Peter King did sit down with Dorsey for a hour last night.

Damnit don't waste the top pick in the draft on a ****ing tackle.

This was one of my first thoughts when we tagged Albert. I figured it was a strong possibility we would try to trade him. All signs have been pointing towards us taking a OT at 1.1. By tagging Albert, we controlled his rights for a trade instead of just letting him walk for free.

Assuming QB is off the table, what player or position would you be ok with?

Im not a big fan of it either, but if hes a good player, and we get high production out of him and win games, how is it a waste?

Seriously: trading Albert for a pick and drafting a new tackle at number one is the equivalent of trading down for no compennsation - and that's assuming the drafted tackle pans out. It wouuld be stupid.

Can we just let this develop? This could be a ploy to either show Albert his value so he lowers his asking price, or to open up trade offers for 1.1. And if a team wants to give up a lot, then pull tthe trigger, by all means.

King didn't even say it was according to a source. Pure speculation. Nothing to see here.

If we draft Jarvis Jones to play OT, I'm done with this team forever. You can hold me to this.

He talked to Dorsey last night.

trade back for multiple picks obviously.

And if you cant trade?

Tackles are not game changers. They don't win games for you. They don't take games over.

With pick 1:1 you get a game changer or you trade back.

Because we already have someone that can play the position at a high level. Replacing Albert with a rookie at 1.1 doesn't make the team better.

How do you figure? If Albert wants a contract averaging $10 mil a year or more, and you can get a good 1st rounder for him that is a win.

At 1.1 Fisher gets $5.5 mil a year and then at 1.15 (or something around there) you get another good player and you freed up almost five mill a year for another position.