of that context, White would be a steal if available. I've just concentrated elsewhere for aforementioned reasons.

C'mon. I don't think a single person defends the quality of personnel that was on the team last year, especially on offense. It was a tear down, necessary or not. Nearly every complaint you just lodged above has been echoed by many. I have made the same charges, so stop with the vehemence as if claiming Beane and McDermott have a plan is equivalent to justifying all their past actions. One can disagree with much and still recognize that a decision to radically alter cap management and infuse talent this year does not amount to throwing excrement against the wall and haphazardly hoping for the best.

Allen had one of the worst o-lines in the league, bottom five wr corps, and generally ineffective running game. He didn't have the luxury of a redshirt year or a coaching staff with proven offensive success like Mahomes. We'll see how he does going into camp with all the first-team reps, a year of experience, improved line, players, etc. Couldn't care less about numbers. Allen emerged as a player after the injury, imo. He was carrying that team. He's already a leader. We'll find out if truth or a mirage soon enough.

This is more or less the "they have no plan and are panicking" narrative. I think the team has somewhat more talent than you credit. I also think that while one can certainly disagree with individual decisions or even the basic strategy, it's disingenuous to claim Beane and McDermott are not proceeding along what they perceive as a rational plan.

Merge with CJ Anderson thread and consign to oblivion.

OP does not appear to be aiming at the risible.

I think MrEpsYtown brings good insight. He's usually very perceptive about o-line in particular. Nonetheless, I agree with your argument.

I actually opened the thread thinking it must be a joke.

I'd rather grab Oliver at nine and trade up from 40 into the back end of the first to get Dillard.

I can actually see Beane taking Oliver at #9, trading up from #40 into the end of round one if Dillard is available.

Dillard is probably the best potential LT. I still take Oliver at #9, but I do think Dawkins can be a great LG.

Who is your preference for the pick at #9? I think Beane has positioned himself to go in numerous directions. I like Oliver, because I think he can be a disruptive DT, but if you think he's too small and will get pushed around, that's a reason to back off. A fella like Dillard who could end up being a quality LT makes sense, especially if you think Dawkins might be a superlative LG. I don't see a WR at #9, mainly because DK seems too risky there. Bosa and Allen will be gone early, so where's the edge that early? I think our cb situation is good enough you don't expend a first there.