skinny21

The consensus mock (NFLdraftdatabase.com) has Kingsley at 45, Amegadjie at 55 and Rosengarten at 62. No Paul, no Fisher in first two rounds. Depending on fit and the FO’s view of these guys, I could see targeting an OT after trading back from one of our 2nds. They also have 4 safeties in the 2nd after 40 (including Nubin), and 6 corners in the 2nd from 36 (including us taking TJ Tampa at 36). On one hand, that suggests pretty good odds we land a db in the 2nd, but on the other hand, I have to assume some quality dbs will slip to the 3rd… They have us taking Tampa at 36 and Trice at 40. Kneeland and Braswell are the other 2nd round DEs.

Who are your 7 receivers?

Brits - can we have cookies for snack time? What if we call them “biscuits”? (sounds like I’m being defensive, but you’re absolutely spot on regarding Americans, and I’m well aware “biscuits” came first. And BTW, my in-laws have a sign in their kitchen - “If you lick the frosting off a cupcake, it’s just a muffin”. And lastly, a pretty random PSA - nutella has more sugar than cake frosting)

This makes sense of course. Though I’m tempted to say that anyone playing college qb has to have a baseline of processing speed. To be clear though, I was suggesting more so the potential for it to rate processing speed, not (necessarily) as much in terms of improving processing speed. The development angle I mentioned was more about getting (VR) reps, particularly w/in the offense and against various defenses.

Yeah, the process is the big thing for me. I generally agree, though I’d push back a little on the needing live game reps to improve. In some ways, I think that’s absolutely the case (Ie some things only really improve with live play). However, Howell, for example, seemingly made big strides his first year on his footwork/mechanics. For me personally, I wouldn’t mind them riding the bench for a bit just to 1) get a chance to see a vet perform, and 2) give them a bit more time to get comfortable in the offense. I’d think it also gives the rookie more time regarding some of the smaller things - to build chemistry and relationships, get used to the speed of the game, etc. Essentially, the goal would be reducing/minimizing the number of items on their plate, at least to some extent. I tend to believe it also gives the team more time to get used to the system, including giving the oline more time to gel/develop. Almost certainly a moot point though because, as you say, they’re going to start day 1. I will say that the above isn’t my default preference, it depends on your evaluation of the guy once you get him in-house. I’d also put a lot of weight on coaches crafting a plan around the qb, vs (what I view as) the more traditional ‘throw a lot at them and see what they can handle’ tendency. Of course, in my scenario you then have to give the vet plenty of reps (offseason and in-season), which can limit your rookie’s snaps (ergo, their development)… one of the main reasons I’m a fan of uptempo practices and the large uptick in available reps that comes with that practice style.

I found the VR stuff in that Daniels article pretty fascinating. Seems like a tool that could have pretty huge implications in terms of development. Heck, just the ability to use that for guys that aren’t getting many reps - backups or young 3rd stringers - could be a game changer. The potential to use it for measuring processing speed, or the ability to identify defenses has to be pretty attractive as well, though I presume it’ll take some time/work to get it to that point?

I’m mostly with you here, though I think we land a tackle in the 2nd and then again later. I made a post in the FA thread (for some reason) about how I’d guess things shake out. I think it might have been misconstrued as going off need, but my focus was actually on where I think the strengths of the positions lay (with some need thrown in of course). Value-wise (JMO of course): WR - aside from Ladd and maybe Pearsall, I don’t love the value vs other positions (including the class depth at other positions) in the 2nd - plenty of interesting receivers should still be around in the 3rd/4th. TE - either after a trade back in the 2nd, or in the 3rd? Corner - 2nd? Slot corner looks promising in the 3rd, but outside corner is far more pressing IMO, and I’m thinking there’s a sizeable drop off after round 2. Not too sure about fit though… DE - from 2nd-3rd? OL - tackle in the 2nd, though this could be 36, 40, or later in the 2nd after a trade back, then maybe another olineman (tackle or G/T is my guess) in round 3? Linebacker, S and DT are the wildcards for me, and this is where my (ingrained?) factoring of need gets in the way, because a part of me says to just look at the 5th and beyond and then we can try again next year.

I can honestly say that the only things I know about Daniels are from this thread. I do feel like if I were ridiculously fast, I’d feel a lot safer moving forward - knowing I’m not likely to be caught from behind - versus pulling up on a scramble to throw. Ideally though, you’re comfortable enough throwing on the move (not having to stop/plant). If that’s either not a tool or not a well developed tool in his toolbox, that’s a bit concerning to me.

Setting aside that I have no idea about scheme fit for these prospects (or hardly anything about them really lol), I could see Morgan being the cutoff for them. If he’s gone, I think they might go corner (or possibly wr/edge), since there’s a cluster of tackles that would be options at 40 - Kiran, Suamataia, Paul, Rosengarten - and if they’re still there at 40, maybe we swing a trade back. I expect we land a TE in that mid 2nd (after a trade back) to mid 3rd range, even though it looks like only 3 guys fit there - Sanders/Sinnot/Stover. I also expect one of our 3rds to go toward (a second) olineman. A tackle that falls, Goncalves or maybe someone a guard like Haynes or Puni. Very good chance we draft a receiver on day 2 IMO. Framing it a different way, IMO there’s a… Good chance we trade back from 36 or 40 (small chance we trade back into the 1st instead) Very good chance we draft a tackle in the 2nd Good chance we draft a corner in the 2nd Small chance we draft a receiver in the 2nd, good chance we draft one in the 3rd Decent to good chance we draft a TE on day 2 Decent chance we draft a 2nd olineman on day 2 Decent chance we draft an edge on day 2 Small chance we draft a S or linebacker on day 2 Since my verbiage is a bit nebulous, I’d say small chance = less than 25%, decent = 25-50, good = 50-75, and very good = 75+%, roughly. Agreed. My hope is our pro personnel scouts help point them in this direction, especially for a guy like Forrest, maybe St Juste? Perhaps promising is that they re-signed Obada who didn’t play last year, and although he was with Quinn in Atlanta, that was only for a couple/few weeks. Not sure who else this idea might apply to though…?

Looking at how our FA might affect our draft, I’m thinking linebacker is less likely before our late 3rd, DE is less likely in round 2, Center is probably out (before the 7th anyway) unless its a G/C, and rb is less likely other than a late round flyer (guess I wouldn’t rule out using one of our two 5th rounders though). Options are obviously thin at tackle at this point, so setting that aside, the two other potential FA signings I could see them making prior to the draft are corner and safety… though I could just as easily see waiting to see what the draft brings before (potentially) addressing those spots. I think I’m now leaning away from trading up for a tackle. Too many positions I’d love to address day 2 that line up with the draft talent - T, corner, WR, TE, Edge, G, S, ILB and a 2nd tackle. Of course the prospect of landing a good tackle for 5 years is quite attractive…

Sort of building on this, my guess is that the next two years with Seattle will be like we envisioned his past two years would be - a year to get comfortable in the system and with the squad, and then get a chance to start in year two. I think the main handicap he faced here was Ron changing offenses/coordinators going into his 2nd year, though you have to imagine a shaky oline and truly terrible defense messed with Howell quite a bit. Going back to internet prognosticators/analysts, I think there are generally speaking 4 facets that matter - 1) analyzing stats/data points, 2) analyzing film, 3) learning/figuring out all of the more intangible stuff, and 4) making predictions. These guys generally don’t have much insight to the intangibles, and that, combined with the inherent difficulty in “figuring out” the qb spot, makes their predictions mostly worthless (unless its a prediction as to who goes where, particularly once reports start emerging, but even that is fraught). The benefit these types provide though, to us fans, is offering us more info to synthesize with what we’ve seen on tape or in the stats. In other words, I don’t think it makes sense to just push them into buckets like “they don’t know what they’re talking about” or “they’ve gotten plenty wrong” (though there are some lazy, clueless blowhards out there obviously). To be fair though, all of these guys are in it for the clicks. It’s incumbent on us to parse who’s putting out content they (the “experts”) believe in - the ones that are putting the work in vs the guys just shooting for a juicy tagline. JMO obviously.

I hear you. Well, on one hand, you could argue they have upgraded 2 spots - C and LG - and frankly, that could be the case even if one doesn’t see Allegretti as starting caliber (Charles and Paul were pretty bad). Of course, they also (depending on how you view it) downgraded LT, lol. To be fair, both tackle spots were always going to be a bit difficult to upgrade via FA with high demand, low supply, and particularly with an eye toward responsible spending. Still a lot of remaining time/ways to address oline including FA, trades, the draft (including trading up), post draft roster cuts. Here’s hoping we feel a lot better about the line by the start of the season!

Not that it really matters, but I presume that was in reference to Howell last year, not in college?

The pressure to sack info makes me curious about avg yards lost on sacks for these guys… Also makes me wonder about usage of check downs and hot throws - two things that are obviously crucial in the NFL, but seem to me to be more wrapped into philosophy/attitude in the college ranks. Whether that’s the system, coaching style, or qb attitude - including holding out for the big play or maybe believing your running is more dangerous than a check down. Seems to me that “take what the defense gives you” aspect is a tough transition for a lot of college qbs. To be clear though, I don’t watch much college ball, so I’m basically making **** up based on my impressions.

Quite possible I’m putting too much weight on Shen’s outlook on TEs (combined with our need to address the spot anyway), but I think that’s the position I’d be most surprised if we didn’t address day 2. Of course, if we either don’t land a starting tackle in FA/trade or via trading up, that will trump TE in terms of surprise factor.

Personally, I have it a tick behind LT due to playing a rookie QB and the importance of offense in general, but yeah, I think it’s a huge need and I’m almost certain they’ll address it - with a vet and likely a rook as well. While they could wait on it (until after the draft or even later), I think they’ll wanna get a guy in early to start the process of getting comfortable within the scheme. Probably helpful to have a vet that can help St Juste and Forbes as well. As for a FA grade, I’m putting a lot of weight on the combo of 1) longer term deals for guys that are in their prime, 2) short term deals on solid stop gaps (responsible spending with an eye toward the future and building through the draft), 3) finally addressing the linebacker corp, 4) living up to their stated goal of strengthening the middle of the field, 5) setting themselves up for the draft, and 6) swinging bringing in Wagner. Really it’s too early to give them a grade just yet because I’m certain they aren’t done, but process-wise, it’s an easy A for me to this point. I also can’t bring myself to ding them for tackle not being “solved” via FA. Obviously this is all a work in progress, but as of now, they’ve improved most positions, some in a smaller way like DT (Obada) and WR (Crowder), some in a decent/promising way (Ekeler and Chinn), and some massively (DE, linebacker). IOL and ST are looking pretty good as well. We’re on the right track for sure, let’s see how it plays out (it being FA, the draft, and how the team/schemes/staff come together).

Even knowing it stands for France, for some reason I always read it as Friar Fran, lol. I have to wonder if Lucas (or any other 3rd tackle type) is on hold until they see 1) if they can add a starter level LT and 2) what the draft brings. Heck, they may even wanna see what they have in Wylie, Scott and Daniels at the first round of OTAs before looking at adding depth. I’m betting we land a starting caliber corner sooner than later, probably on a 1 year deal. Counting on our current guys or the draft doesn’t fit the staff’s MO to this point IMO. We’re almost guaranteed to draft a receiver I believe, but I’d guess they’d wanna raise the floor of the receiving group - ie not rely on Dotson making big strides or a rookie contributing heavily… not to mention this group looks pretty dang lackluster if Terry were to miss time. Probably a 1 year deal again. Maybe someone like Beckham or Gallup? A guy you can trust to start on the outside (Dotson or Crowder can man the slot), but that won’t affect future cap space? I didn’t mention Dyami, but… I’m not sure there’s a reason to, lol.

Might have to check the NFL Rules. The answer is probably… in fine print. 😉

Yeah, trading up from 36 (for an OT) and back from 40 definitely carries a lot of logic. For some reason, your post made me wonder about the possibility of doing both at the same time - getting a team’s late 1st and late 2nd for our early 2nds… Not sure about value, but swapping picks vs losing one might be pretty attractive to our staff.

But… can’t he? I hear you though. It’s like when one of my kids would race through the grocery standing on the back of the shopping cart with their brother in the seat. Super cool and satisfying…until it goes wrong. (Don’t judge me)

To your point that the stars have basically aligned for us to be in a position to grab a blue chip guy, I am so in agreement here. Not taking one of them would be like spitting in the face of karma, fate or whatever. Or just not playing the odds right if you’d prefer. With that said, two things that I feel like are being maybe slightly glossed over (I’m not saying by you, or saying they necessarily make a difference in this instance though)… One, you alluded to in the past - the importance of factors beyond the tangible. Background checks - talking to coaches, family, friends, teammates, etc., leadership, competitive drive, decision-making, work ethic, attitude, coolness under pressure, grit, etc. Not to mention rapport between coaches/qb, trust, etc. We maybe get a little too hung up on the tangible stuff. Outside of Mahomes (the player he is today, not the prospect), every quality qb over the years has had warts. Obviously the fewer obvious warts, the better, but those warts really get either minimized or magnified by the intangibles. Two, the effect of draft status. The pressure of starting an early pick immediately and all that comes with it. Generally speaking, IMO, the more variables to learn something, the longer it’s going to take. So learning mechanics, the offense, protections, reading defenses, speed of the game, how to deal with guys older and more established, and on and on… that can take significant time. With a guy drafted a bit later, it’s perfectly acceptable to either start them right away, or have them sit for a time, in essence checking off (or at least moving the needle on) some of those boxes prior to seeing the field. Not saying this outweighs other concerns, but its a philosophical aspect that might vary from team to team. And attached to both of those points is the idea that staffs really don’t know exactly what they have or should expect until they get a guy in-house. Last piece I’ll add, in terms of the risk vs reward of waiting on a later prospect and not knowing who other teams will take ahead of you, I think there’s a bit more leeway and knowledge amongst teams. I think teams often have a sense (and open line of communication) regarding what other teams will do (who they like, if they’re willing to move up/down, etc), and have backup plans in place. I don’t think its quite as simple as “if you like a guy, you have to take them as soon as possible”. So all told, bearing in mind I don’t really have a take /position on what this team or others should do, I have to wonder if things are potentially a bit more flexible/variable than we’re giving credit for. I think its possible Chicago likes Drake more than Caleb, that McCarthy goes 2, 3, or 4, Daniels falls out of top 3, etc, etc, even if the odds are that the general consensus is the correct one. I suppose for me, the crux of my post is that this offseason has been a bit of a lesson on certainty. The certainty that Ben Johnson was the favorite here or Quinn was a fallback, that Wagner wouldn’t sign with us, that Howell wouldn’t net anything, and now, that Chicago is (staying put and) taking Williams, we’re taking Maye, and NE will draft Daniels. Ok, I’ve rambled enough. Feels like there’s a ton of things I’ve said that can get picked apart, debated, or that I could wax on about with far more nuance. Long story short, I’m looking forward to seeing how things play out, both for our team and others. I think it’s going to be interesting, and I’m guessing we’ll see some surprises.

That’s what I got from it as well. To me, his use of the word “zoo” was purely about an audience watching from behind glass vs it being hectic/chaotic/etc (which is obviously different from what a someone might assume just reading “Schultz calls Dallas a “zoo”). But obviously the comment is still pretty damning in terms of the Texans being all about football and Dallas not so much.

During Whitt’s press conference, he mentioned separating young guys from vets because he likes to give them a chance to ask questions they might hesitate to ask with the vets around. At the time I remember thinking it made a lot of sense, but also a part of me was like - you’re a rookie, of course you’re gonna have questions. Coaches should just tell them to not feel any way about asking those questions… And then we added Bobby ******* Wagner.

Gallup would be a nice addition for sure. The thing that gives me pause is the combo of wr depth in the draft, the guys we have, and the theory of using the draft for expensive positions vs FA for better bargains. Thinking we’re more likely to draft a couple receivers and/or add another 1 year deal.

Personally, I’m finding it somewhat difficult to rank corner/FS/TE/WR, and I might even add DL to that mix because of a number of questions/variables. Clearly we could stand to add a quality starter and depth at most of those positions. Corner - What scheme do we run? Can Forbes/St Juste be coached up? Will an improved pass rush up their game? Will Quan man the slot? Does the scheme help any of our backend guys like Holmes? FS - Is this a good spot for Forrest? For Quan? Is a competition between them (and Butler) enough? Can Butler be coached up (he certainly has the speed anyway) to trust as the backup FS? TE - How much does Ertz have left? Will Rogers be healthy? Will Turner learn some nuance from Ertz and coaches? How will the scheme feature TEs? WR - How much improvement do we see from Dotson? Where’s our depth? DL - Our DT depth is somewhat questionable (even with Armstrong/Obada taking snaps there). I think right now, I’d rank it corner, WR, TE, DL, corner again, and then FS.