The logic of drafting an LT to replace Albert is very sideways, sir. We would be paying LT money to upgrade at RT, when there is no convincing information that either LT would be better than Albert.

Much more logical is to get a serviceable RT later in the draft, much much cheaper.

Which one of those options sounds like a Pioli business move?

It’s defiantly not impossible that he will pick LT, but that’s an if scenario. IF the chiefs can’t trade the 3rd round pick and IF they don’t see the value in Curry, and IF they don’t want to draft someone they really like just becasue he isn’t projected to go number 3, then they may pick up an LT.

Talking about it and running players hard (while I think it’s a good idea) can’t replace the value of a good draft.

I agree that what you’re talking about is important, but it really does matter who are drafting.

Done this before? We had this same discussion 2 week’s ago. Here’s our o-line as of now,
LT- B.Albert
LG- B.Waters
C- Rudy
RG-M.Goff
RT-Sackintosh or who know’s
If you look at that LT is not what we need to draft, we need a C or RT! I’m not saying B.Albert cant play RT,in fact i’m sure he could, but why? He is our LT of the future and he’s not costing us as much as it would to sign one! Plus now we have the issue of a knee injury for Monroe,that put’s it down to 1 save pick at LT! If we sign a LT and not Curry it will be the biggest mistake we could make! That’s if we cant trade down for more pick’s!

why pay a multi million dollar contract to give us bookend takles when we can draft the best (or close to it) RT in the draft later on that will give us the same results for a lot less. not to mention if we trade down we have more picks to fill in other holes. it is a mistake because there is abslutely no need for it. it’s like ice cream with the cake. sure it makes the dish better but right now we need to be concerned with making sure the cake is good. i know some are going to say that our OL has holes and is part of the cake. RT/C yes. LT no. by drafting an LT with the #3 we are drafting to fill a hole we are have full. if you have a hole in your yard you git some dirt and you fill it. you don’t dig another hole to use that dirt to fill the previous hole. it makes no sence. alright i’m talking in circles now so i’ll quit my rant. my whole point is that we can build a solid OL, if not a great one, with out wasting our #3 on a LT that shouldn’t even be drafted in the top 10

probably not but we can have a very good line without them. I agree ablert was great that is why i think it’s a waste to replace him. of course monroe was a better LT in college because albert didn’t play LT in college. he played LG. while i fully believe that albert could play RT but as you said RT is the easier postion so why waste his talents. it;s harder to get a greta LT then it is a RT. we know albert is great. monroe and smith COULD be great but both have flags that sujjest they aren’t really deserving of the multi million dollar contract that a #3 warrents. if there were no other OL in the draft i would be whole heartedly in support of grabbing monroe or smith. but they aren’t. i really don’t think they are as safe as a bet as everyone thinks they will be. i just don’t see either of these guys being the next roaf or shields. granted i could be wrong and they could end up being great and play for many years to come, but i don’t think they will be. i think they will be good at best wich is fine for whatever team picks them up. but not worthy of the #3. albert is already doing an awsome job at LT so grab a RT later on and our line is instently better. all i’m tring to say is that we don’t need to use the #3 to improve our OL 200% sure it could probably be a better OL with monroe or smith but like i said earlier, they are just ice cream with the cake. great complement but absolutely unnessesery for the cake to be good.