The Consigliere

Look at the prime production years of players. Its pretty clear. The world isn't going to end or anything, but it is worth paying attention to these things, a players prime is generally age 21-26, sometimes it can extend to 27, but your getting your peak year production usually in the mid 20s, if a guy is 27, hes more likely to either be starting his downhill trend, or starting it within the year. That's why it matters. Your peak years of Allen were what we've already had. Production profiles suggest that typically you get about a 1 in 5 to 1 in 7 chance that a player will return that production after age 26 or 27, so Allen's probably donezo in that sense and Payne is close to. As for Payne's age, he'll be turning 30 the year he enters free agency. As for trading Payne, the reason is pretty simple (really for either of them), they are luxuries, whatever they've got left, they will be giving us in rebuild seasons. It's one thing to get peak Allen or Payne when we're fighting for a playoff spot, it's another thing when we're trying to top the Vegas Over/Under of a 6-11 or 7-10 season. Whatever they do is unlikely to move the needle substantially in terms of wins and losses, but getting some value back, might actually do that in the form of draft capital, or young players with multiple years of cost control on rookie deals etc. That being said, I don't see the team trading either of them this year unless one makes a demand. They know the cancer at the root of the team is gone, they know there's a direction now, they know they are on long term deals for multiple years. They could make a request if they're sick of losing and don't want to spend what's left of their semi-prime playing for a bottom 10 team, maybe Allen does that, I'm not sold Payne will, and its largely immaterial. If a trade happens it would happen in October or next offseason, its moot now.

Curious what was the issue this year, someone mentioned injury and OL is definitely a cascade issue position where injuries can cause unformal play to fall off, and not just that of the injured player themself. Kinda wonder if Coleman getting dinged, and maybe other line problems influenced it. Who knows. Does seem like amongst the guys we could have taken, he is a higher ceiling type, definitely potential, for me, as mentioned before, I like that we could play him in multiple positions along the line. We basically have a stop gap LT, a plug and play LG who wasn't a starter last year, stud C and RG, and a guy who played mostly like crap last year but people seem to believe it wasn't really his fault at RT, and then the depth chart couldn't beat out Lucas playing his worst season, horror show LG play, injuries at C, and yuck at RT, so for me anyway, I figure that guy could probably be plugged into LG, LT, and RT in an emergency.

That vertical leap is pretty wild for an OT/G. Wonder what percentile that is. Looks like its 95th.

Kinda depends, if you listened to analysts at the time, especially former OL's evaluating prospects, they all uniformally said Scherff was a league average OT in terms of potential and a pro bowl caliber guard prospect and they basically nailed it. I think w/this guy, he is closer to an OT than Scherff was by a good bit, but I also think its highly likely one of the reasons we had him high on the board was his versatility. I've been blabbing that a lot, but when you consider the issues we have on OL outside of Center and one guard position, and no depth really at all, I think he'll be someone who sees time in his rookie contract at both positions. We need help everywhere and we could start him RT, or Guard. We'll probably punch him in wherever the first cluster injuries hit.

I would have done the 72+11+134 deal over Sinnott (and we might have gotten Sinnott at 67, I emphasize "might". Can't be sure, but we know now, with no Sinnott or Bowers on the board, only 1 TE was selected between 53 and 100. Then 6 were drafted between 101 and like 131. So the sweet spot, oddly enough, looks like it was our pick 100, if we could live without Sinnott, otherwise we were playing w/fire, but I had 4 TE's I liked after Bowers enough to draft, so I could have definitely waited. Oh well.

The best way to look at UDFA is an extension of late day 3, especially considering the draft went 12 rounds in the eighties for a while there, it basically is. If have the normal amount of picks + UDFA's its basically reasonable to get about 1.5-2 guys that stick for the length of a rookie contract (and maybe earn a 2nd) via day 3 and UDFA pick ups. Anymore than 1.5-2 is either crazy success, or, "god ---- is your roster ----, no wonder they made it"....which further indicts Casserly in that throughout the 90's he couldn't hit the broadside of a barn day 1, or day 2 AND we had a straight, trash roster from '93-'99. Pretty embarrassing. I suspect we get probably 5 guys from the selections and UDFA's that earn 2nd contracts and stick in the league to late 20's or thirties. Not sure who, but for now, I'm guessing we hit on 3 of our top 4 guys, 1 of our 2 3rd rounders, and probably 1 or 2 day 3+UDFA guys (I really like the Safety and LB as long term swings, but it would be foolish to specify once you're at around 150 and beyond). It looks like a pretty good haul. My overdrafts are Sinnott, McCaffrey, and Daniels in particular, but I get Sinnott and Daniels even if I disagree w/the latter. I think there were definitely better WR's available than McCaffrey and don't get it. I hope they all prove me wrong, but again, with Sinnott, it's pretty simple, there were only a couple of TE's left and we had one more pick left after that selection between that selection (53) and 100, so I could understand the desire to avoid missing out on Sinnott once we couldn't do a trade down apparently w/the Jets but it is worth knowing, with Sinnott off the board, the only other TE to go was some scrub at 82, before our 100th pick, so if we could live without Sinnott, looks like we could have gotten any TE we wanted by moving down or waiting to use the Niners Chase Young pick. The TE run began at slot 101 (6 TE's went in round 4, after only 2 went in the top 100).

I'd just suggest looking at the stuff and ignoring them. We already debated Daniels to death. If he busts, we know why. With the DT, if he busts its probably related to a recurring foot problem, or him being undersized. That's basically it. If the DB fails, its because he's raw as hell, was a WR for the bulk of his college career, undersized and not versatile positionally. If Sinnott busts, it's almost certainly because he's solid to good at everything but great at nothing. The Guard Prospect seems like a mix of projection, and a preference for versatility. Doesn't seem like the ceiling is super high, more the utility, also don't like that he wasn't as good last year as the year before. McCaffrey is a pure projection pick and betting that his inability to get separation is about being raw to the position rather than lacking a second gear (his top end speed is clearly quite fast). After McCaffrey the picks are so late, its all dart throw prayer projection. They hit if we're lucky (and all have traits, athleticism, and reasoning behind why they went so late), but more likely than not they don't. For those guys we're telling a story about how their traits and athleticism can be pulled out of our great DC, and maybe his position coach, assistants. But truth be told, if we hit on any of the day 3 guys it's a win, same with the UDFA's, each hit is basically against the odds but if you're doing it right, you should land at least 1-2 guys in day 3+UDFA that can earn a 2nd contract in the NFL, but more than that is crazy good fortune, and less isn't surprising. You're playing with 10-20% odds across the boards, and often a lot of those guys hit for contract 1 simply because they land on ---- rosters like ours, and so there is more room and opportunity (like the DB we stole from a bunch of teams as a UDFA).

I see Ertz as a 1 and done mentor. He hasn't been productive in years, more of a catch and fall jag for quite a while. He blocked Goedert and Trey for years for no real good reason. I get signing him, we had nothing at the position, and he's a good mentor. But Ertz is a roster clogger for the purposes of Sinnott's career beyond '24. I'm hoping he can just mentor him well for a year, and that's a wrap. The past two years he's ranked in the 20s and 30s in most efficiency ratings (though I will say target separation and cushion #'s aren't as bad as I would've expected). I imagine the 1 year deal underlines this. He comes in, mentors him, that's a wrap. Still, surprised that he does still have some metrics where he's in that 10th-15th area, not bad for a mid thirty year old, especially the metrics that they are.

Yeah it usually takes forever. Guys I can think of: Laporta in '23, with Kincaid and Mayer solid '22 gave us a bunch of 2nd year hits: McBride, Dulcich, Ferguson, Otton, Likely, but I think McBride is the only stud there. '21 gave us Pitts and Freiermuth, and I liked Brevin Jordan as a final year dip value but he's been meh. '20 was a total washout, although Kmet eventually produced, Trautman just became a blocking guy (loved him, whoops) Hockenson and Fant in '19 (I was a bit Kahale Warring guy lol) Andrews in '18 Engram and Kittle in '17 Its pretty hard to find guys that really hit year 1, I think its just Laporta, Andrews, Engram, and Kittle, even Pitts fell off due to QB play, same with Freiermeuth77>>81 (I can't spell that), the '22 class has a mega stud in McBride, but it took a year, Dulcich got hurt in year 2, Ferguson broke out as a volume jag, Otton is either okay or a volume jag, Im curious about Likely. Laporta broke out, Kincaid was solid, Mayer stunk for a month and then became solid but now he's gonna disappear again.

Novacek is one of those guys like Gary Clark, that historically disappeared into the ether because they weren't HOF's, but were every bit as impactful as HOF's in their prime's. Novacek was an absolute stone cold killer for the Cowboys 1990 to 1995, just like Clark was for us 1985-1992 (admittedly part of me wonders if Clark would be in the HOF w/o a strike in '87? With no strike that year he probably finishes on 715-720 catches, 11,150 yards, 67 TD's, 6 straight seasons with 1,000 ('86-'91) and those moments in Super Bowl XXII, and XXVI but that's another debate). But Novacek was just sick for the window of Cowboys dominance, and lol, nothing else. I'm kind of stunned to realized he retired after '95, with that last ring. Kinda funny, thought he played a lot longer than that.

He lied, that was always an insanely stupid pick. Bates was a reach too, but at least had some utility. We haven't drafted a TE w/the upside of Sinnott and his floor since Reed a decade ago, it's been a long, ugly slog of JAG's, and this was despite there being good classes in '17, '19, and '23 in particular. Not a smart franchise the last four decades. Hopefully times are a changin, certainly feels like it.

Was a really weak TE class, I imagine they didn't like the other options and knew they needed a TE, so worried a team would squeeze a "need" TE pick in before 67....I'm fine w/this in a position group where it's notoriously difficult to even find someone halfway productive. As an example, I was listening to analytics guys on playerprofiler's podcast feed talk about Sinnott in Dynasty and they basically said, paraphrasing, "You can basically plug him in at 10th-12th in dynasty at TE right now." That's how hard its been to find genuine weapons at TE as pass catchers over the years, and why '23 stood out so much. I don't view him as at the same level of Kincaid, or Laporta coming out, at all, and I liked Mayer's profile more, if Sinnott's athleticism more, but it's quite telling, he was a reach at 53, should've gone somewere in the 3rd/compensatory zone, but high stakes, analytics based dynasty players thinks he trumps 2/3's of the starters around the league and I don't entirely disagree. It's fine. A reach yes, but there were basically 3-4 guys you could take total in this class, and only 3 after Bowers, and have any reasonable hope you might have a pass catching starter in year 1 or 2 with the selection. Sinnott's one of them, and he doesn't have any issues in the profile. He's athletic enough if not mega elite athletic, he's productive, he's an adequate to slightly plus blocker so you don't have to take him off the field on run downs. He's the best pass catching TE we've drafted since Jordan Reed and by A LOT. Thanks for mentioning Stover, I keep forgetting him, I guess there were five worth drafting. I like Stover and Bell more, but I like Sinnott too, and I think Sinnott is safer than Bell, if not the same ceiling and versatility.

That is INSANE. 😅. My God was he good. So exciting. It's rare you get a guy that seems this much of a steal that you were never even remotely thinking about to begin with. Was anyone? I know I wasn't. DT was the only position I totally ignored lol, even knowing the starters ages. So so so glad we got him assuming he doesn't have recurring issues (apparently an issue with Jones fractures). yeah, my apologies. Payne turns 27 in a few weeks. He's not 26 for the purposes we care about, the actual season. Not saying that is the end of the world, it isn't, but lets make sure we get bdays right, I kept getting Daniels wrong as an example (kept forgetting he doesn't turn 24 until December).

No Free Agency back then. It was a different league, you didn't have to constantly shuffle and replace talent at positions in the same way because you had total control of players within your roster and position groups. You could afford to be deep anywhere you wished, the only issue would be total roster spot limits. It's a different world from back then, you have to constantly keep an eye on position groups, contracts, value in FA and Draft Capital and Franchising Cost etc.

Whoops....

I don't see that. I reserve the right to be wrong, there's usually someone stupid. One of the weird things I heard from analytics people over the weekend was that the dumber than hell factor has really gone down in recent years, seems like the league is getting rid of most stupid. Only exceptions seemed to be Carolina, which they feel is at least partly ownership based, and Atlanta, which at this point seems to feature just chronically moronic decision making. All that being said, Allen has 2 years left on his deal and is 29, Payne turns 27 this month and has 3 years left on his. I don't see anyway we get a 1st or 2nd for Payne, 3rd maybe, but the contract control and age just doesn't make sense, Payne has more years of cost control and a 3 year runway before he turns 30, so maybe more value though not the same caliber player in his prime....but in both cases, I don't know? Allen I'd think would fetch an early day 3 or late day 2, I think you might be able to get into the 40s to 60's for Payne because of the nature of the contract and his age, but I'm not sold. You'd have to have a huge DT need, and the cap room and I'm skeptical many teams that could really use Payne (or Allen) would pay for them both contract money and pick capital at that scale. Otoh, a Chase Young and a Sweat rental fetched us much better value than I was expecting so who knows? Part of it I imagine was Chicago knew the '24 edge class was ---- and was willing to do it to solve the issue so they could focus on offense?

No, I don't, but I think anyone making long term bets would bet that a team picking 2nd overall after having finished 31st for the 2nd time in 5 years would predict that the ceiling of the team is sub .500 in the short term, especially when its a tear down with a new GM, new HC, and new coach. There are exceptions, but its rare and I find it amusing that everyone that quibbles w/my argument uses the Texans because lets be straight, they can't think of any other (the Niners themselves are actually a good one). They can say what they want for pub, they aren't gonna tell the press that we suck and will be horrible, and I expect Quinn to max whats there, he's solid to good coach (and a great DC), but I don't view what they did in the offseasons as a retooling or recalibration or whatever. I don't buy that at all. I think its pretty clear they were bringing in spackle via FA because we had a ton of cap space unlike the saints, and had the ability to spackle in contracts to temporarily place competent high floor talent in big gaping holes so the defense to some extent was sustainable, so the offense had some base level talent behind Robinson etc.....I think it was spackling, not long term anything, not short term, most of the deals were 2-3, avoiding clogging our cap with onerous long term solutions, or quick fixes, it looks like what I think they're actually doing: w/holes to fill in literally every single position group, and not enough FA cap money or draft capital to fix it, they're plugging as many holes short term as they can while slowly building out the long term roster with young draft picks (and possible trades). Now that's my theory. Maybe I'm wrong. In the real world, Vegas views us as 26th-28th best or thereabouts, and that's more or less what I think too, although I'm on the under in terms of win total (I see 5 or 6, Vegas and the public/maybe sharps, seems to think 6-7 wins....We'll see, but I will quite firmly argue that part of the reason this pick makes sense, and trading Allen could make sense is the nature of the contracts those DT's have, and what this team will be doing the next season or two, which is a whole lot more losing. How much, is open to question. I would argue we are likley to max out, in a best case scenario, of around 15 wins the next two years, but more likely 12-13. Knowing that, I'd trade Allen if I could get a day 2 pick now, or trade him after this season if I could get a 3rd to a 4th (probably not but one can dream). Will they? I highly doubt it. certainly not this season (barring a player demand).

But you forgot to mention that your light fixtures are all about to go out/break in the next 12-18 months and you need to think long term. Allen's deal expires after December '25, and is a tradable asset, Paynes in December '26. Neither is young, either. Both are well into their second contracts as vets as well, not young, and about to exit their primes within a season or two. If you need everything, and the need at DT, which is amongst the hardest and most valuable to fill in terms of draft capital and FA cost (it sits right along Edge, CB, OT, QB and WR). Basically we got a top 15 to 20 player, for 2nd round draft capital. This isn't the Raiders drafting Bowers a year after they drafted Mayer. This is us finding a long term replacement for Allen or Payne in the discount bin, knowing it should be on the show room floor. It's frustrating it wasn't a shiny top 20 rated OT, I agree, but they weren't there and the fact that no OT's were selected between the late first and the late second illustrates that. The first run on OT's went from 5th to 26th (with one more taken after Dallas moved down to 29), the next from 55 to 79, and we pulled one right out of that tier with similar rankings. So to my mind anyway, we basically owned the board, holding off on OT, convinced they would fall, and were proven right, while selecting the best player on our board. That's exactly how I want drafts run. We need everything, yes DT was my exception too, but its not hard seeing the reasoning when you consult spotrac.

Beginning to sound like the love child of Dave Butz and John Randle, and the height/explosion thing sounds a lot like Randle. Yeah, and John Randle. Like not super tall, but explosive as hell. In fairness, Sapp as a college guy was a once a decade type talent, like Suh 15 years later. Sapp should've gone 1.01 but had drug rumors drop him (and I don't think he was going 1.01 anyway, too many stupid GM's). PFF had him I think 11th, maybe 12th can't remember which. It was fortunate he was injured, as he definitely doesn't go round 2 if he's healthy in January/February/March. The more I learn about him the more I feel like we got two first rounders in this draft w/o trading up. Pretty awesome, really genuinely sounds like this guy would normally go in the 8-16 zone (I know he was projected 26th but I think that was in part because of team fit related to size (he's pretty short and not super heavy).

Allen's deal is up in two years, we won't be competitive either of those years, he'll turn 31 the year he's a FA, makes sense to trade for value either now, or in '25 both for us and for him. I can see keeping him around for another year as a mentor to a defense that's getting a lot younger, and being rebuilt from scratch, but whatever he does beyond the locker room will be done in lost seasons, if we could get a 3rd for him, I'd deal him. Doesn't sound like Peters is interested in trading him (at least in '24) so that point is moot unless he comes out and demands it during the summer.

I love the guy too, and dude can do yoga, so at least one of his weaknesses can be addressed if he's open to yoga. Flexibility is something anybody can achieve with practice generally speaking (although if you've got severe particular injuries, sometimes yoga needs to be stopped, at least temporarily), but Yoga should help his flexibility. I will say this though, it hasn't permanently cemented things, it's more started the rebuild at DT for when we lose Allen (in '24 or '25) and Payne (probably '26). I suspect we move on from Allen in '25, and Payne either during '26 or after. This allows us to get in front of those departures so we have an elite piece still on his rookie deal in 26-'27 when we lose one and then probably both of those dudes. I'm not particularly excited for how awesome it makes DT now, as they are empty calorie seasons where we're liable to lose a good 10-13 games, but I do like that he'll be learning under two professionals w/elite careers in their past. Nice way to start his training and hopefully blossoming. DT is one of those weird things over the year, like LT, we've generally been very strong during this 32 year down turn at 2 of the hardest positions to fill with quality talent, hasn't mattered because no QB, now, maybe, hopefully that will finally be different. Like you, needless though it is to say, I'm enthused we landed him. His kind of explosion off the snap is nuts, and a rare trait. Love it. He was one of the best two or three guys on the board at slot at 36 and I'm glad we grabbed him. Great pick if he's healthy. Somebody probably already mentioned it, but it appears the Jones Fracture is the reason behind the fall, had an injury, so he dropped a good 10-25 slots (PFF had him 11th or 12th, which is a strong outlier)

I think the problem with him or at least the biggest one, was the Danny Weurffel problem. He just doesn't have the minimum arm necessary to get it done, period. Then there's all the rest. I don't think VR can fix a base level problem like having insufficient arm strength for the college to NFL leap.

The sneaky thing about Cerrato was that I knew coming in, he'd be a disaster. If Clark and Policy weren't interested in taking him w/them to Cleveland after screwing up the Niners in the later nineties he had to be pretty bad and stories circulated back then of how bad, but what's funny is that beyond the toady nonsense with Snyder, Cerrato's draft CV is vastly better than Casserly's. You compare Casserly '89-'99, and Cerrato '00-to whenever he was ejected ('09 I think?), he was just a D to D+ GM where Casserly was an emphatic F, probably worse than an F. On Ron, as awful as it is to say, considering things you mentioned during this last season, I wonder if he was just flat out demoralized, fighting cancer, working for Snyder, things not working out, clearly on a "you've got 1 year" and knowing there was no chance. I wonder if he just kind of just checked out. He was aware that the only way he'd be back was if Sam Howell was Joe Burrow and the rest of the team stayed healthy and over performed, and neither were likely. I wonder if he just quit in general. Otoh, all his drafts sucked. But yeah, he clearly seemed over it completely this season. It's also worth noting, and I think I mentioned it when he was hired, over here. If you looked at his Carolina CV, it was basically trash. What you saw was pretty obvious, he lucked into the 1.01 in an elite no doubt about QB class (Newton) in his first year. He produced three quality seasons, and one Cam in God Mode Season, and otherwise the Panethers underperformed, and then fell apart as Cam's body fell apart. Whatever happened with the Panthers was largely a product of Cam Newton (and that stud LB didn't hurt either). They were sub .500 in 5 of his 8 years there, never as horrible as we were in '23, but generally speaking, they were largely meh. '11, '12, '14, '16, '18 and '19 were all disappointing. So when things went sideways it was pretty obvious, always, what happened, and that, not coincidentally was part of the reason I was so surprised when he ignored QB in '20 and '21. It was so so so obvious that Cam was everything when he was in Carolina, and just to make do with a 10th to 15th percentile QB room '20-'23 was so utterly asinine it was mind boggling. Then again I guess he did try to solve it with former never was types like Wentz, but he should have known after he was quickly cashiered out of Philly and Indy, that that plan was hopeless. 5am doesn't really move the needle too much though, Joe was that, apparently McVay was that, and I'm that (basically 515-545 wake up time the past 15 years for my work)...but I do like his energy, fire, and the reality that he does seem to max teams out, other than '20 with Atlanta when Ryan was semi-cooked.

But note when the defensive players were drafted, it was less valuable capital: Offense: 2nd pick, 53rd pick, 67th pick, 100th pick (4 of our top 6 picks) Defense: 36th pick, 50th pick, 139th, 161st, 222nd If you actually measure the picks by draft capital value, I wouldn't be surprised if the offense has the bulk of the value. Lets be straight, 139th, 161st, and 22nd's are dart throws from 15-20 feet away, 2nd, 53rd, and 67th? Those are dart throws from 5-7 feet away. To me, they played the board, people are insisting it was a defense heavy draft, but really it was only so on day 3, and on day 3, you are hoping to hit on 1 starter if you're lucky and a reserve for 1 contract. It's the day 1 and day 2 capital that needs to hit and should at least be eventually worth a 2nd contract, and providing some value (especially top 30-50 guys).

maybe it was you, or maybe someone posted him, and it was exciting, getting him as a UDFA feels like we got basically a pair of extra 6th or 7th rounders (along with the other DB we signed who wasn't quite at his level of promise). Very exciting. On Quinn, I'm getting more excited over time, he's younger than I realized, I thought he was more 60ish, but instead he's my older brothers age, which I like, otoh, it looks like in '19 they were top 11-13 in defense, and in '20 they fell to around 23rd or 22nd and much worse in total yards given up. It's rather odd. How much of the change was bringing in a mega superstar in Michah Parsons, but regardless, a top 3ish defense after he arrived. I don't know what to think of it, the dallas d was good in '19, objectively below average to horrible in '20, and very good in '21 (the odd thing is there were a lot more good defenses in '19 than in '21, not sure why). Anyway, I remain a skeptic of the quick turn around idea. I like that we added an elite DT prospect, I don't think there's much argument against the idea that we got a top 20-25 level talent, basically an extra mid to later round 1st round talent in the DT, we probably added 2 defensive players via the draft that will have some degree of immediate impact as rotational support to the secondary and the DL, but with no edge talent really, the LB position got a legit talent, but not a lot behind him via FA, I just tend to think this build out will take 2 or 3 years, and that's fine. I don't expect the D to get back to where it was in '20-'22, I suspect it will be bottom third in '24. That's fine w/me though, long term that would serve us better than a quick jump into the top 10-15. But I am reasonably excited that we did a nice job plugging holes, and adding some nice long term talent infusions to transition to a new era. Really promising. But next year? I still expect us to be bottom 10, probably bottom 5-8, and again, that's fine, we need at least one more really crappy year before attaining mediocrity I'd like to think, and then hopefully advancing to excellent by '26 or '27. Suits me fine and so far so good. One of the things worth noting, also, is there wont be an effort to position for Caleb Williams, Drake Maye, and Jayden etc next year, the QB class still has a couple of first rounders, but even the top guys are a tier below the top 3 to 4 from this year, so that, combined w/whats happened with various teams, suggests to me that only a few might bottom out: Carolina will again, Tennessee can't help, some injuries in the wrong places could do it to Oakland, NYG will probably struggle unless Nickels shows out with Nabers in house, Denver could be a mess and New England, will be a mess, but when I look around the league, not a lot of teams are likely to be god awful: New England, Tennessee, Oakland and Denver, Us, (the whole NFC and AFC South problem is they get to play eachother so probably nobody other than Tennessee and Carolina will totally suck), Arizona is going to bounce back, not sure what the rams will do with an aging QB but they have the potential to collapse with that problem. But really, I do put us in that clump of the worst 7 or 8 teams, we aren't the worst in that pile, but we'll probably be in the middle, with the potential to pick between as high as 3rd or 4th, and as low as 7th to 10th or 11th.