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.