Realistically there are Michael Thomas's and Jarvis Landry's out there at tackle, players who would be a significant upgrade IF HEALTHY. But their age and injury history are major red flags, and due to their past earnings, they probably aren't taking calls for minimum salary. So the question is, do you make those calls?

If one of these limping vets pan out, you may get a bargain, win a couple extra games, and maybe prevent a catastrophic injury to Carr, but you don't solve anything long term and you end up in the same dilemma next year, with a hit to the salary cap as well.

But if they don't pan out you potentially lose MORE games, put Carr at MORE risk, etc because you have to shuffle the oline mid-season and throw in someone who has not been practicing with the ones and has lost confidence from being benched, and maybe you had to cut your next best option and they are with another team, plus you still get the salary cap hit. Or maybe the limping vet is in and out of the lineup with nagging injuries all year and the position never stabilizes.

In the end, I think gambling on the limping vet is not worth it unless you are so close to a ring that the upside could push you over the edge. I don't think we are a David Back-to-IR away from a ring. Then again, I will acknowledge that the argument could be made to 'protect Carr at all costs' due to the devastation an injury (which could guarantee his 2025 salary) or inability to evaluate his play could cause for the franchises future.

Beyond the limping vets, the sort of players we could bring in for a 6th or 7th or cheap contract are the kind of players who would provide competition, not a sure thing. But if our depth is not impressing, competition is the way to go. So I favor bringing in competition for cheap. Even if the players we bring in have exactly the same skill level as the players we cut, just the statement it will make could light a fire under someone to step up their game.

All for that if there's anyone out there that could truly be an upgrade. I don't see a shot in hell of a true starter quality player being available at tackle at either waivers or late round trade fodder. Other positions, yes. I can see it. But if we can at least improve depth at tackle it would be a plus and worth a late pick, I suppose.

Like I have mentioned before, there's probably not a team out there that wouldn't want to improve their o-line depth. It seems like it's more of a seller's market than a buyer's market for the position. Perhaps if the trade was sweet enough a team might let a decent backup go for a mid round pick like a 4th, or maybe even a 3rd. I think that would probably be our best bet of picking up someone that could actually contribute at the position.

I'm sure there are teams with a surplus of O lineman who also have deficiencies at other spots in the roster.

That's comes back around to not doing anything on those vets until AFTER week one. The last thing you want is to pick up a vet prior to week one and be committed to their salary for the full 17 weeks if they break down again.

Not as many as you might think. Especially at tackle. They had a whole segment on Moving the Chains a couple of weeks ago talking about the shortage of decent tackles in the league today and the reasons why. They included the elimination of development in college due to limitations put in place by the NCAA and the recent trend of athletic big guys moving from o-line in high school and college to the more glamorous d-line. They did their usual 20 point scale of grading all teams' tackle corps and they said that scores were coming in lower than ever.

There were a small handful of teams in decent shape, but the vast majority were in, to differing degrees, the same dilemma we're facing. Some depth IS available, but the supply is greatly exceeded by the demand. A couple of teams may be willing to move some depth, but it ain't going to be cheap. We're going to have to outbid half the league. I hope we can, but I'm simply not counting on it. I hope I'm wrong. More accurately, I hope that all the guys on NFL Radio were wrong.

I'm sure there are teams with a surplus of O lineman who also have deficiencies at other spots in the roster.

I think part of the problem is that if an oline is surplus, its hard to tell if they would be much of an upgrade. If they are a young surplus oline they probably played with the backups in preseason games that may not have been at full speed. If they performed well in limited game action the previous season, its hard to say if that limited game action was what prevented the flaws in their technique and the limits to their durability from becoming clear, which might be part of why they were not slated to take over long term for their current team. If they were drafted in a high round, the team probably would have drafted them to start and played them with the ones and be moving on from a veteran not their top draft pick, so a young surplus oline is likely to have been drafted in later rounds or be an undrafted free agent, coming with all the questions that caused them to not be a top draft pick, limited on-field NFL experience to answer those questions, and one of the only data points being their current team being willing to let them walk.

If the surplus oline is a veteran, you do have lots of game tape, but likely the recent tape is not great, and their current team is likely letting them go for a younger player. There is a great chance they are breaking down with injuries, have lost a step, or were a system players whose deficiencies their team has had to cover for over the years.

With other positions on offense and defense there are more situational rotations from goal line packages to 3rds and long and 4 receiver sets to 4th down and short with 2 TE where there is a lot of opportunity for backups to get game time and stand out as the positions on the field. Yet there are pretty much only 5 oline on the field at a time. With backup oline they almost never see the field unless someone is hurt or on weird special teams and situational packages. When someone is hurt and a backup oline fills in, you get a limited number of matchups and it can be hard to tell if the team is having to give them a lot of help or if they just handled an impressive assignment one week well because Bosa was nursing a sore back or because the game plan quickly shifted to their strength.

In the end, I think its smarter to look at surplus oline as 'competition' than a definite upgrade. But we do need competition.

You've basically restated what I've been saying - someone will become available, possibly an upgrade, it will be above market price...

However!!

We cannot afford to sit on our hands and leave this glaring issue unresolved especially with our early schedule.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Bako on this, but I'm not sure I'd want to give up what it would take to get an actual upgrade if it's too costly. For example, a 2025 3rd rounder for a player that's a backup upgrade and would only play significant snaps due to injury.