skinny21

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.

Yeah, this is why I was asking about trading for a team’s tackle - that’s a lot to give up. Regardless, given how Peters has operated thus far, I have to think we’ll wind up pretty happy with (at least) one of our tackle spots.

Happy Bday!! Yesterday was my niece’s 21st. She was a baby at my wedding. Talk about feeling old…

Wonder about trading a pick (a 2nd?) to someone for a solid/good tackle, particularly one of the teams that are in range to draft one of the top tackles in the 1st. They replace their tackle and shed cap space, we can afford giving up the pick and contract. Accelerated guaranteed money becomes a factor, though I’d guess that could be worked around. Not sure if this is better than us giving up two 2nds (or whatever) to move up…

Well that’s a whole different story then. Just kidding BTW, I don’t even care about the whole debate, just funny to think about an inch making a big difference (that’s what she said).

That’s actually a solid signing IMO…

I was just busting your balls bro. I mean I sort of argued against you about Wagner, but even I thought it highly unlikely… I was more arguing about the certitude. Positive and negative, life’s shown me over and over that you just never know. And I agree in that I doubt Howell gets moved for a 3rd, even as I’d argue he’s shown more upside than those other two. The question for me is can he be coached up (particularly on his negative traits), and how much did the surrounding crap he had to deal with affect his play? Maybe a future conditional pick would be the way to satisfy both sides?

How would you rate this certainty vs the certainty that there was no way Wagner would come here? Dang, Heinicke at 9mil? Yikes. I mean, I still have a bit of a soft spot for him, but that’s way too much dough IMO. Good for him hanging around and earning… for now anyway.

Yeah, that’s fair enough - BPA and need should line up nicely for us at some combo of those other positions. And to further your point, analytically it makes more sense to go after pricier positions in the draft as well as taking advantage of deeper position groups. With all of that said, I won’t at all be surprised if they wind up taking a backer at some point. As I said, learning behind Wagner is huge, and it’s a position that often takes some time. And of course there’s the appeal of ST play.

I’ve maintained that we needed at least a capable vet added, framing that guy as a Pringle/Crowder type… so I’m right there with you, particularly with the depth of the wr draft class. I do get the appeal of adding a good x or z though. To me, our current needs are something like this: Tier 1: LT Tier 2: corner, TE Tier 3: DE (a plus pass rusher), FS, outside receiver, RT/swing tackle, LG Tier 4: depth at linebacker, wr, oline, and corner

With Wagner on a 1 year deal and Jamin in his 4th, I think it still makes a lot of sense to draft a backer, particularly having them learn behind an All Pro. But yes, definitely less of a need now. Your idea in terms of Brooks is an interesting one for sure. This suggests you think Davis is worth a 2nd (a high 2nd) in terms of trade value? Yeah, I think edge is less necessary now, but considering the one year deals and the fact we don’t have a high end pass rushing edge, I think there’s a pretty good chance we still go that route somewhere on day 2. Awful lot of possibilities regarding OT (though it’s going to be challenging to really excel at addressing it). Signing Smith or whoever, trading up, taking one in the 2nd, taking one of the more ‘tweener’ OTs and starting them off at guard, taking more of a developmental guy a bit later (after a trade back in the 2nd or in the 3rd), etc. And of course I wonder about re-signing Lucas…