Alex Boone

[Bbswatching]

Do we look at trying to trade for him, if the 49ers cant reach an agreement with him? I Depending on what it would cost.  I think we gotta at least look at it.  Esp with a couple linemen already going down.

[PrincetonTiger]

We do not really need a T/G but a G/C

[B~Town]

A few things to consider what's is it going to cost to keep him here , what would we have to give up to SF , and would he do in our man blocking system . Don't watch many SF games so I really don't know much about there system but have heard a lot about how good there line is so the idea is intriguing he did  grade out as one of the best lineman in the league last season .

[qtaro]

Teams eye Alex Boone trade

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11330873/teams-eye-trade-alex-boone-san-francisco-49ers

[UKColt13]

Versatile. Tough. Proven.

I like him.

[CS Colts Fan]

better fit  than RI all the way around

[Dark Superman]

I would be all for it..

Do whatever it takes to protect Luck

[Flash7]

He would just end up on IR if we traded for him. I kid, I kid.

 

He would play guard, and we would move Mewhort to Center until Holmes is better. Then Holmes and Mewhort can battle for the Center position, or Mewhort and Thornton can battle for the guard position.

[Superman]

Not a sensible move for us, IMO. He wants a starter's contract, probably top ten guard money for 4-5 years. No one knows what shape he's in, because he hasn't participated in the Niners offseason program. The Niners probably want at least a third rounder for him. 

 

The Colts have put a lot of trust in their young guards, and anticipate that they will be the starters in the future, and for several years. I could see starting Boone over Mewhort, but it's hard to know whether the guy is actually ready to play, or how long he'll need to get ready, and with that kind of uncertainty, it's hard to project him as a better option right now. 

 

If there's any spot we need a reserve at, it's tackle or center. Reitz looked good on Thursday, but Nixon is down for about a month, John is on IR, and Hall looked terrible. Holmes is now hurt for probably a month, and we're down to two rookies and a scrub reserve that can't make anyone's final roster, and was a free agent two days ago. Boone is a guard. He played some tackle earlier in his career, but never center. Good player, but not the right fit for us right now, and too expensive.

[fatboy]

Conflicted - Thomas is proving to be an injury bust, but we have to think about salary cap issues with Costanzo due soon, and then Luck, TY, and the two TEs.

[Smonroe]

Hmm, Boone, Mewhort, Hall, Boom at RB... sounds pretty good to me.

I wonder if we could get the Seahawks to trade us Pryor...

.... Santonio Holmes still looking for work?

[fatboy]

After Farty Arty Schleichter and Quinn the video game addict Pitcock, let's be sure to vet any Ohio State product!

[AntonMcG]

From a scheme perspective, you couldn't gave a better fit. He would automatically be a huge upgrade and would open up running lanes. I understand trying to keep the kids together but that seems a bit defeatist in the short term to me. I would love to see this transpire.

[BlueShoe]

I would trade a 3rd for Boone and cut Thomas after this year.

 

Casonzo, Mewhort, Holmes/Harrison, Boone, and Cherilus.

 

Thornton, Reitz, Louis, and/or Nixon as backups.

 

Looks pretty darn sweet to me.

 

We would have the center position covered because Louis could start at guard and Mewhort move to center if needed.

 

The move would also help us out at tackle because Boone can play very well at left tackle, so much that he filled in last year and shut down Quinn.

 

This move would be a no-brainer if the 49ers are serious about wanting to part with Boone. And it really opens up our options in next years draft too.

 

Boone has clearly out-played his contract, and the 49ers should have recognized this before it got this bad.

[qtaro]

Not a sensible move for us, IMO. He wants a starter's contract, probably top ten guard money for 4-5 years. No one knows what shape he's in, because he hasn't participated in the Niners offseason program. The Niners probably want at least a third rounder for him. 

 

The Colts have put a lot of trust in their young guards, and anticipate that they will be the starters in the future, and for several years. I could see starting Boone over Mewhort, but it's hard to know whether the guy is actually ready to play, or how long he'll need to get ready, and with that kind of uncertainty, it's hard to project him as a better option right now. 

 

If there's any spot we need a reserve at, it's tackle or center. Reitz looked good on Thursday, but Nixon is down for about a month, John is on IR, and Hall looked terrible. Holmes is now hurt for probably a month, and we're down to two rookies and a scrub reserve that can't make anyone's final roster, and was a free agent two days ago. Boone is a guard. He played some tackle earlier in his career, but never center. Good player, but not the right fit for us right now, and too expensive.

Not trying to be argumentative but with all due respect, whether he is 'too expensive' or not isn't really up to us to decide is it, unless you know something we don't...

[SilentHill]

IF we have to give up anything more than a 6th round pick then I think we all know what the answer should be.

[In Luck We Trust]

I think we should do it. our line needs improvement especially since we sign a guard who hasnt played in a game yet for indy is out for the year again. 

[GwinnettColt]

I would trade a 3rd for Boone and cut Thomas after this year.

 

Casonzo, Mewhort, Holmes/Harrison, Boone, and Cherilus.

 

Thornton, Reitz, Louis, and/or Nixon as backups.

 

Looks pretty darn sweet to me.

 

We would have the center position covered because Louis could start at guard and Mewhort move to center if needed.

 

The move would also help us out at tackle because Boone can play very well at left tackle, so much that he filled in last year and shut down Quinn.

 

This move would be a no-brainer if the 49ers are serious about wanting to part with Boone. And it really opens up our options in next years draft too.

 

Boone has clearly out-played his contract, and the 49ers should have recognized this before it got this bad.

Agreed.  I wish that Thomas would have worked out but it didn't and I'm not sure how much more time the Colts can spend on him.

 

I like your suggestion of Castonzo, Mewhort, Harrison/Holmes, Boone, Cherilus.  It offers a very versatile collection of OL players.

 

Trading for a third would be smart (I wish Richardson-although I think he'll have a better year this year) would have been traded for a later pick.  My point is a third round isn't that much of a gamble.  

[YOUR GM]

Not a sensible move for us, IMO. He wants a starter's contract, probably top ten guard money for 4-5 years. No one knows what shape he's in, because he hasn't participated in the Niners offseason program. The Niners probably want at least a third rounder for him. 

 

The Colts have put a lot of trust in their young guards, and anticipate that they will be the starters in the future, and for several years. I could see starting Boone over Mewhort, but it's hard to know whether the guy is actually ready to play, or how long he'll need to get ready, and with that kind of uncertainty, it's hard to project him as a better option right now. 

 

If there's any spot we need a reserve at, it's tackle or center. Reitz looked good on Thursday, but Nixon is down for about a month, John is on IR, and Hall looked terrible. Holmes is now hurt for probably a month, and we're down to two rookies and a scrub reserve that can't make anyone's final roster, and was a free agent two days ago. Boone is a guard. He played some tackle earlier in his career, but never center. Good player, but not the right fit for us right now, and too expensive.

 

 

I don't agree with the logic of sticking with your picks, come hell or high water. It's the GM's job to assemble talent on the roster. It's the players jobs to earn their spots and contracts after they are brought in, and it's the coaches jobs to recognize who deserves what jobs. If Mewhort or Thornton can't beat Boone out for either one of the starting guard spots, they weren't meant to be our starters. If Boone is brought in for a 3rd rounder and doesn't beat either of our young players for the starting job, let him walk once his contract is up, if he's asking for too much. I could live with gambling a 3rd rounder on him if he's shown quality starter ability in recent history (which he has)

 

The idea of handing players jobs does nothing but breed complacency. If your picks are as good as you think they are, you shouldn't be afraid to give them some competition. We don't have a single linemen on our roster right now that is absolutely above being challenged for a starters spot, in my opinion. Only elite players should get that kind of treatment 

[Superman]

Not trying to be argumentative but with all due respect, whether he is 'too expensive' or not isn't really up to us to decide is it, unless you know something we don't...

 

Whether we go after Boone or not isn't up to us to decide, yet here we are...

 

I'm working from the same basic information that everyone else is working from. Boone wants a new contract. I haven't seen any "demands" from him, so I'm assuming he wants starter+ money, somewhere in the neighborhood of $4-5m/year. And I think he's worth it, particularly to the Niners. His desire for a new contract is so strong that he's currently forgoing virtually guaranteed money by not reporting to camp, and he held out of the entire offseason program. His contract would cut into the slush fund we're holding onto for re-signing the 2012 draft class.

 

And of course, in order to trade for him, we'd have to give up a draft pick. Let's call it a fourth rounder (and I think that's being conservative; I think it would probably take a third). 

 

On top of that, he would be thrust into the starting lineup, because you don't give up a mid-round draft pick and a starter's contract if you don't intend to play the guy. That affects the development, future prospects, and cost-benefit of the young guys that we are currently planning to build the line around. You no longer have a cheap starter and a cheap reserve; now you have a moderately priced starter and a cheap reserve.

 

So he would presumably cost us a fourth round pick + a multi-year, $4-5m/year contract, and a starting spot on the line. Down the line, his contract could make it difficult to retain Fleener or Allen.

 

And since he has not participated in any team-related football activities, no one can know for sure what shape he has kept himself in, and he would have to learn our playbook and system (which is probably similar to the Niners, but there is still an acclimation period). So there are some unknowns as well.

 

That's my evaluation. Your mileage may vary, and as always, I don't have a monopoly on the facts. But from my perspective, I don't think he'd be a good fit for our team at this point.

[Superman]

I don't agree with the logic of sticking with your picks, come hell or high water. It's the GM's job to assemble talent on the roster. It's the players jobs to earn their spots and contracts after they are brought in, and it's the coaches jobs to recognize who deserves what jobs. If Mewhort or Thornton can't beat Boone out for either one of the starting guard spots, they weren't meant to be our starters. If Boone is brought in for a 3rd rounder and doesn't beat either of our young players for the starting job, let him walk once his contract is up, if he's asking for too much. I could live with gambling a 3rd rounder on him if he's shown quality starter ability in recent history (which he has)

 

The idea of handing players jobs does nothing but breed complacency. If your picks are as good as you think they are, you shouldn't be afraid to give them some competition. We don't have a single linemen on our roster right now that is absolutely above being challenged for a starters spot, in my opinion. Only elite players should get that kind of treatment 

 

It's not sticking with your picks. It's giving your picks a chance to perform, in which case, you increase your odds of getting maximum value from them over the short life of their rookie contracts.

 

You don't bring Boone in and let him walk when his contract is up. You bring Boone in and give him a new contract; that's the only way he shows up to work. So now you've given him starter's money and years, and that makes no sense unless you're putting him in the starting lineup. Not to mention surrendering a mid-round pick for him.

 

What you're calling competition is actually undercutting your young players. And that's fine, if you don't believe in their ability to get the job done and want to bring in someone that you think is better. But Boone isn't going anywhere to compete for a starting job. If we brought him in, he'd be a defacto starter, so long as he's healthy and in shape. 

[Colts_Fan12]

I would trade a 3rd for Boone and cut Thomas after this year.

Casonzo, Mewhort, Holmes/Harrison, Boone, and Cherilus.

Thornton, Reitz, Louis, and/or Nixon as backups.

Looks pretty darn sweet to me.

We would have the center position covered because Louis could start at guard and Mewhort move to center if needed.

The move would also help us out at tackle because Boone can play very well at left tackle, so much that he filled in last year and shut down Quinn.

This move would be a no-brainer if the 49ers are serious about wanting to part with Boone. And it really opens up our options in next years draft too.

Boone has clearly out-played his contract, and the 49ers should have recognized this before it got this bad.

Thorton played prett decent for a rookie thrown into the fire last year why bench him for a rookie?

[YOUR GM]

It's not sticking with your picks. It's giving your picks a chance to perform, in which case, you increase your odds of getting maximum value from them over the short life of their rookie contracts.

 

You don't bring Boone in and let him walk when his contract is up. You bring Boone in and give him a new contract; that's the only way he shows up to work. So now you've given him starter's money and years, and that makes no sense unless you're putting him in the starting lineup. Not to mention surrendering a mid-round pick for him.

 

What you're calling competition is actually undercutting your young players. And that's fine, if you don't believe in their ability to get the job done and want to bring in someone that you think is better. But Boone isn't going anywhere to compete for a starting job. If we brought him in, he'd be a defacto starter, so long as he's healthy and in shape. 

 

Boone has no leverage with the Niners or with any potential trade suitors. He will show up for work, eventually, whether with the Niners or not. He's in no position not to. And of course if you trade for a guy with a proven track record, and give up a 3rd rounder for him, you're going to start him to see if he's an improvement over anything we have. If he isn't, fine. Experiment failed -- let him walk after the season. If he is, keep him as a starter, pay him and have your recent draft picks as added depth. Starter money is going to be handed to the offensive line eventually, regardless of who is and isn't retained from the 2012 draft class, and regardless of who it is that would be getting a lucrative contract on our line. Boone getting a new contract (or anyone, for that matter) and the 2012 draft class being retained are not synonymous, at all. We're gonna have to spend money on the line anyways.

 

Also, our guys are rookies and second year players -- why do you somehow equate that if they're not handed a starting job right off the bat, they're not being given a chance to show anything? They have the duration of their rookie contracts to unseat someone, and if they're outperforming competition in practice, they SHOULD be seeing the field, regardless of what is invested where. We need to stop making decisions with our pocket book and just go with who can win us more games 

[Superman]

Boone has no leverage with the Niners or with any potential trade suitors. He will show up for work, eventually, whether with the Niners or not. He's in no position not to. And of course if you trade for a guy with a proven track record, and give up a 3rd rounder for him, you're going to start him to see if he's an improvement over anything we have. If he isn't, fine. Experiment failed -- let him walk after the season. If he is, keep him as a starter, pay him and have your recent draft picks as added depth. Starter money is going to be handed to the offensive line eventually, regardless of who is and isn't retained from the 2012 draft class, and regardless of who it is that would be getting a lucrative contract on our line. Boone getting a new contract (or anyone, for that matter) and the 2012 draft class being retained are not synonymous, at all. We're gonna have to spend money on the line anyways.

 

Also, our guys are rookies and second year players -- why do you somehow equate that if they're not handed a starting job right off the bat, they're not being given a chance to show anything? They have the duration of their rookie contracts to unseat someone, and if they're outperforming competition in practice, they SHOULD be seeing the field, regardless of what is invested where. We need to stop making decisions with our pocket book and just go with who can win us more games 

 

You are talking about so many different things, and are projecting several viewpoints that I do not agree with.

 

1) Boone hasn't shown up for work. The presumption is that he is not going to show up for work until he gets a new contract, which is why the Niners are reportedly interested in trading him. Or you can trade for him and try to sweet talk him into coming to work, despite having zero rapport with him. Again, the presumption is that any team that trades for him is going to be working a new deal with him.

 

2) Even if you can get him in the building without a new contract, Boone has two years left on his current deal. You don't let him walk after the season if he doesn't work out. Either you cut him (wasting a mid-round pick), or you deal with another protracted holdout (his base salary in 2015 is lower than it is in 2014). 

 

3) Yes, starter money is eventually going to be paid to some of the guys on the offensive line. Why rush to do so if you think you have young guys who can handle the job? You are looking at cap space as a year-to-year proposition, and that's a mistake. You can roll over cap space, so what you spend today affects what you can spend tomorrow. So if you have guys still on their rookie contracts who are doing a satisfactory job -- and how can you know if you don't give them a chance to perform? -- you are getting a very favorable cost-benefit from them. That is better for the team's long-term prospects than spending starter's money on a position where you might not even have to (if your young guys can play).

 

4) The starter's money that you eventually spend will be on guys that have been in your system, and it will be after you've gotten 3-4 years of rookie contract cost-benefit from them. That's different from trading for a veteran who wants starter's money now. Better or worse? That's undetermined in the present, but it is very different, and there's no debating that.

 

5) If you don't give your young guys a chance to start now, then when are you going to give them a chance to start? You only have them for 4 years on their rookie contracts. If you bring in Boone, he's your starter, assuming health, for the next two or three seasons. When do you develop the young guy he's supplanting in the lineup?

 

6) Regarding competition, there is such a thing as overcrowding any given position. Bringing in cheap veterans / journeyman is different than having established veteran starters and first and second year players. If you are so flush with established veteran starters that your young guys never get meaningful playing time, then there's no sense in having the young players in the first place. You aren't developing them, nor are you taking advantage of their cheap rookie contracts. I don't think bringing in Boone would necessarily make the line overcrowded; I'm only saying that competition and development only exist when you're actually putting the young players on the field.

 

7) Along those lines, we're talking about OL. Not DL, where you rotate players; not LB, where different players take the field in different situations; not the secondary where you play 6 or 7 guys every game; not RB or WR; not a position where your young guys will actually contribute on special teams... Reserve offensive linemen don't play unless there are injuries. They don't get brought along slowly, they don't get first team snaps, they don't get playing time against real opponents. They pretty much just sit there, until you have to throw them in the fire. Bringing in an established veteran starter would not promote competition. It would stunt the development of at least one of your young guys.

 

Taking all those things into consideration, along with the cost of acquiring him, I don't think Boone is the right fit for our team right now. If we need veteran depth at all, it's at tackle and center, not guard, IMO (Boone played tackle earlier in his career, but since 2012 has been a guard exclusively). If you do bring in a veteran guard, you bring in a low cost, short term guy, who can step in in a pinch, and we already have Lance Louis and Joe Reitz, both of whom played well in the first preseason game. You don't give up a mid-round draft pick for an established veteran who wants a starter's level contract just to come to work, and who may or may not be in football shape. Boone just doesn't make sense for the Colts, IMO.

[YOUR GM]

Supes, I generally either avoid getting into debates with you all together or just stop responding after awhile because you tend to oversaturate your point by being a little long winded at times. So I find it particularly amusing that you're the one telling me I'm talking about "so many things." That being said, I'm relaxing today and have nothing better to do, so I'll try to answer the best I can

 

 

You are talking about so many different things, and are projecting several viewpoints that I do not agree with.

 

1) Boone hasn't shown up for work. The presumption is that he is not going to show up for work until he gets a new contract, which is why the Niners are reportedly interested in trading him. Or you can trade for him and try to sweet talk him into coming to work, despite having zero rapport with him. Again, the presumption is that any team that trades for him is going to be working a new deal with him.

 

 

Boone is not the first player in the history of the league to not show up for work because of a contract dispute, and I'm sure if you check the history books, the vast majority  of players that did so, eventually caved once they realized the checks weren't coming in anymore. Boone is no different, and as I said, he has no leverage, regardless of where he plays next year. The Niners situation and our situation are polar opposites. The Niners have an established line with great depth and don't really need to deal with the headache of a contract dispute with, realistically, their 3 or 4th best starting linemen on the team. Point being, they can afford to shop him. 

 

Now look at our situation. We're comprised of linemen who are all either lacking experience, trying to overcome serious injuries and/or are nothing more than decent players at the moment. We need quality starters and depth, and Boone could potentially bring both.

 

2) Even if you can get him in the building without a new contract, Boone has two years left on his current deal. You don't let him walk after the season if he doesn't work out. Either you cut him (wasting a mid-round pick), or you deal with another protracted holdout (his base salary in 2015 is lower than it is in 2014). 

 

 

 It is very clear that we are in "win-now" mode, and given the injuries we have already faced along the line, it is not a poor investment to take a flier on a pro bowl caliber player who wants to get paid. If he, indeed, is worth what he's asking, why wouldn't we pay the man after trading for him? Even if it spills over into next season, he still has no leverage and there would be no need to cut him. This year would be the "prove it" year, and if doesn't prove to be worth what he's asking, let him walk in 2 season. I don't think he has much of a chance to get paid in San Fran, whereas, if he were brought in to our organization, should he perform at a high level, he would get paid. 

 

 

 

3) Yes, starter money is eventually going to be paid to some of the guys on the offensive line. Why rush to do so if you think you have young guys who can handle the job? You are looking at cap space as a year-to-year proposition, and that's a mistake. You can roll over cap space, so what you spend today affects what you can spend tomorrow. So if you have guys still on their rookie contracts who are doing a satisfactory job -- and how can you know if you don't give them a chance to perform? -- you are getting a very favorable cost-benefit from them. That is better for the team's long-term prospects than spending starter's money on a position where you might not even have to (if your young guys can play).

 

 

 

Why rush, you ask? I ask why prolong developing a talented, cohesive unit for THIS year? Let's ignore the fact that even if Boone gets paid, it will not be anywhere near the cap busting contract you're trying to make it out to be. He's not getting left tackle money, so let's calm down a little.. Even if he did get that kind of money,  I would trade away cap flexibility 2 years from now for a better shot at the Lombardi this year, in a micro-second. And if we're making that kind of trade, we're presuming he's going to make that kind of impact

 

 

4) The starter's money that you eventually spend will be on guys that have been in your system, and it will be after you've gotten 3-4 years of rookie contract cost-benefit from them. That's different from trading for a veteran who wants starter's money now. Better or worse? That's undetermined in the present, but it is very different, and there's no debating that.

 

 

You're right, we don't know how Boone would perform here, but we at least have a greater sample size to look from with him than we do our current starters. He is a potential young building block on any offensive line, and it would be silly to pass up acquiring a known commodity for something you're hoping is "satisfactory" 

 

5) If you don't give your young guys a chance to start now, then when are you going to give them a chance to start? You only have them for 4 years on their rookie contracts. If you bring in Boone, he's your starter, assuming health, for the next two or three seasons. When do you develop the young guy he's supplanting in the lineup?

 

 

Last time I checked, Alex Boone was only one person. There are 5 positions on the offensive line -- two of them are guards. Boone would, presumably, take ONE of those starting positions. Am I missing something here? If Alex Boone is flat out better than Hugh Thornton, I don't care about stunting Thornton's growth, as he's likely not going to be one of my starters in the future, anyways. Boone is only 28 years old. He still has (assuming good health) at least as many years of quality play in the tank that Thornton or Mewhort have on their respective contracts. Beyond that, I don't understand why you somehow feel players can't develop unless they start. I wish you would further explain that assertion, because it is historically inaccurate. And by that same logic, how could anyone assert that Khaled Holmes was ready to play going into this year, with his whopping 12 snaps last season? Did we stunt his growth not playing him as well?.... 

 

 

6) Regarding competition, there is such a thing as overcrowding any given position. Bringing in cheap veterans / journeyman is different than having established veteran starters and first and second year players. If you are so flush with established veteran starters that your young guys never get meaningful playing time, then there's no sense in having the young players in the first place. You aren't developing them, nor are you taking advantage of their cheap rookie contracts. I don't think bringing in Boone would necessarily make the line overcrowded; I'm only saying that competition and development only exist when you're actually putting the young players on the field.

 

 

 

Can you honestly say with a straight face that we have an overabundance of depth and talent on our offensive line right now? I assert that competition is exactly what is needed on this line, more than anything. Who are we counting on if Thornton and/or Mewhort go down? We've already lost Thomas for the year and Holmes for a month. Behind them we have a bunch of serviceable at best players with their own injury red flags. I'm willing to stunt the growth of Thornton or Mewhort for a year if it means we'll be deeper this year. Mewhort was the intended 6th linemen going into the season anyways

 

 

7) Along those lines, we're talking about OL. Not DL, where you rotate players; not LB, where different players take the field in different situations; not the secondary where you play 6 or 7 guys every game; not RB or WR; not a position where your young guys will actually contribute on special teams... Reserve offensive linemen don't play unless there are injuries. They don't get brought along slowly, they don't get first team snaps, they don't get playing time against real opponents. They pretty much just sit there, until you have to throw them in the fire. Bringing in an established veteran starter would not promote competition. It would stunt the development of at least one of your young guys.

 

 

You don't acquire depth on the offensive line for rotational purposes, you acquire it in the event that you lose multiple starters at the same time, so that the level of production doesn't drop as much when they're not there. That scenario sound familiar to you?

 

Bringing in an established veteran makes us better this year and going forward by virtue of the fact that that's at least one extra player on the roster that you could realistically throw in to start, if you had to. Not to mention the fact that he might actually be better than the player you're trying to develop will ever be. If Thornton or Mewhort's ceiling isn't equal to Boone's current level of production (and I'm not saying that's the case), why would you care about developing them to take his spot when he's still relatively young himself? 

 

 

Taking all those things into consideration, along with the cost of acquiring him, I don't think Boone is the right fit for our team right now. If we need veteran depth at all, it's at tackle and center, not guard, IMO (Boone played tackle earlier in his career, but since 2012 has been a guard exclusively). If you do bring in a veteran guard, you bring in a low cost, short term guy, who can step in in a pinch, and we already have Lance Louis and Joe Reitz, both of whom played well in the first preseason game. You don't give up a mid-round draft pick for an established veteran who wants a starter's level contract just to come to work, and who may or may not be in football shape. Boone just doesn't make sense for the Colts, IMO.

 

 

What's the point in acquiring all of these multi-position players if you're not willing to put them in when the injury bug hits? Mewhort is a G/C, Reitz is a G/T. If you bring in another guard, that makes Reitz a viable option as backup tackle and/or Mewhort an option as backup center. We need quality linemen, regardless of position. Boone is a quality guard, and bringing him in for a 3rd rounder for a year to prove he's worth the money he wants would be a sensible investment, IMO

[Gavin]

You are talking about so many different things, and are projecting several viewpoints that I do not agree with.

 

1) Boone hasn't shown up for work. The presumption is that he is not going to show up for work until he gets a new contract, which is why the Niners are reportedly interested in trading him. Or you can trade for him and try to sweet talk him into coming to work, despite having zero rapport with him. Again, the presumption is that any team that trades for him is going to be working a new deal with him.

 

2) Even if you can get him in the building without a new contract, Boone has two years left on his current deal. You don't let him walk after the season if he doesn't work out. Either you cut him (wasting a mid-round pick), or you deal with another protracted holdout (his base salary in 2015 is lower than it is in 2014). 

 

3) Yes, starter money is eventually going to be paid to some of the guys on the offensive line. Why rush to do so if you think you have young guys who can handle the job? You are looking at cap space as a year-to-year proposition, and that's a mistake. You can roll over cap space, so what you spend today affects what you can spend tomorrow. So if you have guys still on their rookie contracts who are doing a satisfactory job -- and how can you know if you don't give them a chance to perform? -- you are getting a very favorable cost-benefit from them. That is better for the team's long-term prospects than spending starter's money on a position where you might not even have to (if your young guys can play).

 

4) The starter's money that you eventually spend will be on guys that have been in your system, and it will be after you've gotten 3-4 years of rookie contract cost-benefit from them. That's different from trading for a veteran who wants starter's money now. Better or worse? That's undetermined in the present, but it is very different, and there's no debating that.

 

5) If you don't give your young guys a chance to start now, then when are you going to give them a chance to start? You only have them for 4 years on their rookie contracts. If you bring in Boone, he's your starter, assuming health, for the next two or three seasons. When do you develop the young guy he's supplanting in the lineup?

 

6) Regarding competition, there is such a thing as overcrowding any given position. Bringing in cheap veterans / journeyman is different than having established veteran starters and first and second year players. If you are so flush with established veteran starters that your young guys never get meaningful playing time, then there's no sense in having the young players in the first place. You aren't developing them, nor are you taking advantage of their cheap rookie contracts. I don't think bringing in Boone would necessarily make the line overcrowded; I'm only saying that competition and development only exist when you're actually putting the young players on the field.

 

7) Along those lines, we're talking about OL. Not DL, where you rotate players; not LB, where different players take the field in different situations; not the secondary where you play 6 or 7 guys every game; not RB or WR; not a position where your young guys will actually contribute on special teams... Reserve offensive linemen don't play unless there are injuries. They don't get brought along slowly, they don't get first team snaps, they don't get playing time against real opponents. They pretty much just sit there, until you have to throw them in the fire. Bringing in an established veteran starter would not promote competition. It would stunt the development of at least one of your young guys.

 

Taking all those things into consideration, along with the cost of acquiring him, I don't think Boone is the right fit for our team right now. If we need veteran depth at all, it's at tackle and center, not guard, IMO (Boone played tackle earlier in his career, but since 2012 has been a guard exclusively). If you do bring in a veteran guard, you bring in a low cost, short term guy, who can step in in a pinch, and we already have Lance Louis and Joe Reitz, both of whom played well in the first preseason game. You don't give up a mid-round draft pick for an established veteran who wants a starter's level contract just to come to work, and who may or may not be in football shape. Boone just doesn't make sense for the Colts, IMO.

Im on board with ya with all of this except the comptetiion part when it comes to to the O Line which I think we really had at LG and RG not really at Center because it was pretty clear Holmes was handed that job (for the record I Holmes did  really good job  in limited snaps, From what I could tell he was 5 for 5 in pass blocks and 2 for 2 on run blocks. I was pretty impressed with how he was able to move Damon Harrison back pretty well with the exception 1 pass block Holmes got driven back though did recover (He has to continue to gain lower body strength in my opinion). There was one time he let his hand placement get outside the shoulder pads and he wasn't tested with stunts in limited snaps. Overall I came away pleased with his performance in game 1....Yes I kinda deviated into a Khaled Holmes type rant in an Alex Boone thread

[esmort]

It's not sticking with your picks. It's giving your picks a chance to perform, in which case, you increase your odds of getting maximum value from them over the short life of their rookie contracts.

 

You don't bring Boone in and let him walk when his contract is up. You bring Boone in and give him a new contract; that's the only way he shows up to work. So now you've given him starter's money and years, and that makes no sense unless you're putting him in the starting lineup. Not to mention surrendering a mid-round pick for him.

 

What you're calling competition is actually undercutting your young players. And that's fine, if you don't believe in their ability to get the job done and want to bring in someone that you think is better. But Boone isn't going anywhere to compete for a starting job. If we brought him in, he'd be a defacto starter, so long as he's healthy and in shape. 

 

I don't know that I am for bringing Boone in without seeing some numbers, but ....

 

At a certain point giving our rookie OL time to "perform and thus maximize their rookie contracts" means we are not able to fully maximize the rookie contracts of of Luck, TY, etc ...

[Superman]

Supes, I generally either avoid getting into debates with you all together or just stop responding after awhile because you tend to oversaturate your point by being a little long winded at times. So I find it particularly amusing that you're the one telling me I'm talking about "so many things." That being said, I'm relaxing today and have nothing better to do, so I'll try to answer the best I can

 

What interesting is that I only decided to fully articulate my position because I was tired of having it misrepresented in so many different ways.

 

Just to respond to a couple of your points:

 

1) Boone's holdout is already different from most in league history, in that he's already forgoing money. His is the first protracted holdout under the new CBA. It's a roll of the dice, at the very least, and it doesn't really make sense to trade for him unless you're willing to give him the contract he wants.

 

2) We have veteran linemen on the roster already, who are both competing and are capable of stepping in if necessary. The problem is that you don't like the guys we have.

 

3) Regarding Khaled Holmes, the argument has never been he was ready to start this year (and you never would have accepted that argument anyways). The argument was that he was drafted to be the eventual starter, and at some point you have to give him that opportunity. 

 

And this is kind of the sticking point in this discussion that we've been having in one form or another since March. You don't like the strategy being employed. I see and believe in its merits more than you do, and as such, don't see bringing in someone like Alex Boone as a reasonable investment for our team.

[Superman]

I don't know that I am for bringing Boone in without seeing some numbers, but ....

 

At a certain point giving our rookie OL time to "perform and thus maximize their rookie contracts" means we are not able to fully maximize the rookie contracts of of Luck, TY, etc ...

 

It's like I've been saying for months, that's a completely different strategy from the one the team is obviously committed to at this point. Grigson and Pagano want to build the offensive line through the draft, supplementing the young guys with veteran depth. That means we're not going to suddenly wake up and have the best offensive line in the league; if that ever happens for the Colts, it will be a gradual process. But it will also be a more cost-effective process, one that makes it easier for us to retain our true, young playmakers on offense. And if we just so happen to get some serviceable (if not good) play from the youngsters, then we will have a pretty good offense.

 

So we can argue the merits of those two strategies (again), or we can recognize that the team is committed to developing the young guys. And if we come to grips with that fact, then it's pretty obvious that trading for Alex Boone would be a drastic departure from the strategy.

[Superman]

Im on board with ya with all of this except the comptetiion part when it comes to to the O Line which I think we really had at LG and RG not really at Center because it was pretty clear Holmes was handed that job (for the record I Holmes did  really good job  in limited snaps, From what I could tell he was 5 for 5 in pass blocks and 2 for 2 on run blocks. I was pretty impressed with how he was able to move Damon Harrison back pretty well with the exception 1 pass block Holmes got driven back though did recover (He has to continue to gain lower body strength in my opinion). There was one time he let his hand placement get outside the shoulder pads and he wasn't tested with stunts in limited snaps. Overall I came away pleased with his performance in game 1....Yes I kinda deviated into a Khaled Holmes type rant in an Alex Boone thread

 

Grigson said after the draft that Holmes would be the center. There would have been more competition if Costa hadn't retired, but the job was always Holmes' to lose. Same at both guard spots, I think. Thomas was the lead man at LG, and Thornton was the lead guy at RG. But Lance Louis and Jack Mewhort were both rotating in with the first team, and if one of the lead guys played poorly, I like to think that the competition might have yielded a different starter at some point (maybe not, given how long it took to bench McGlynn last year, and that Satele never was benched).

 

As for your evaluation of Holmes, I mostly agree. I picked on him a little in another thread because his hand placement and footwork got a little sloppy, and I think might have even contributed to his injury. But overall, I thought he performed well. I wish he wasn't hurt, because he still needs more time to really get ready, to make some mistakes, and eventually perform how we need him to. Now, assuming he comes back for the opener, he'll have a little rust to shake off, and might have a lingering issue with that ankle all season.

[YOUR GM]

What interesting is that I only decided to fully articulate my position because I was tired of having it misrepresented in so many different ways.

 

Just to respond to a couple of your points:

 

1) Boone's holdout is already different from most in league history, in that he's already forgoing money. His is the first protracted holdout under the new CBA. It's a roll of the dice, at the very least, and it doesn't really make sense to trade for him unless you're willing to give him the contract he wants.

 

2) We have veteran linemen on the roster already, who are both competing and are capable of stepping in if necessary. The problem is that you don't like the guys we have.

 

3) Regarding Khaled Holmes, the argument has never been he was ready to start this year (and you never would have accepted that argument anyways). The argument was that he was drafted to be the eventual starter, and at some point you have to give him that opportunity. 

 

And this is kind of the sticking point in this discussion that we've been having in one form or another since March. You don't like the strategy being employed. I see and believe in its merits more than you do, and as such, don't see bringing in someone like Alex Boone as a reasonable investment for our team.

 

 

My apologies if you feel I misrepresented what you've said in this thread. As for your points:

 

1. Boone's holdout is not unique, in the sense that the outcome will be the same as all the others. If he isn't on a team for at least six games in the regular season, it won't count as full season of service accrued under his current contract. Meaning, he'd be shooting himself in the foot even more, having inadvertently extended a contract by an extra year that he wishes to get out of. Not to mention, if he holds out the entire season, it would cost him 4.5 million in total. I don't know what the figure is up to as of right now, but I know he's losing 30,000 a day. But I do agree that the most likely scenario would be an immediate extension if he were traded here.

 

2. It has nothing to do with who I do and do not like. I choose to deal in realism, not look at everything with rose-tinted glasses. Lance Louis hasn't played since 2012 and Joe Reitz seems to always be nicked as well (and can't get on the field even when he isn't hurt, for some reason.) That is about the extent of our veteran depth, at the moment. These guys are not challenging anyone for a starting job. Any good offensive line unit has one backup on the roster fully capable of unseating one of the starters, because the talent gap isn't that huge. We have guys with the potential to be quality backups, but they also happen to be gimps, which isn't good when you're already down 2 starters and one backup.

 

3. You're missing my point. What i'm saying is, if Holmes turns out to be a quality player early on, the very fact that he is disproves your notion that young players need starters minutes in order to develop at all -- He had 12 snaps last year, none of them as a starter, or even at the position he is currently playing.

 

I don't believe Grigson and Pagano are building the line through the draft, exclusively. They signed Cherilus and Thomas as free agents for significant coin just a year ago. Alex Boone is a young, high quality, veteran guard who would very much fit in the mold of what Grigson and Pagano are looking for in an interior linemen. Your problem is, you believe that obtaining more young talent at a position you've recently drafted for is somehow admitting that a mistake was made or that those players won't be given a chance to compete. Nobody knows if a pick will pan out, so bringing in as much competition as possible is not a bad idea. I'm not saying go out and load up on a bunch of high priced veterans, but given our current position (3 starters with a combined one season and 12 snaps experience, and 2 gimpy backup veterans), bringing in one young, veteran who is a proven commodity is not going to stunt the growth of our young players. He'd essentially be taking Donald Thomas' spot, so how would acquiring him change our dynamic any? If anything, Boone's arrival would mean a sure departure for Thomas and probably a few other vets at the end of the season. I can live with that, as Thomas was under contract for 2 more years, anyways 

[Superman]

My apologies if you feel I misrepresented what you've said in this thread. As for your points:

 

1. Boone's holdout is not unique, in the sense that the outcome will be the same as all the others. If he isn't on a team for at least six games in the regular season, it won't count as full season of service accrued under his current contract. Meaning, he'd be shooting himself in the foot even more, having inadvertently extended a contract by an extra year that he wishes to get out of. Not to mention, if he holds out the entire season, it would cost him 4.5 million in total. I don't know what the figure is up to as of right now, but I know he's losing 30,000 a day. But I do agree that the most likely scenario would be an immediate extension if he were traded here.

 

2. It has nothing to do with who I do and do not like. I choose to deal in realism, not look at everything with rose-tinted glasses. Lance Louis hasn't played since 2012 and Joe Reitz seems to always be nicked as well (and can't get on the field even when he isn't hurt, for some reason.) That is about the extent of our veteran depth, at the moment. These guys are not challenging anyone for a starting job. Any good offensive line unit has one backup on the roster fully capable of unseating one of the starters, because the talent gap isn't that huge. We have guys with the potential to be quality backups, but they also happen to be gimps, which isn't good when you're already down 2 starters and one backup.

 

3. You're missing my point. What i'm saying is, if Holmes turns out to be a quality player early on, the very fact that he is disproves your notion that young players need starters minutes in order to develop at all -- He had 12 snaps last year, none of them as a starter, or even at the position he is currently playing.

 

I don't believe Grigson and Pagano are building the line through the draft, exclusively. They signed Cherilus and Thomas as free agents for significant coin just a year ago. Alex Boone is a young, high quality, veteran guard who would very much fit in the mold of what Grigson and Pagano are looking for in an interior linemen. Your problem is, you believe that obtaining more young talent at a position you've recently drafted for is somehow admitting that a mistake was made or that those players won't be given a chance to compete. Nobody knows if a pick will pan out, so bringing in as much competition as possible is not a bad idea. I'm not saying go out and load up on a bunch of high priced veterans, but given our current position (3 starters with a combined one season and 12 snaps experience, and 2 gimpy backup veterans), bringing in one young, veteran who is a proven commodity is not going to stunt the growth of our young players. He'd essentially be taking Donald Thomas' spot, so how would acquiring him change our dynamic any? If anything, Boone's arrival would mean a sure departure for Thomas and probably a few other vets at the end of the season. I can live with that, as Thomas was under contract for 2 more years, anyways 

 

No, they're not building exclusively through the draft. But they'd obviously rather draft and develop young guys than trying to plug in a different veteran guy every year. (As an aside, you've been critical of adding veteran receivers instead of developing the younger receivers. This is the exact opposite argument from you. It's weird, especially considering that it's easier to work young receivers into the mix.) 

 

And the sticking point around these parts about Khaled Holmes was always "how can he possibly be ready after only 12 snaps?" And now you're saying that it's no problem to develop a young lineman, even if he sits on the bench all year. I don't think that's a good approach, especially with such short rookie deals. We obviously disagree there.

 

Viewing Boone as a replacement for Donald Thomas is a fair angle, when talking about roster composition. I hadn't thought about it that way. But there's still the issue of cost, both giving up a mid-round pick and, more than likely, signing him to a new multi-year deal. (Fair points about his holdout, but do you want to give up a mid-rounder for a guy who sits out until Week 11, then fusses through the entire offseason? To this point, Boone is the only player I know of to holdout this far into the preseason. It appears his angle is to force a trade so he can get the new deal he wants from another team.) This, for a player that hasn't participated in any team activities this offseason, who could be terribly out of shape, and now you'd be relying on him to start for you. I still think he's too costly, and not a good fit. I'd rather let Lance Louis and Jack Mewhort continue to share first team snaps in practice.

 

Last thing, your suggestion of bringing in as much competition as possible is what I was alluding to when I said that too much competition can stunt the development of your young guys (whom you've spent considerable assets on). Another veteran would be fine, but going back to the offseason debate about another veteran lineman to compete for a starting spot, I think there's a certain mix you want in order to both promote competition and continue to get meaningful work for the young guys. At this point, for the Colts, adding a veteran lineman at any position isn't a bad idea. But someone like Boone would be your defacto starter, and I don't think that's what we need right now. 

[Coffeedrinker]

Once again, I am glad the fans do not run the team.  Fans always want to chase any name that may be available.

 

But I will throw this out there to ponder.  The only way anyone knows that Boone is any good is because he had a chance to play, his coaches saw enough in him to give him a chance rather than signing or trading for another player that had more experience and more NFL film.  That is what coaches do, they evaluate the talent and decide if they are good enough to get a shot or not.  If they determine they are, then you have to let the player play and take the good and the bad as they gain experience.

 

That is how you build a team, not by trading for or signing every guy with a couple of years experience that comes along.

[YOUR GM]

Wow, talk about "pot meet kettle." Not only did you misrepresent aspects of my last post, but you're also all over the place, even bringing previous discussions into the debate now

 

No, they're not building exclusively through the draft. But they'd obviously rather draft and develop young guys than trying to plug in a different veteran guy every year. (As an aside, you've been critical of adding veteran receivers instead of developing the younger receivers. This is the exact opposite argument from you. It's weird, especially considering that it's easier to work young receivers into the mix.) 

 

It's not the same position,  and no nowhere near as critical as any player on the offensive line. Pretty straight-forward to see why I'd rather roll with young receivers over a young offensive line. Andrew Luck's health being the biggest factor. Also, I am not against youth on the offensive line. What I am against his pushing youth to prove a point, and at the expense of potentially winning NOW. If Holmes and/or Mewhort can get the job done -- great. One or both of them will be the starters going forward... but why are they entitled to the starting spots? Because we drafted them? That's a silly reason to hand someone a starting job, in my opinion. Start the guy who is gonna win you the most games, regardless of where he came from

 

And the sticking point around these parts about Khaled Holmes was always "how can he possibly be ready after only 12 snaps?" And now you're saying that it's no problem to develop a young lineman, even if he sits on the bench all year. I don't think that's a good approach, especially with such short rookie deals. We obviously disagree there.

 

That's not what I said, at all. What I said is that young players can develop without being starters. That doesn't mean they're sitting on the bench all year. By that logic, why even bother drafting Mewhort, if he wasn't originally going to start this season anyways? Put your young guys in that 6th/7th linemen role, let them learn for a year or 2 and make them earn their starting position. Nate Solder and Riley Rieff are perfect examples. Both originally started out as extra linemen/blocking TE's and backup tackles during their rookie campaigns, then got worked in to the starting right tackle as the season progressed, then finally settled in on the position they were drafted to play the following season. Nothing was handed to them. They started out as rotational linemen and are now both starting left tackles. New England has had a dominant line for years and Detriot has fielded one of the better offensive lines the past few seasons

 

Viewing Boone as a replacement for Donald Thomas is a fair angle, when talking about roster composition. I hadn't thought about it that way. But there's still the issue of cost, both giving up a mid-round pick and, more than likely, signing him to a new multi-year deal. (Fair points about his holdout, but do you want to give up a mid-rounder for a guy who sits out until Week 11, then fusses through the entire offseason? To this point, Boone is the only player I know of to holdout this far into the preseason. It appears his angle is to force a trade so he can get the new deal he wants from another team.) This, for a player that hasn't participated in any team activities this offseason, who could be terribly out of shape, and now you'd be relying on him to start for you. I still think he's too costly, and not a good fit. I'd rather let Lance Louis and Jack Mewhort continue to share first team snaps in practice.

 

As you originally said, if we were to trade for him, one would assume a deal would be worked out fairly quickly. I don't see anyone trading for him unless they're willing to pay him, and certainly wouldn't trade for him if he were out of shape (You don't know if he is or isn't, so it's a little disingenuous to try and use that angle as if it's a viable talking point against acquiring him.) I'm not kicking and screaming if we don't go after him. My only stance is, inquiring about his availability is not unreasonable, and I wouldn't be mad if a trade was made for him, so long as no more than a 3rd rounder was the compensation. 

 

 

Also, Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins both held out deep into the season a few years ago because they refused to sign their RFA tender, but ultimately folded for the very reason I stated earlier (Had to be on a roster for at least 6 games to be considered a full season)    

  

Last thing, your suggestion of bringing in as much competition as possible is what I was alluding to when I said that too much competition can stunt the development of your young guys (whom you've spent considerable assets on). Another veteran would be fine, but going back to the offseason debate about another veteran lineman to compete for a starting spot, I think there's a certain mix you want in order to both promote competition and continue to get meaningful work for the young guys. At this point, for the Colts, adding a veteran lineman at any position isn't a bad idea. But someone like Boone would be your defacto starter, and I don't think that's what we need right now. 

 

Once again, if Donald Thomas was the intended starter going into the season, how does adding another (better) starting caliber guard change how Mewhort/Thornton are developed in comparison to if Thomas never got hurt?...

 

And what you're saying is the extreme of what I suggested. I've always said I wanted ONE more quality veteran guard to add to the mix, not 3 or 4 aging, costly veterans that would stunt the young players growth all together. I'd argue that one high caliber guard would actually accelerate their development, based off the simple fact that they'd be learning from a talented veteran. That goes double for Holmes, who would benefit the most from dominant guard play next to him 

[YOUR GM]

Once again, I am glad the fans do not run the team.  Fans always want to chase any name that may be available.

 

But I will throw this out there to ponder.  The only way anyone knows that Boone is any good is because he had a chance to play, his coaches saw enough in him to give him a chance rather than signing or trading for another player that had more experience and more NFL film.  That is what coaches do, they evaluate the talent and decide if they are good enough to get a shot or not.  If they determine they are, then you have to let the player play and take the good and the bad as they gain experience.

 

That is how you build a team, not by trading for or signing every guy with a couple of years experience that comes along.

 

 

Trent Richardson, Vontae Davis, Donnie Avery, DHB, Hakeem NIcks. Maybe you should relay that memo to Grigson...

[BlueShoe]

Thorton played prett decent for a rookie thrown into the fire last year why bench him for a rookie?

 

Because my eyes (not a trained NFL scout, but used for 30 years watching football) has told me that Mewhort is a top tier offensive lineman. He looks to be every bit the real deal.

 

I watched every play from the Jets game in slow motion last night, and Mewhort has a physical dominance that really stands out.

 

It is my judgment that Thornton is not on the current skill level of Mewhort, and Mewhort is only 1 preseason game in, so he will only get better.

 

I believe that Mewhort has All-Pro potential.

[Superman]

Wow, talk about "pot meet kettle." Not only did you misrepresent aspects of my last post, but you're also all over the place, even bringing previous discussions into the debate now

 

We are obviously talking past each other at this point. I'll just leave it with we disagree, and it's obvious why from reading our previous posts.

 

Just to bring it back to the original topic, I don't think Alex Boone is the right fit for us, based on what he would likely cost. And I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether a guy who hasn't participated in any team activities is in football shape. I think that's a very valid question, and one any team that is interested in trading for him should concern themselves with.

 

If we did trade for him, I'd plug him right in at LG, assuming he's in shape. He'd probably pick up on the system in a short period of time, given that Harbaugh and Roman run an offense similar to what Pep brought from Stanford (Luck even spent time with Alex Smith prior to the 2011 system, during the lockout, helping him get up to speed on Harbaugh's offense). And he would probably be better than Jack Mewhort right now. Like you said, he'd be the replacement for Donald Thomas, and Mewhort would go back to his reserve role. I just don't think it's the right move for our team, again, based on what he would cost.

[Superman]

Because my eyes (not a trained NFL scout, but used for 30 years watching football) has told me that Mewhort is a top tier offensive lineman. He looks to be every bit the real deal.

 

I watched every play from the Jets game in slow motion last night, and Mewhort has a physical dominance that really stands out.

 

It is my judgment that Thornton is not on the current skill level of Mewhort, and Mewhort is only 1 preseason game in, so he will only get better.

 

I believe that Mewhort has All-Pro potential.

 

Because my eyes (not a trained NFL scout, but used for 30 years watching football) has told me that Mewhort is a top tier offensive lineman. He looks to be every bit the real deal.

 

I watched every play from the Jets game in slow motion last night, and Mewhort has a physical dominance that really stands out.

 

It is my judgment that Thornton is not on the current skill level of Mewhort, and Mewhort is only 1 preseason game in, so he will only get better.

 

I believe that Mewhort has All-Pro potential.

 

Physical dominance, yes, at times. But he got put on skates on a few plays, and overall, his performance was sloppy, to me. Still learning the difference between playing tackle in college and guard in the NFL.

 

Oh, and I hate his number. I keep thinking that's Mike McGlynn out there.

[AntonMcG]

Evan Mathis started 22 games in 7 years before he went to Philidelphia.

Josh Sitton didn't start his rookie season, nor did Matt Slauson.

 

There are many other examples... exceptional, first-round interior linemen are expected to start as rookies, but we don't have any. The rest of them sit and learn. To suggest their growth will be stunted as a result is completely unfounded. Players train, study, and they get better, that does not mean you suffer now to reap the rewards in the future. You can have the best of both worlds.

 

As has been alluded to, Thomas was pencilled in as a starter, we would simply be replacing him with a better player. Schematically, Boone comes from a blocking system that is more similar to ours than any other in the league.

 

Given the nature of how our FO operates, and given the fact that we have a Championship-quality roster... ruling out a move like this due to modest monetary hits is overly conservative and unambitious. And a third-round pick for a problematic, holdout player? I doubt we would have to give that much up... even so, the odds that we end up with a player of Boone's quality with that pick are big. Yes, you lose his cheap rookie contract, but again, it is a modest monetary hit, and Thomas' contract has left us in a position to cut him without much of a hit.

 

It is not a no-brainer, but to be as dismissive as some have been here seems ignorant.

[YOUR GM]

We are obviously talking past each other at this point. I'll just leave it with we disagree, and it's obvious why from reading our previous posts.

 

Just to bring it back to the original topic, I don't think Alex Boone is the right fit for us, based on what he would likely cost. And I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether a guy who hasn't participated in any team activities is in football shape. I think that's a very valid question, and one any team that is interested in trading for him should concern themselves with.

 

If we did trade for him, I'd plug him right in at LG, assuming he's in shape. He'd probably pick up on the system in a short period of time, given that Harbaugh and Roman run an offense similar to what Pep brought from Stanford (Luck even spent time with Alex Smith prior to the 2011 system, during the lockout, helping him get up to speed on Harbaugh's offense). And he would probably be better than Jack Mewhort right now. Like you said, he'd be the replacement for Donald Thomas, and Mewhort would go back to his reserve role. I just don't think it's the right move for our team, again, based on what he would cost.

 

You're correct, we'll likely never see eye-to-eye on this topic, and that's fine. I'll leave with briefly addressing the bolded, though:

 

You're right in saying it's not unreasonable for any team to question whether he's in shape or not, and I'm sure any team looking to trade for him will have the common sense to do so. Just the same, I'd hope a guy planning to hold out for as long as Boone already has would have the common sense to train while he's waiting out a new contract, as showing up out of shape wouldn't help his cause any. I'm sure no team is going to extend him until they work him out first. My only point is, there have been no reports to suggest that he might be out of shape and to try and make that a talking point, without any knowledge of whether that is or isn't the case, is not something I'd consider a legitimate argument. And as I said, teams will do their due diligence before hand, so it really isn't an issue or a reason to have pause in possibly trading for him