I dont really want G. Bradbury back...

[purplefaithful]

Another team may just decide this for us and I dont sense a high enough ceiling anymore. I think he's one of the causals for poor IOL play. 

Yah, the heavyweight playoff teams have a way of me seeing my own team with a bit of a different lens. 

What are the options going to be besides whoever is on the roster now?

[Guest]

I don't either. Upgrade the damn position. 

[Guest]

I don't want any of our free agents back and Bradbury is certainly included in that. He just can't hold up in pass protection and I'm not paying a center who can't anchor. There are some pretty good centers in this draft and I'd look there for a replacement. 

[Guest]

I've got no issues with Bradbury as many do. He played much better this year, although unfortunately the most recent image in most fans' minds would make them think otherwise. Missing 5 games and then going against a beast like Dexter Lawrence can do that.

Prior to the injury he played quite well, and that's playing in between two guards who finished in the bottom three in the league for pressures allowed. I doubt anyone would break the bank for him during FA so for continuity's sake I'd keep him. Now you hope Ingram improves in his sophomore year and that Ezra turns those flashes into consistency.

[Guest]

I think it's borderline, I really do. One thing I do know is that you can't just declare you're going to upgrade the position and have it be so.

Couple things arguing for Bradbury is that his arrow is pointing up. Another is the continuity factor. We're constantly shifting that line when the thing they need the most is time together. It's still the youngest OL in the NFL. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to bring back the same five in about a decade or two. I wouldn't discount that. 

Arguing against re-signing him is the money obviously. That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else. 

If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested. 

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:
I think it's borderline, I really do. One thing I do know is that you can't just declare you're going to upgrade the position and have it be so.

Couple things arguing for Bradbury is that his arrow is pointing up. Another is the continuity factor. We're constantly shifting that line when the thing they need the most is time together. It's still the youngest OL in the NFL. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to bring back the same five in about a decade or two. I wouldn't discount that. 

Arguing against re-signing him is the money obviously. That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else. 

If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested. 

Yah, it makes you wonder if he doesnt have the right processing chip to handle things in real time. And/or if this offense put too much on his plate. 

I saw the Bengals start 3 new OL against the Ravens and then @ Buffalo the last 2 weeks. They beat em both and literally kicked the Bills butts. I get the value of continuity and I see instances where it meant a hill of beans. 

Continuity with Bradbury/Ingram/Cleveland may actually be a bad thing. 

[Guest]

Unfortunately there are more pressing needs elsewhere. But I am on board with looking for an upgrade in free agency or later in the draft. GB has everything he needs except adequate strength. Size and technique aren't going to make up for that flaw; or it would have already.

[Guest]

It comes down to cost and the availability of a replacement. 
Obviously if there is someone better, go get him. But, if you’re just swapping out one guy for another and the relative play and cost are the same. Why do it? 
We all would like upgrades at every position, but sometimes there aren’t any upgrades. So then, continuity comes into the equation.
Just drafting a guy who may or may not be better, isn’t the best idea. Is there a FA available that is as good? 

[Guest]

I just wonder with Bradbury if a move to guard might not be the best thing for him? Take snapping the ball completely off the table, and just let him concentrate on his footwork and anchor without these huge nose guards lining up right over his face mask and putting him on skates. Regardless, I just have no interest in bringing him back 

[Guest]

With both guard spots looking like they have guys to fill those spots going forward, they should have worked Kyle Hinton more at center but too late now.