skinny21

Was just thinking the same thing. I’ll add that it’s even possible Kingsbury completely switches it up, like moving to a predominantly west coast offense with some of the guys he brought on being able to serve as, well, something like interpreters between the two systems. Regardless, looks like a sign his offense is likely to look a fair bit different than we might have expected. (“We” meaning those versed in the Air Raid system… which doesn’t really include me, lol)

Oh, I definitely agree with all of that. Mainly just pointing out that the same points SIP brought up also apply to Howell. To be fair to SIP’s point though, 1) it absolutely points to us avoiding the FA route (Cousins/Wilson/etc), and 2) adding your above points* to his suggests we’re nailed on taking a qb at 2. *of course SIP has made at least most, if not all of those same points you did. Only mentioning that to explain that I know his post I quoted wasn’t in a vacuum… not to take away from your post, lol. Probably not worth expanding on/furthering my initial point, but… let’s say this staff likes both Maye and Daniels a lot; they’d be thrilled with either. While I doubt the league would expect us to do anything but draft a qb at 2, similar to the Cards talking up Rosen, I can see a world where we talk up Howell (and bemoan his support system), including pushing the idea that we’re turning to an offensive scheme he had a lot of success in and comfort with. Then we leak that we absolutely love MJII and also like both qbs. Theoretically, NE and ARI (if the former prefers either Maye or Daniels, and latter is set on MJII) could both get a little uncomfortable with which direction we go. To me, those are the only spots I might be willing to drop down to. Obviously, I highly doubt it plays out anything like that. If we could land a qb the staff loves and net an extra 2nd round pick (or whatever) though? That would be fantastic.

Not that I think they pass on taking a qb at 2, but couldn’t your points also lend themselves to sticking with Howell? Howell has the arm talent, (mostly) positive intangibles, flashed, has pro experience but is still young, could benefit with an offense more catered to him (Kingsbury’s offense and his connection with Longo looms large), and that #2 could be parlayed into (even more) improvement of the supporting cast for Howell. Again, I don’t see them going that route. Frankly, feels like it would be spitting in the face of karma, lol. Heck, even if they really like Howell, even if they have him on par w/ Maye, the added 3 years of a rookie contract is pretty massive. However, I don’t think it would be too hard for the staff to sell the possibility to the rest of the league (if they cared to).

Lot of discouraging info getting churned out regarding the offense. Made me start speculating as to why Quinn would go this route, particularly given he seemed to put so much into figuring out what he’d do differently if given a second opportunity as a HC. Best I can come up with is… 1) all 3 of the top prospects, as well as Howell, have experience in the system. In other words, the scheme should allow whoever our qb is to hit the ground running as it were. 2) if the qb has a head start within the scheme, it might be easier to then hone in on the other aspects of qbing as needed - mechanics, reading defenses, etc. 2) Kingsbury is creative/innovative and Quinn has seen defense adapt/change over a short span of time. An offense that can regularly feature new wrinkles could make life that much harder for defenses. 3) Bobby Johnson has experience in both the Air Raid and other offenses, so might have more of a chance of blending styles. Brian Johnson brings an outside view as well (as does Pritchard, working under both Coryell and West Coast systems). So, taking those pieces together, perhaps the plan is to start fast with whoever our qb is, including addressing their weaknesses, then over time start to incorporate other elements we’re worried about. Not a plan that gives me the warm and fuzzies, but hopefully there’s some sort of method to the madness…

There are valid reasons for this team to spend big on high end quality FAs, and legitimate reasons not to go that direction. And of course our cap space will go quickly - that 83mil looks great, but I believe it’s really more like 64ish due to rooks and in-season spending (obviously still enough to make a big impact though). Now, they can play around with contract structures (particularly with Leno off the books next year, and presumably a rookie qb salary), staggering bigger FA contracts a bit over the next few years, but there are a lot of positions that could use quality/high end help, they need to/should plan on extending Cosmi, and just signing enough bodies will add up quickly. My hunch is their (the FOs) desire to turn this around quickly leads to a pretty aggressive FA. I have to assume Peters will feel a strong need to prove himself - to ownership and to fans, including that he made the right HC hire. I believe Harris is anxious to turn this around too. Wonder how FA players will perceive our situation - rebuild/rookie qb, the allure of playing for Quinn, whether Kingsbury is a plus or minus on this front, etc. Gonna be interesting to see it play out.

Two guys I could see us taking/rolling the dice on at 40 (maybe a bit earlier than expected?) - Corley and Sanders. Both good fits for Kingsbury’s O I believe and both positions of need.

Yeah, I guess I’d say I’m less concerned with “will he run the ball” (ala EB) vs things like “will he run mostly from shotgun?”, “will he mix it up/break tendencies?” and “does he do a good disguising run vs pass?”. I’m too much of a layman to really be able to qualify my concerns with him, but seems like there’s enough content out there pointing out certain concerns that give me some pause. To be clear though (in a general sense), there are certainly things I’ve seen/heard that I like, even if I didn’t go into them. Agreed. I’m hopeful for Stromberg, though I don’t think they can/should assume he’s more than competition/depth. if he wins a starting gig, great, I just don’t think they should ignore the position. It’s a tricky position to be in - needing to add quality to the starting group as well as depth, but not wanting to squander resources, ie: 1) blocking Stromberg from earning a starting role, 2) spending big on a high end FA that blocks a different promising draft pick, or 3) drafting a guy that winds up as a OL depth over a guy that could be a starter at a different position of need. And of course, you don’t want to assume the draft will bring in bonafide starters. With that said, ‘too much quality’ on the oline isn’t exactly a bad problem to have, lol. edit: I think it’s be smart/ideal to land at least one proven or promising guy that has some position flex (either can play both tackle spots or can play G/C)

I’m pretty much aligned with you. Maybe a touch excited about DQ because of the self-awareness, willingness to adapt, and having a personality that should benefit the culture and relationships w/ players/staff. There are some things I like about Kingsbury for sure, but I have some serious reservations there too. Can he marry run/pass? Can he effectively sequence plays? Perhaps the broad question (for me) is does he get caught up in the details and perhaps lose some sense of the big picture? My guess (and it’s not a novel one) is it might come down to - can he surround himself with staff that can help with any of his weaknesses, and will he listen to them? I’m hopeful, maybe even cautiously optimistic, but my expectations are not very high at the moment. On a side note, I’m very intrigued by the idea of the oline spacing. I see the potential for more room for backs and qbs to run, improved sight lines for the qb, and it could make stunts a bit harder to pull off. OTOH, does it leave more space for blitzers and can our oline manage being on more of an island?

Setting aside Kelly, something I’ve probably mentioned once or twice a year for some time now - the benefits of running uptempo practices. You can (roughly) double the amount of reps in a practice. With about 55 spring/summer practices (I think?), running 90 reps per practice rather than 45ish, you’re talking about (again, roughly) 2500+ additional reps. Easy to see how that could be a huge benefit to a young qb, to the backup qbs (who often get minimal reps), and of course to any rookies and free agents brought in. That’s not to mention how the increased reps can help with installing a new offense/defense, and the effects on player fitness. It’s implied, but I’m going to spell it out anyway… those additional reps could be a big help with getting olineman more used to each other, ie fast tracking the continuity aspect of oline play (not to mention other units). Back to Chip Kelly, I’m not a fan of the man, of how he came across in his first stint in the NFL. The tweet earlier suggesting he’s altered his scheme at the college level (and its relevancy to the NFL) is a positive. Serving as an OC vs a HC could help reel in some of his excesses, but that’s speculation. I guess if I had to weigh bringing him in vs a young guy that hasn’t had to craft/coach/call plays for the offense, well… there’s risk in both avenues. I wouldn’t be thrilled about Kelly, but the potential of uptempo practices (as well as game usage) is really appealing to me.

Let’s not, lol. … unless you’re lumping that scenario, us trading up, or Chicago (or another team) passing on Williams at 1 into that 20%

Oh man, I so hope some team lands those last two offensive guys listed and they wind up lining up next to each other at LG and C…. Yes, I’m talking about Puni Johnson

Ah, gotcha - I should have read his post more carefully. And yes, I agree about making that trade.

I get where you’re coming from, but that’s a whole different ballgame. It’s like me saying “you’d trade away two 2nds to move down from 7th to 10th*?” *(Where Allen and Mahomes were picked IIRC, in case that wasn’t clear) edit: I’ll add that I’m not necessarily against trading up for Williams

I think there are legitimate parallels between Rivera/Quinn. I think there are substantial differences too, perhaps the biggest being the outside factor of having a true GM. For example, one of Rivera’s (many) main issues was how he dealt with the qb spot… I don’t see Peters allowing us to trade for Garappolo, Wilson, etc over bringing in a quality, young prospect. I could be wrong of course. Along with personnel power, Ron also had to deal with Snyder, struggled with putting his foot in his mouth, got wrapped up in caring about perceptions, and relied on (mostly) bringing in guys he was close with. I also wonder if the focus on “yes sir, no sir” type of prospects tended to weed out the fiery, passionate, vocal, leader type of players. One argument I don’t get… those upset because of the Rivera/Quinn parallels of - leaders of men, culture builders, well respected… are y’all saying you’d prefer a guy that’s not respected? That isn’t a culture builder? That’s not seen as a high end leader? There are other arguments I get, but that one’s a head scratcher to me. With that said, I do get not wanting a retread or a defensive minded HC, even if I don’t believe those should be seen as deal breakers.

Jesus, I thought that was a ransom note for a second.

Wasn’t his contract this past year like 2mil? Maybe I have that wrong. Either way, you bring up the personnel philosophy for a team in our position… it’s an interesting topic, IMO. 1 year deals help open up the draft to an extent, don’t tie you down in terms of cap, and allow you to develop guys to take over from the rentals. OTOH, you’re probably not getting high end players with 1 year deals (though there are exceptions w/ prove-it deals, such as if Connor Williams has to prove he’s healthy), something our team desperately needs. You also mess with continuity to some extent. And of course, if we sign bigger names, are they going to still be around by the time we’re (hopefullly) competing for a title? Added to all of that you have factors like 1) not blocking a path for a young guy to get into the starting lineup, 2) saving cap for the future when you need to add guys that are the “final piece” types, 3) having proven vets that can show the young guys the ropes, and 4) wanting to instill the winning culture and faith in the staff - ie. wanting to get out of the gates quickly, and so on. That’s not to mention the need to surround our young qb in the best way possible to aid their development. With a plethora of picks, ample cap, and a new GM/coaching staff, it’s going to be fascinating to see the path they take. Ironically, having more options provides both more chances to get it right, and more chances to get it wrong. The silver lining to having a pretty terrible roster is that improvement shouldn’t be difficult, no matter what type of plan they have/moves they make. And there are quite a few positions that even if we address them in FA with long term investments, it shouldn’t (inherently) preclude us from double dipping via the draft.

I get the appeal of giving a young qb both a receiving weapon and a quality running game, but a rebuilding team signing a running back to a monster deal is probably a terrible move. I say probably because it’s possible he’s one of the outliers from what the analytics say.

Don’t forget Forrest.

Man, I’m with you on every piece here. I’ll add that I think returning players are going to be seriously excited about landing the top GM candidate and (potentially) top HC candidate. I think we’ll see serious player buy-in.

Yeah, the fact that “sonic rings” hit above was after picking up a first down while up by 20? I mean, have some awareness man.

Yeah, I didn’t put a reasoning to ILB because it’s a special case. If we land a top ILB in FA, I agree that I’d likely veer away from using a 2nd there. Davis going into his 4th year though, along with the potential to play with 3 backers (as you noted), I’m still looking at linebacker from the 3rd on. I’ll add that adding a FA corner or TE wouldn’t prevent me from hitting those spots again in the draft. I too would prioritize offense, but again, it depends on FA. As of now, FA could solidify our defense (mostly), fix our oline (mostly), and/or add a couple quality pass catchers. Or a blend of those. I assume we’ll add at least a capable corner and edge rusher. If we go hard after one side of the ball or the other in FA, I’m good with going heavier to the other side of the ball in the draft. I’m generally a proponent of addressing holes so you can let the draft come to you, but in our case, I think I prefer a few high end FAs and some bandaids/stopgaps/prove-it deals. Especially since (as I said) several positions, if we address them in FA with quality signings, shouldn’t inherently preclude us from still drafting a guy. There are so many options with our cap space (and the available FAs), draft picks, and considering we need significant help on both O and D, that it’s making it more difficult for us to come up with a preferred plan (for me anyways). FO is going to have a chance to earn their money for sure and I think it’ll be fascinating to see their approach.

There should be some intriguing OTs and WRs still available with our 2nd rounders, but at the same time, I could see that being the sweet spot for landing one of the top IOLs and ILBs. Perhaps a trade back with our second 2nd rounder can still land us one of those 4 positions, or a TE or corner (PFF’s big board has 9 corners in the top 40). Edge would be in play for me as well. IMO, free agency might help inform our draft, but at the same time, it’s surprising how many positions I wouldn’t mind double dipping on - hitting it in FA and the draft - ILB, OT (need a RT, swing tackle and replacement for Leno), IOL (need LG, C and depth), Edge (need 2), corner (I’m not sold on St Juste or Forbes), TE (don’t think a FA “solves” the position).

Wonder if we might bring back Samuel. I get those wanting the big wr addition (and no reason returning Samuel rules out drafting that type of guy), but a speedy, gadget player is surely appealing to a guy like Ben Johnson… I’d lean towards it not happening - deep draft and lots of higher priority FA needs - but maybe?

I haven’t watched him, but I like the idea of Coleman Shelton from the Rams. Probably on the cheaper end, can play both C and RG, and can be used in both zone/gap run schemes. Cheap(er) means it doesn’t feel a waste if Stromberg beats him out, ability to play RG gives us insurance for a Cosmi injury, and I believe Ben Johnson (if we land him) ran both gap and zone in Detroit. Now, I’m not looking to just add decent talent or guys with position flex, we need quality. But as the 2nd of two FA olineman (say, Jackson or Onwenwu as their bigger signing), I think that works to keep draft options open, still allows an opportunity for Stromberg to earn a job, while improving the unit (even if he wound up as the next man off the bench). With all of that said, I don’t know how different/better Shelton is from/than Gates.

WAR. What is it good for?