Ugh. Only this ****ing franchise :facepalm:

This is why I recommend a minimum 30 minutes of physical exercise per day.

I get what most are saying in this thread. However, KC is 25-55 with Albert as their left tackle. Yea....Yeah....Yeah....I know. He's not all to blame. He is however playing one of the most important positions on the offensive side, and after a 2-14 season, he openly admits he won't play a different position even if it betters the team. That's an issue.

We shall see what happens with Branden Albert.
Posted via Mobile Device

What was the Rams' record with Orlando Pace as a young player?

How does moving Albert to RT make the team better?

Not ALL to blame, huh? How generous of you.

I didn't realize Albert was to blame for Cassel's play. And Huard's play. And Thigpen's play. And Palko's play. And Quinn's play. Now it all makes sense.

Those guys could have used another 12 - 19 seconds of pass protection.

Browns should just cut Joe Thomas.

That team has sucked every year he has been in the league.

No doubt. What a stupid ****ing argument.

we still don't have a right tackle so i don't see how/why we would go ahead and trade our left tackle too.

Chiefs might take a LT at 1 but imo they would put him at RT for a year and trade Albert next year if the rookie works out.



btw who's going to be our MLB?

I don't think that's the issue. If there's an issue, it's his attitude about doing what's best for Branden instead of what's best for the team. Personally, I don't think that's a problem and I think he'd play RT if he loses his job at LT.

You guys act as if this team has just been one position away from success all these years. There are good players on this team, but I can't justify calling any of them indispensable. None of them are so good that their position can't be improved with the possible exception of the RB and the punter. And AFAIC, I'm being generous to those two guys.

It may not be the issue, but that was the question raised by TRR's post when he said he "wont move even if it makes the team better." I can't imagine a scenario by which such a move would improve the team, which makes the asking of the question either specious or ignorant.

I disagree with your interpretation. When TRR says "that's an issue", the antecedent of the pronoun is Albert's apparent unwillingness to play a different position even if it makes the team better, not the notion that the team can't be improved because Albert is unwilling to move.

No one said Albert was indispensable or that you couldn't find a better LT. The question is what are the odds of improving the position and are you getting good return on the investment of 1.1?