[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

You can exchange 'Jones' and 'DT' for 'Hill' and 'WR' and you sound like me last offseason when the idea of moving Hill was brought up.

The question-and what it's proving difficult to even discuss because the emotional gut reaction is to scream-"**** NO!" is whether you can improve at two or three or perhaps even four spots if you DO part with Jones-and does that make your TEAM better?

I get it, I was in the "**** NO!" camp last offseason with moving Hill.

If we're currently the #24 defense in football, that means there are 23 defenses that are better than we are that do not have Chris Jones. So clearly, there are paths to good defense that do not include Jonesy.

If moving Jones gives us a first round pick in range to grab a LT in the first so that we have that position solved and cost controlled for 5 years, that's a big deal. If it frees up enough cash that we can sign a couple or three upgrages on the defensive line, you can field a better front four than Jones plus JAGS.

Now, I'm not saying we NEED to. I'm not even saying that I WANT to. I don't think anyone is, just that it's entirely POSSIBLE that moving Jones could be the best way to acquiring better OVERALL talent that makes the TEAM better-even though you're never replacing Jones on a one-to-one basis.

But if moving Jonesy nets you a 3-to-1 improvement, that's something you have to consider, especially picking around #30 every year.

yep yep yep