I'm hoping a team is willing to trade a 6th or 7th ahead of releasing to waivers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Who makes that trade? Seriously.

I'm reading day 3 pick is most common.