skinny21

Members
  • Content count

    3,963
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About skinny21

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/28/1977

Contact Methods

  • Location
    Round Rock, TX via Cabin John, MD
  1. I'm hoping we grab a corner fairly early for several reasons. S depth is an issue as well, though at least we have our previous starter (Blackmon) as a backup. Wonder what the heck we're gonna do with Hall. I don't 'like' our dline depth, but I'm ok with them. Ioannidas and Lanier are up and coming guys with some potential, Hood is a solid vet (not at NT though), McGee seems intriguing as a rotational guy, and one among Taylor/Mbu/Francis can hopefully back up the NT. My issue with the dline is that McClain is the only guy I see as a reasonable starter... and that could be a major problem. We better hope the draft and/or the ILB blitzes pay dividends for us...
  2. Thing about this is that we could then move back into the 2nd (and still have netted an extra pick). Or even maybe trade up from #49 for a guy like Wormley (if available).
  3. Yep, NT is (still) the biggest need on our team, and I hope the team figures out how to get a viable one. Really, really hoping we find a way to land one in the 2nd-4th. Still unhappy that we missed out on dline last year. I've argued we can 'get by' without one, but it's far from ideal - we'd probably still struggle badly vs the run, but at least we have a few guys that can make a difference, along with scheming/coaching changes. At the minimum, I want a contributing/starting Dlineman added in the draft, but a DE and NT should be the goal. If one of the top guys doesn't fall to us at 17, I hope we don't reach for an edge rusher. Trade back, get one of the edge rushers they seem to be targeting, and then hope you can land two dline with the multiple 2nd-4th round picks. Edit: @Morneblade. I told you I get it, lol. Was simply arguing we can still improve on defense without one - possibly in the run game (better ILB and S play), but particularly on 3rd down, RZ and turnovers - ala 2015. Value-wise, I wonder about trading back (more than once?) to the late 1st, pick up Wormley, and then hit dline (NT especially) again (and again?) with all the extra picks.
  4. Geez, talk about poor choices. Get your freakin' head straight.
  5. I'm assuming the plan was (and still is) for McGee to play DE, but I'm also assuming things are going to be a bit fluid (much like the Crowder situation). I'm hoping they find a viable option (a better one than those in house), but if he has to make do with what he has, McGee seems like a guy that can anchor well...
  6. I've wanted a slot corner for years. Thought maybe Fuller was that guy (and I'm definitely not writing him off), but adding a solid talent to compete with him (and improve our corner/safety depth) would be great. In terms of needs (this year and beyond), I'd put slot corner about on par with edge rusher, LG and receiver - ahead of safety, boundary corner and running back, but after dline and ILB. Oline and TE, I'd like to add guys to develop, but I'm thinking we can afford to try find/develop diamonds in the rough for now (later round picks). Of course, I'm happy to just stick with what Scot was doing - BPA in the first several rounds and target our (unmet) needs late. Still a damn shame about Jarrett.
  7. Yeah, the traditionalist in me says two things - pick the stouter (and similarly talented) back, and don't pick a back in the first. Given our plethora of needs short and long term, rb seems like such a luxury pick (that early). Then part of me says McCaffrey sort of breaks the traditional mold (loved that post about Pablo). We can absolutely (theoretically) get our investment out of him... and that maybe changes the 'don't draft a back early' mentality. Yes, he's a jack of all trades... but he's not limited by it, and the team that can utilizes him right will be adding a tremendous talent and potential for mismatches. Love our stable of weapons, but I think Jackson and Reed were the two guys that could really dictate to defenses. We should be fine on offense regardless, but I think McCaffrey offers something similar to Reed - and it causes headaches for opposing coaches when they can't defend like they would other players at the same position.
  8. @skinsfan93, @Morneblade After thinking about y'all's conversation some more... I think I agree with both of your stances, in a sense. Even excluding Doctson, this offense is plenty dynamic, and our physicality needs to be improved - in particular short yardage and RZ running/blocking. I do have to question our longer term plans though. Pryor and Thompson are on one year deals, Reed is an injury concern, Davis is aging, and Doctson is a bit of a question mark. Crowder - man, I'm glad we have him signed past next year. Kelley is a decent back, and brings some of that physicality. He lacks the explosive plays, running or catching, but he brings an element our other guys lack (which helps our dynamism). I wouldn't be mad if we wound up with McCaffrey - he gives us another weapon, he can back up Crowder, spell Kelley, mitigate the impact of possibily losing Reed (or Thompson) to injury, etc. - but it sure would be nice to address the defense in the 1st. Following a selection of McCaffrey with a solid edge rusher/ILB, and Dlineman (or 2), a corner and a physical interior olineman would leave me pretty happy... and we'd be addressing both of your concerns. Think I'm leaning toward Reddick and maybe Foster at the moment... assuming Allen doesn't drop. I'd like the idea of a trade back for Davis/Cunningham/Wormley.
  9. @Voice_of_Reason Mentioned this in another thread, but given the talk of the defensive run game, I thought I'd add it here too. We did poorly vs the run last year, but a marginal improvement of .3 or so yards per carry would put us around middle of the pack. Would adding a guard, a blocking Te or a better back possibly correlate to a similar improvement on offense? Is it therefore perhaps worth it to look into improvement there because (although it's marginal) it can wind up with a bigger net effect? Just wondered where 'those marginal' differences stacked up in terms of your scoring research.
  10. @fordranger76My head says trade back if possible. Don't see Peppers as a fit for us for multiple reasons. The rest I'd be fine with... I suppose.
  11. Hopefully I've made it clear that I'm in the same boat here. However, just to play Devil's Advocate... Thompson is only signed through this year. He's a solid 3rd down back, but he's more of the type to make people miss with speed than with vision, subtle cuts, etc. His hands are solid, though not nearly as soft as someone like McCaffrey. Kelley is a solid back, and given his penchant for limiting the TFLs, he seems to fit our line pretty well. With that said, I wonder if a back with better vision and burst (particularly one that has the top speed to break the big ones) could 1) produce more for us, and 2) alter the way teams try to stop our offense (the passing attack especially). Then there's the idea that our depth is questionable at best behind him. Crowder is great in the slot and a very good returner. Of course, we don't have a viable option behind him (at wr or returner), and there is a distinct possibility that he gets played on the outside a lot more. Another area McCaffrey could excel. On paper, we have plenty of weapons on O - Pryor, Doctson, Crowder, Reed, plus 2 solid backs (though neither are really 3 down players) and even Davis. Of course, Reed and Doctson have their injury concerns, and losing Reed hurts bad. Doctson, were he injured, can be replaced by Crowder, but then you're short a slot receiver. Can't have too many weapons, particularly in a league so affected by injury and free agency. Couple notes - 1. I didn't go into this post thinking it would be about McCaffrey, but I realized that the argument for him is more compelling (over Cooks/Fournette/etc.) because he can be a weapon (and backup) in so many areas. 2. I was looking at defensive stats the other day, and noticed that improving just .2 or .3 yards per carry would have vaulted our run D to somewhere around the middle of the pack. Given how atrocious our run D is (and is viewed), this surprised me. So, given that metric... how much value should we actually place on improving our own rb's ypc?
  12. @justice98That's pretty much my response as well. I think Gruden could have some fun with McCaffrey. Personally though, I'd look elsewhere at 17 because 1) we have a good slot corner/returner and a pretty good 3rd down back, 2) we are still in serious need of defensive help and 3) I'd hope to trade back if possible to increase our chances at improvement in a deep draft.
  13. Good post Wilco. I'll add that when faced with deep drafts (at certain positions anyway), it's a good idea to maximize that by acquiring more picks. So, trade down when it makes sense (when you aren't likely to drop a tier talent-wise) and hit the deeper positions more often (again, when it makes sense to do so). I imagine it's really tough for GMs to take some of the emotional attachment out of their process (especially when they're in 'go time') and try to stick to the 'economics'. Trading down also also gives you ammo to trade back up later on. Might seem a bit counter intuitive, but as an example... if you have 7 guys remaining in the current tier, you can accept, say, a 3rd rounder to trade back 8 spot, and then give up a 5th to move up 1 spot - thereby still netting a player in the same tier while (essentially) converting your 5th rounder to a 3rd. I also appreciate that trading back mitigates your risk (aka reduces the pressure to hit) on any given pick.
  14. I'm curious how many/much of these negative intangibles - lack of work ethic, doesn't accept coaching, poor interviews, etc. - translate when guys enter the league. I think it would make for a very interesting metric to compare their production with their peers. Maybe not only production, but injuries, contract year production, what their teammates/coaches say about them (subjective, of course), etc.
  15. Good point. He's got the bloodlines (Ed used to get the snot knocked out of him and then run back to the huddle), but not a lot of room for weight gain. Yep, as I said, McCaffrey's size is a concern. A good, pass happy OC would have a blast with him though I bet (part of why I could see Gruden pushing for him). Good point about the knee. Still a bit surprised Jones averaged better. I agree about short yardage... although I'm not entirely sure what the issue was - likely the combo of Long and Lauvao, but I wonder about the scheme, playcalling, TE blocking and the talent lvl of our backs. RZ offense in general just seemed so strange to me last year. He can absolutely play 3 downs, but yes, you'd not be smart to send him up the gut most of the game. You'd have to balance how you use him. So, not your traditional 3 down back, but he can be useful all 3 downs. Charles was awesome when healthy, but they used him a bit too much as their workhorse. Also think McCaffrey offers much more of a mismatch in terms of dictating coverages and such - motioning him wide, into the slot or whatever. With Crowder and a decent combo of backs, I'd rather look elsewhere at 17 though. I'm not sure how many coordinators would get the most out of McCaffrey, but he can be so much more than a gadget back. Kinda goes against tradition though to draft someone like him so high. FYI, it was (super?) rare, but we did use two back sets (Kelley scored on a pass lined up as the FB).