Few things:
1. Everyone understands the OL is a mess. If this were any other franchise, or business for that matter -- this long running failure would cost job(s). As it stands now, I would hope that we don't address OL at all until there is a meaningful shake up somewhere in the process. Because we've been drafting OL prospects early and/or often with pitiful results.
To me it's a pretty binary question:
1. Can we determine/recognize OL talent?
If no, then we need to alter the process. This means either the input is faulty (what Cable wants), or scouting (interpretation of wants).
If yes it gets stickier:
2a. Are we unwilling to move up to get the necessary talent (e.g. Jack Conklin, Zach Martin)?
If yes, we'd need to get more aggressive to get our guys. That's high level decision making. That's PCJS.
If no, then there's really nothing we can do about that. Deals take willing partners.
2b. We can identify the talent. We just can't develop it.
If yes, then this is on Cable exclusively. Would mean we are getting what we want -- but can't get them to their potential.
It's a huge problem looming IMO. Quite obviously, the cleanest/easiest culprit is Cable. It's easy (although maybe not accurate) to assume that he is failing in one or two areas: Identifying talent and/or developing it. Maybe he isn't a particularly good assessor of talent and he lays out the OL grades totally wrong from the start. If this is the case, then he should be removed from the assessment function.
If it's a development problem, then he just simply has to go.
These are questions we need to resolve. Because as is, any draft capital we expend is basically wasted. A classic case of throwing good money after bad. Our drafts since 2013 forward are littered with painful misses. The quixotic quest to fix the OL is a primary culprit of that.
I don't expect Carroll to relieve Cable. And yet, I can't logically divorce Cable as the primary reason why our OL -- and in turn our recent drafts as a whole -- have been broken. It's not that there haven't been quality players available for us. It's that we opt for other bad options instead or we don't fully recognize how good the ones we pass on are.
There is the hope, that the current OL can evolve into a strength for this team. It's hard to see that considering it's current state. I would have expected it to be better than it is at this stage. Although I did say at the start of the season this OL won't really start to take shape until after training camp in 2017. Not all good veterans tore it up their rookie years. Most took until their second season (Sherman, Thomas, Chancellor are prime examples).
At this point though, I'm not thrilled about letting the same draft process consume yet another day 1/2 pick.
This draft is deep at DB, and has really intriguing WR talents that should be available in R2. Also good with pass rushers.
Ideally, I hope we go:
R1: DL
R2: WR
R3: DB
With some double dipping somewhere at DB and DL. The pool is too good this year. But however we go, I want us to stop fighting the board. We need the next core of talent. I would rather get the next Earl Thomas this year even if it means he's riding pine for most of the next 2 seasons while we have the real deal.
This needs based drafting system is currently allowing great talents -- pro bowl talents -- to pass us by while we get basically a journeyman scrub quality rookie who nobody expects us to consider signing to a second deal.
I would hope we stop using the draft to fill needs. Use UFA as a band aid for that. Start getting difference makers in the draft regardless of where they play. This team is now getting old. Injuries should be expected. Attrition is upon us already. There aren't but a very small handful of positions that should be considered solved.
I don't expect us to change our stripes and do this. The original question was what I wanted to have happen. I expect we'll dump another top 100 pick (maybe two) into imminently failed OL prospects and have yet another 'maybe in year two' draft. These are becoming all too familiar.