The Consigliere

Haskins was a dice roll, we were prepared for him to suck. It was a terrible QB draft with no great QB prospects beyond Murray. We knew they were stupid to ignore QB in '18, and had to address it in '19 or '20 or '21 (used the wrong drafts as per usual until this year), and so thank god they didnt trade up for danny nickels. That's how I felt anyway. I knew we sucked, maybe Haskins would hit maybe not, I had no idea, but I knew the '20 and '21 classes looked loaded, and if Haskins missed we'd have great pick(s) those years and the one thing we couldn't do was trade up for obvious future bust Danny Nickels, we didn't, so honestly that draft was a sigh of relief that we didn't waste future picks pursuing a sure bust in Nickels. That's why i wasn't as mad. This draft Daniels was for me, the highest risk pick of the top 4 guys, maybe even top 5, he was the one I LEAST wanted and viewed as the lowest of the floors. I HATE the pick, that being said, he has a super high ceiling, and I'm wrong on who hits plenty, but I'd be much more relieved if we'd landed Caleb or Drake, Jayden is a holding your breath and praying pick for me, JJ was more a fantasy, "could this guy actually be another wonderboy like Tom, or is this pure fantasy like it looks, and regardless, JJ's profile suggests league average starter, not injured out of the league or mega bust like Daniels risks". As I mentioned earlier though, its funny, in some ways, Daniels is the best kind of pick because it really does seem like: You get that grand slam like Lamar You get a total bust like RGIII So you're either dancing for years, or your right back to the top of the draft in '25 or '26 to go back to the QB well like Chicago, NYG, NYJ, Arizona have been in recent years, and that is a much better result than landing a guy like JJ's floor which is, basically like Derek Carr career production (not bad, not good, just blah). So in that sense, I could see it. Of course another potential out for Daniels is the Fields scenario, where the athleticism gives you good things, but he fails as a thrower, that is also a terrible middle ground like JJ seemed (JJ has a GREAT landing spot though so he might be fine).

We don't know what Sam was, the metrics were good until the team quit (and admittedly he faced much better defenses the final 7 or 8 games). We'll know what sam is given more time. Needless to say, you and I disagree entirely on this lol. We'll see though. I don't have your confidence, even about Maye, who I liked much more than Daniels, but time will tell. I hope and pray your right about Daniels. I don't think you are about Howell or Maye. We'll see on those two. I think Howell could be a league average QB in this league because he already was that in September and October before the team quit, and Maye has elite tools even if he landed in a disaster site. Hopefully he survives New England's god awful roster thand their totally entitled --- hat fans.

First thing I notice is "best deep ball passer in the draft". That's my first b.s. line. He was that in '23, he was actively poor at that '19-'22. Go through reads, deliver on time, deliver with pressure. I don't think there's a lot of evidence for any of that piece other than the "process" which everyone seems to score well. Reads-widespread disagreement, deliver on time, definitely not true based on multiple reports, he was not throwing guys open.... I like the comments on Kliff and Jayden, happy that the transition for him should be simpler because of their mutual familiarity. I also like what he said about Top Golf, a lot of great process/best practices kind of talk. Nice. Always evaluating the quality of your process. I like his support of the men and women who kept the team "the silent service" so to speak. No mega leaking. I like the "decisive" view of his running, not sure how much of that is intuitive...but i still like the idea that he's making decisions quickly. I'd love to hear more about how he is effective at making his reads, and the correlated bit about VR at LSU (not sure if he mentions that). I'm not a fan of the Kliff role in the process, but I also feel like Peters owns this decision and didn't defer to OC/HC which is how I want it. Pass Codes on the Door: So Stay early, leave late..... My question on that is people make a point of how hard he worked '22 and '23....so, was he the same at ASU, and if it wasn't, why? "Man, not college kid". Kinda like that. He does come off as very savvy, very modern, not old had Lombardi, or the more recently canned --- hats like Gettellman and Dorsey. Really like Peters coming off that. Hasn't changed my mind about anything, but I'm very hopeful he's right, and I'm wrong about Jayden, and to be fair, I don't get the same thing as the Zach Wilson: "No way is this guy hitting" vibe, I'm just deeply alarmed at stuff. Some of the things he said in the conference I wouldn't say assuaged my fears, but they moved me more to a not cautiously optimistic, but more, hopeful that eventually I see enough to feel that way. Interesting to see that. Thanks for posting it.

Well the franchise track record with QB selection when Peters was in there, in any capacity at all, Patriots, Broncos, Niners was largely total ---. Pats had a minor hit with Brady's '08 backup, I forget his name but other than that, it's Purdy, and Purdy is only half a selling point. If Peters and the ex Bucs DB Lynch thought Purdy was going to be an NFC Championship or bust level starter as he's become, why on earth did they wait until the end of the 7th round to take him. Answer. They had no clue he would be this good, just like anybody else, he was just worth a dart throw for them at that point and by some miracle he hit. So it is reasonable to say, Peters has zero magic touch at the job just like every other GM and top F.O. exec. They all suck, to varying degrees. It appears to just be pretty near to impossible to do this well, or to do this effectively at any rate that isn't suggestive that blind luck is the largest proportional piece of the eval that should get the credit. Yeah because the people on the internet were so wrong when they argued Young was a lollipop guild extra rather than a starting QB in this league, or that Zach Wilson was Milf Hunter, rather than a starting QB, or that Kenny Pickett was --- and Sam Howell was better, or that Mitch Trubisky going ahead of Watson and Mahomes were jokes etc. There's no evidence at all that the NFL is any good at this, nor anyone else (to be fair). Everyone sucks at QB eval.

It's not marketing, if he misses, its collective NFL stupidity at QB, like with Ponder, Manuel, Bortles, Mariota, Trubisky, Darnold Danny Dimes, Pickett, Young and so many others. The NFL gets these guys wrong sometimes and it definitely appears like a good 80-85% of the NFL GM's and departments, and possibly more had Daniels 2 rather than Maye, as many of us think they should have. The fullness of time should tell who was right. Otoh, I have a built in excuse for Maye that will be hard not to use: the entire set up in NE is a 1000% ---- show. It would be hard for anyone to be successful there.

Might just be the biggest bs artist in the entire culinary world, that dude. Should add, I am the Dead Sea of saltiness when it comes to the selection at 2. Brian Regan, the greatest comedian 90% of the public doesn't know. Absolute genius.

It's a misallocation of resources. The Raiders need A LOT of stuff including QB and plenty more positional groups. Having two of their past 3 top picks be TE's is not terribly helpful. Sure, they could use them like Gronk and Aaron Hernandez, that's an idea, or they could use Mayer more as an in line guy which seems a waste, but I think it would make more sense for them to trade him, but honestly, if they were gonna do that, they already would have. Bowers was always gonna go somewhere between 9-20 and the Raiders was in that window of teams, but it is wasteful to use that much draft capital on TE's when you aren't an elite team already like the Pats were when they took Gronk and Hernandez on day 2 nearly 15 years ago. But will they trade him? I doubt it. But teams should call, because they need a lot to fix that roster, and Mayer's value just got cut in half w/the arrival of Bowers.

But all the teams are improving every year and I don't think we improved anything at DL, DB, or significantly enough at OL to make it matter, nor at the playmaking positions. Color me skeptical. We added some help that should matter at LB, and at interior OL in particular. I agree we helped ourselves in FA, but how much and how much in comparison to the teams around us. I think this thing is gonna take a lot of time. We rock bottomed last year, its not gonna get fixed that quick to me. Its possible, every year teams come out of nowhere, and some have argued we could be one: I can see the narrative, but I'm highly skeptical. I think we were 8 or 9 week at OL, not just a couple of starting OL's, I think we were 3 starters week and our entire reserve for cluster injuries was largely ---. Any OL injuries to the wrong guys and we're back in the ---- and as last year illustrated, part of what makes OL's good is integration as a group over time and reps, it will take a while to get unit to cohere and that's if they're healthy. I'm just mighty skeptical the OL will be great, the pass catching will rebound, the rb room will be great, the edge rushers are much weaker, the interior DL is older, probably not better, we got a nice LB, but the secondary is still a problem. This still looks like a bottom quarter of the league team to me. Even w/an easy schedule other teams that aren't great view us as one of the "win's" just as we view them. I see 5 or 6 wins.

Yeah, have to admit, I did not want DB help in round 2, but there's little denying that the top prospects here are probably DB's, WR's and maybe Paul. If DeJean or McKinstry fall to us, hard to say no at 36. I keep wondering if McKinstry has been red flagged, if the med flag is up, we might be able to wait on him until 67, or, he's just a steal, like DeJean in round 2. Would be fantastic to nail these two picks (and especially awesome w/a slight trade down and still getting what we want). Need to remind myself we rarely ever take what I want in round 2.

I don't disagree, he'd be fine at 40, either of them really, but I'm not entirely sold I like him so much that I'd pass up on a really good offer, if its around, for our 40th. Not sure what normal trade value is for that though. We aint getting compensatories next year, so I'd like to add more picks this year both to recoup 4th and 6th round capital as well as '25 assets. But yeah, I wouldn't hate him at 40, I just think if I can move and get him or the other OT I like best, I'd do it, is it worth it? Maybe, not sure.

I dont think 8 wins is even close to in the cards. Vegas put us at 6.5 supposedly, Im not sure where people will bet it, but I would suspect its an avoid because nobody buys 7-10, and people will be afraid that they're better than 5-12 team. I'd take the under on 6.5. My Ceiling projection: 8-9 My Expectation: 6-11 My Floor: 4-13 I tend to think we're gonna win 5 or 6, with maybe a 20-25% of an outlier 7 win season. I think we'll end up picking between 7th-13th next year. But top 5 is possible. Rock Bottom teams even worse than us: Carolina, New England, Tennessee-maybe, Oakland-maybe (the QB issue), Denver-maybe (the QB issue)..... Am I forgetting anyone? Maybe NYG, anyone else?

For me it's a no way, I agree on Deebo, and I think SF probably offers him a pot of gold deal on a short term through his age 28 season if they can pull it off, so they have more $$$ to pay Purdy when he is a FA in '26 or '27. At that point, maybe they let Aiyuk go. That's what I'd do, take advantage of Purdy cheaply controlled through '25, maybe front load Aiyuk's deal to make space for Purdy's second deal, and try to find draft replacements for Deebo this year and Aiyuk from '25-'26.

I can't recall the last time I saw a team double up on OL help in round 1 and 2, but I'm sure if I dug I could find examples. I just don't think Tennessee, and New Orleans are risks, there is so much building both need to do. I think we can afford to move down to late 40's, Philly could be a risk in the 50's, especially w/two picks. Additionally it's worth noting, it is not like teams won't consider trading into the top 40 or 45 to get the last of the OL's they like in their tier. I'll acknowledge that. But personally, the way the board is looking, I'd use 40 to move down, and take best available at 36. Admittedly if Dejean is gone, and Ladd is gone, and Kool Aid is med flagged, maybe we just take Paul or trade down. There are situations in which I could see taking Paul, but my priority based upon whats happened at OL is to take advantage of teams having already addressed it, and wait into at least the mid 40's, and if all our best OT guys are gone, just wait outright until 67.

AND we have to give up picks too. I just don't see the point. I don't want to pay top dollar for the end of a prime and the beginning of a decline when we are literally in the process of rock bottoming and beginning the climb back. Hell, personally, I'm still hoping we have a ton of hard luck losses next year to help w/draft capital, I don't want to do what Houston did, and get so good, so fast, that its much harder to fix holes. I'd like another two years of inside top 10, and inside top 13 draft capital to build out the defense (we have no quality edges, no quality DB's), the OL, and the playmakers. We don't have anything great in any of those areas of the team other than a bit of FA spackle. It will take 2-3 years worth of drafts to begin to make up for the total ---- show of colossal busts, and blatant dumb --- draft capital flushes that happened under Rivera '20-'23 and its not like the team made good use of '17-'20 either, we lack top end talent, quality starters, and good bench depth. We need to suck to fix those things, we don't want to suddenly go 11-6 or 10-7 next year on Daniels to Aiyuk TD's, and suddenly be stuck at the back end of each round. I'm very hopeful we finish bottoming out in '24 with a 5 win season, maybe 4 (I can deal with 6) and then consider approaching .500+ in '25 (hopefully pick 8-14 in the '26 class if the build is working).

I want long term answers to both the starting lineup and the reserve cohort because both sucked last year, so I'm willing to wait on development for long term answers as such I'll take OT and IOL help. Guys I like: Paul Suamataia Fisher Amegadjie Rosengarten Coleman Beebe Haynes etc There's definitely guys I want, but I want to take advantage of the fact that a whole expletive load of OL's were taken by teams picking after we pick at 36. 9 different teams picking between 37 and the late 50's already took an OL in round 1. There are guys who are gonna fall. Is it Paul? Probably not. But at least 1 or 2 of the top 4 or 5 OL's on most of our boards are probably going to be available in the late 40s to mid 50's. Maybe more. I think we can afford to wait, and use the fact that other teams spent their draft capital. Hell, I looked through the list of team needs for teams picking in that zone and basically 4 teams have OL at all listed, and none of them are listed as a high priority, just a top 3-4 priority amongst many others. We can afford to wait, if we want, and run this day 2 with trade down(s), targeting the best player at 36, and then either snapping up the best OL in a trade down, or betting that a guy we have in our top 5 or 6 left falls to 67 (and maybe more than 1 of our top 6-7 OL's). There are a lot of ways we can play it and the worst to me is just forcing the need OL pick. The best, quick answer types, to me, are all gone, the bulk of the rest are guys that may bust and/or are developmental, we could get multiple OL's just moving down some. Instead of pinning on our hopes on just one guy. Consider our OL draft capital was used on one of the best center prospects last year, and we got nothing from him due to injury and he then got replaced in free agency. Better to own day 2 by taking advantage of teams priorities to maximize our own draft capital value...we aren't fixing this OL or OT problem with one OT pick in round 2, it requries multiple years and a lot of draft capital.

It's the age cliff, prime years of elite level production for WR's are typically age 21-26, you still capture production at 28, but the best years are almost always, the really elite ones, age 23, 24, 25, 26, sometimes the tail end of it is 27. 28 is part of the decline. WR's don't have the fall off in elite level production after age 26 like RB's do, but there've been studies of when the most mega elite (top 5), excellent (top 10-12) and very good seasons (13 and below) take place in the age cohorts, and very, very few of them happen post age 27. It's why so many WR's switch teams after their rookie contracts and/or after they were franchised, you typically get 80% of the top years of a WR's career on their rookie deal. Admittedly Aiyuk is just 26, he's still in his prime, probably has at least 2 more great seasons left before he's probably more an 18th-36th in the league WR rather than a top 10-15, but I'm not interested in paying for that when I expect us to only win 4-7 games this year, and 6-9 in '25.

Which teams will target him? Chargers, Titans, Packers, Saints and Bengals all pick between 37 and 50 and already got their OL's. Houston, Oakland, Indy, and Jacksonville all have that as a need on the nfl.com tracker site, but how many OL's do we like in that 40-70 zone, I have at least 4 or 5. I'm not fixated on Paul. There are other guys I'd be okay with. Id rather move down, risk losing Paul, get more assets, and get a guy later, be it a Guard or an OT.

I bet the foot injury and other issues in his career w/health has teams skittish. Wonder if he's one of those classic injury related falls down the draft boards.

Personally I have zero interest. We already have an overage WR', we are not gonna be good this year, probably not next either as we build this thing up from scratch, I imagine they are targeting second half of '25, and '26 for being a .500+ to playoff team, in '26 dude will be 28, like McLaurin was last year, outside of his prime. I am not terribly interested in paying for a guy's decline when we aren't even likely to be competitive for half or more of the contract, I like these moves when we are getting good, I'd make a move like this 2 years from now, but now? No. Just don't see it. If we could get him cheap, okay, but I doubt it, and there were and will be FA classes pumping out quality options going forward as the WR classes of '20, '21 and '22 were all solid to superb. No need to overpay in $$$ and draft capital when we can do it just with $$$, and do it when they aren't bad calorie seasons. For me, this kind of signing (would definitely not due a trade) makes sense in '25 or '26, not in '24. We already have two vets on the roster, get the kid who he'll grow with instead. Plus there's the rumor that they're trying to move Deebo instead.

I'd rather have a WR on a cheap contract, cost controlled, there were WR's worth signing in FA w/o giving away picks. We didn't. I imagine we're gonna draft one (I hope), I do not want to throw away money AND picks, when we could have just thrown away money a month ago. Could've grabbed Mooney or overpaid for Davis and Ridley for instance, avoided that. I'd like to think they're going after cheap cost control, rather than spending too much AND tossing draft picks in the bonfire. We have more WR's left in round 2. We should take one.

Thanks, admittedly I am largely "confused" at what the hell the rule changes mean, I just get the sense that they are trying to deemphasize collisions for player safety, and it would not surprise me if they got rid of it entirely except for field goals in the next decade.

4.70 40, 72nd percentile speed score. Kelce was 4.66 a decade ago, Mark Andrews is 4.67, Trey McBride is 4.61, Laporta 4.59, Pitts is a freak (low 4's), Kittle was 4.52 back when he was healthy, Dalton Kincaid was 4.68. He's definitely on the slow end of the field behind like literally every single top 10ish guy in the league, but he's also not outside the realm of the athleticism you need, as shown by the 72nd percentile speed score. With TE's the more athletic the better though in terms of hit rate and his burst and agility scores are sub 50th percentile, so athleticially, his profile is meh, you've got a point, I'm not in the cant stand him area, I like him, but he is a floor TE. Better than the guys in this class other than Bowers, but not great. Just solid plus guy (to me anyway). I can see your point, maybe my trade idea is a bit silly, how about dangling the late 3rd and a future 7th lol.

1000% yes, but I'd offer probably 67 or the 7something pick, I'm not giving them a 2nd rounder for a former 2nd rounder who has 1 year left on his rookie deal. But yeah, I'd absolutely try to get him. After a slow september, he turned around and produced a solid last 3 months of the season. Not Sam Laporta good, but still solid for a rookie (26-302-2 in the 10 games between October 9th and December 12th including a 5-75, 4-46, and 4-39 games). I like Mayer WAY WAY WAY more than any TE left in the draft, but he's got 3 years left on the deal, no way I'm offering a high 2 for him, they took him 35 last year, and cheap rookie deal value has already been slashed by 25%. Ftr he's on a 4 year 9.4 mill deal.

I am a Mitchell skeptic, Dejean at 36, Sua is one of my 3 fav OT's left, but I'd rather trade down for him then take him at 40 (if he lasts). I don't entirelly agree with the QB thing. Although betting markets were set at 4.5 it always looked like Penix was set to go top 15, and Nix was set to go 15-35, it didn't really change anything that 6 QB's went, they were always going between 1 and 35 anyway, before our pick. What's lucky, kind of, to me anyway, is that the guys that did fall into round 2, at least 4 or 5 of them fit right smack into our desperate DB-WR-OL-LB need cohort. I don't think any of the OL's are worth 36 or 40 for that matter, but the DB's, WR's and even LB talent could be, and we can trade down too. Having two top 8 picks in round 2 is huge just for potentially sweeping up late 1st talent AND for trading down to desperate teams. I hope we use 36 and move down with 40 unless someone crazy falls there. Which of these round 2 targets came out with medical flags? I can't remember. Med flags and off the field alarm bells tend to drop guys like nothing else.

The talent available is not in the same "likely sure thing" zone as the best available guys. You reach for an OL here, you are reaching for a question mark. Everyone knew that there would be a huge OL run and it happened, nobody reached into round 1 the last 7 picks because the talent had already been peeled off. I suspect some teams will reach for OL in round 2, but there's not a lot of teams that are likely to do it at slot, the risk, if there is one, would be teams trading up, because most of the teams with big enough needs, already addressed it. Its just the Pats, Bears, Us and a few others, and if you're like me, you're just looking for the best available lineman, rather than position specific targets since OT got pillaged slot 5 through 29 w/Guyton. Play it smart, we need DB, WR, OT, G, TE, LB, we should be peeling off the best available talent at slot, and trading down if there are enough guys we like in a tier to justify the move. If the team is set on taking an OL in round 2, I'd suggest moving the 40 for a later 40 or early 50 slot pick and a late 3rd or day 3 pick (whatever is market value, I'm too lazy to look). Paul is probably the only OT worth 36th, and I don't see him good enough to justify passing on the DB and WR talent when there are another 2 or 3 guys I have around him in value at OT (as well as IOL guys). I really hope they trade down from 40 to recoup some round 4 capital in addition to whatever pick we get via moving in round 2.