- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,341
If we're narrowing down this hypothetical to just Freeling, I guess it would have to come down to your evaluation of him.
I'll admit I haven't really watched OL prospects much this year because that hasn't been the direction I see us going. If the Rams have Freeling in the game changer with zero questions bucket I guess it would make sense, but then why would that player fall to 13? If they have him in the reliable starter bucket, I don't think it makes sense because you already have two young players of that caliber with McClendon and AJ.
Also I understand that McClendon is an upcoming free agent but why are you forcing yourself to let a reliable 24 year old player walk when we have the cap space to re-sign him? Or the other example trading Alaric away, but why? Where's the roster improvement in those scenarios? And what if Freeling doesn't pan out? You have a premium pick that you almost never have and you spend it on... replacing an established good young player with a potentially good young player?
If we were talking about any position other than OL or QB, it makes some sense because that player can work themselves into the rotation as a backup. OL is kind of like QB in that if an injury doesn't happen they're just riding the bench. Hence the Darnold-McCarthy example because that's the situation you're proposing forcing us into, and they didn't even do that on purpose Darnold just outplayed expectations.
I mean seriously is there any precedent at all for a team with two young, reliable starting OTs drafting an OT in the top half of the first round?
I remember years ago the Browns had Tony Jones and Orlando Brown when they drafted Jonathan Ogden. Ogden played some left guard as a rookie and then they dealt Jones the following season. But Freeling isn't nearly as good a Ogden and those Ravens weren't nearly as loaded as the Rams.
Perhaps a better question would be is there much precedent where a prohibitive Super Bowl favorite with a loaded roster had such a high draft selection?
Anyway, if McClendon continues to play well (without Havenstein coaching him up), he may be getting more than Jackson with his next deal. Of course this means Jackson is going to want even more. And what of all the other free agents I listed previously while this is happening?
Again, the draft class has a say in this, too. Ideally, you'd like to select someone playing a position of one of those players that might be difficult to retain. But going back to team needs not influencing player availability, this draft class doesn't appear to have that highly rated pass rusher or interior defensive lineman or quarterback worthy of the selection that will be on the board.
There may be decent guards available, but do you want to spend a top 13 selection on a guard when you typically can find a stud later? Are the highest rated WRs in this draft class #1 types that typically get drafted this high? No. Most of what I've read suggests these are #2 types. And quite frankly, if given the choice, I'd take last year's Emeka Egbuka over what many list as the top guy in this class in his former teammate Carnell Tate.
Again, I just wouldn't scoff at an OT selection as it's a premium position. And premium positions on rookie deals is great for roster management. And I'd understand it knowing that this draft class is not just about this season. And especially until I see the team obtain a legitimate backup to Jackson. Jackson stay healthy? Great. Jackson goes down and chances are so does the season.
I would just hate for this team to go the same route as the 1999 Super Bowl Championship team did thinking that they were set for years and targeted toys that might contribute some immediately in their following draft class.
Last edited: