skinny21

Wagner, Luvu, Jamin, coached by Ken Norton Jr, with Payne and Allen playing in front of them, in a Quinn/Whitt defense… I mean, if that doesn’t get you excited… To your point though - having guys want to coach/play for us is such a massive breath of fresh air. Who knows how it plays out in totality, but it’s sure looking like Quinn was the right pick for the job.

Not that I have any clue, but to me a few different things totally screwed BSJ: 1) bouncing between zone, man, back to zone, and then zone match over the past 3 years, 2) losing Harris prior to the latest transition in coverage style (and replacing Harris with a very questionable choice), 3) injuries to Cam and Forrest, as well as the departure of McCain, and 4) the lack of a pass rush this year. I also have to wonder if the defense as a whole playing historically poorly had an affect on the players. Not in terms of giving up, but little things like forcing things, not trusting your help, etc. I definitely wouldn’t assume any of these guys will play well going forward though, in terms of roster decisions, but I could certainly see it happening with better coaching/surrounding talent. In terms of my level of trust/faith, Forrest and Quan are the only two guys I definitely want to have a path to a starting role… though even for them I think it makes sense to bring in competition.

Generally speaking, I’m with you in that I think the best odds are that Mariota is going to be our backup this year. But you also kind of make my point - Mariota might be penciled in as the backup, but I don’t think it’s in pen yet… especially if his contract doesn’t have much/any guaranteed money (hence my previous post starting with that question). Howell is much more of an unknown to the staff, so it makes sense to bring in a guy you trust/know that you know/believe can ably fill the backup role. I know it’s a different situation (nowhere near apples to apples), but to me, in terms of mindset, it’s a little like us bringing in Fowler as our #3 DE. We have Henry/Jones on board, and it’s possible one of them can jump Fowler on the depth chart, but the staff wasn’t ready to make the assumption those two would fit the role because they haven’t worked with them or seen enough on tape to be sure about them. On a slight tangent, the reason I’d hold onto Howell for now (not trading him for a 5th or less) - he’s got a lot of plus factors: arm talent, toughness, mobility, etc, as well as putting some good things on tape (along with a lot of bad) - he was in a horrendous situation - this offense may well be right in his wheelhouse - the statement SIP always mentions about Arians not knowing what you have until they’re in the building… if I were Peters, Quinn, or Kliff, I’d be curious what Howell’s like in terms of intangibles - ability to learn, processing speed, etc. On a bigger tangent, I’m really curious about how Peters meeting with Howell played out…

Is Mariota’s money guaranteed? I mean, I’m not pretending to know what happens with Howell, but surely the options are open at this point… Howell and Mariota compete for the backup job and the loser is cut/traded. They compete, but we still carry 3 qbs into the season. We trade Howell pre or post draft. We trade Howell in-season once a qb goes down with injury. Howell starts the year as the rookie (we presumably draft at 2) gets ready. We trade out of #2 (this one’s highly doubtful IMO) and Howell/Mariota (and maybe a later pick) duke it out. I get what it looks like though, so certainly not saying I think you’re wrong. However, if I’m putting myself in Peters/Quinn’s shoes, especially given how other areas are being addressed, I want competition everywhere, including backup qb. And I’m not making a decision about that competition until I have to - whether that’s roster cut-down day, or if someone offers me a reasonable/good deal for Howell. My one caveat is if I’m worried about Howell’s presence somehow undermining the qb selected. That’s an easy fix though in my mind - you throw your unconditional support behind the rookie, both in words and actions. Gonna be interesting to see it play out. My hunch is Howell has some admirers around the league and we deal him for more than a 5th during the draft, but who knows.

I’m patting myself in the back for wondering whether we might bring in a MLB earlier…😁

Indeed. I just wonder about the sample size of his film… if they went back to 2022, they might have a better feel for him. Of course, they have analytics (to some extent) and our pro scouts are still on board.

If we land a FA OT, corner and WR, we don’t have to force anything in the draft, which would be pretty amazing. OT will still be a weaker link of course, as well as TE. I think we wind up taking a TE fairly high - Sanders/Sinnot/Stover either after a trade back in the 2nd or with our early 3rd. I envision 1 OL, WR, TE and a defensive player (likely corner, edge or ILB) in rds 2/3. And if we do trade back in the 2nd, maybe we land a mid-late 3rd and wind up with as many as 5 guys on day 2. That’d be crazy.

Some random thoughts - I kind of assumed we’d try to carry ~20mil into the season, both for in-season moves and to have plenty of roll-over, but the short term deals allow us to spend further then I’d been thinking. Point being, take our current ~55mil, subtract 10 for rookies and ~10 for an in-season cushion, and we have about 35mil remaining to spend on FA. I think @Going Commando is right in that we should at least look to add an interesting rotation piece at DT. Mathis and Ridgeway haven’t shown much, and they could use some competition. Being able to rest Allen/Payne more often to get more out of them makes sense to me. With that said, my understanding is that Armstrong can play inside and out to a degree. Might be a spot we wait to see what the draft brings and then look back at FA if needed. Kind of wonder if the staff focused on watching last year’s film, might they have a skewed perspective on Forrest? Speaking of Forrest, he’s one of a handful of guys I’m hopeful will still have a path to earn a starting gig. Quan, Stromberg, Henry, and to some extent St Juste and Forbes fall in this category for me as well. I’d still make sure they have healthy competition though (as they’ve done at DE). Of course at corner, I expect them to add at least one starter and probably another guy that can compete. Maybe it pushes St Juste and/or Forbes down to corner #4 or 5, but they would still wind up seeing time. I mentioned it before, but I wonder if we bring in another starting caliber backer like Jewell. In base, Luvu at Will, Jewell at MLB and Davis as the SLB. In nickel, Luvu or Jamin move up as a DE, and they can either rush or drop with a back 7 player rushing. Regardless, I anticipate a lot of moving around for Luvu, Quan, and maybe Forrest/Chinn/Davis.

I assume you’re right, though I suppose I have no idea really. To be clear though, I wasn’t saying to only carry/coach 2 young guys. Shanahan had Grossman along with Robert and Kirk. I would add that we’re in sort of a unique position having the combo of an assistant qb coach that was just playing, a qb coach, and a pass game coordinator that was very recently coaching qbs… but it’s a moot point with Mariota added to the fold. I have no idea what’s going to happen next. Maybe Howell gets traded, maybe Mariota winds up just a camp body for us, maybe we carry 3 qbs. Tempted to add that we might even trade down and only carry Howell/Mariota (just in the interest of being thorough) but that’s a crazy long shot, virtually guaranteed not to happen IMO.

This is one thing I keep coming back to - just psychologically speaking, teaching 2 guys at the same level could potentially make a big difference. I’m reminded of Whitt talking about having a separate meeting for young guys so they feel like they can speak up more than they might around veterans. Not saying it’s necessarily the ideal route, but I can see a benefit for sure.

Yep. I see us picking up a couple of cheaper vets, maybe one guy like Gilmour and one younger guy that maybe hasn’t really broken out yet (but likely has proven themselves on ST). Then the draft probably brings 1 or even 2 more, though they won’t (or shouldn’t) be pressed into starting anytime soon.

I’ll be sad to see Howell go if he does. Tough, mobile, hard worker, lot of arm talent, improved his footwork quite a bit (though I’m betting that backslid last year). Put in crap circumstances last year, but still showed some good things, including not getting rattled and some nice 2 minute drills. And of course now we have a staff about to run a system that should fit him and hopefully a beefed up oline (and weapons). I’d take him and his potential over many/most other non high end starters in the league, and even over some of those guys that are about to age out, even if it’s just to trade him next year. To be fair though, I have questions about his processing and high sack rate. Worth rolling the dice that he can improve on that front IMO, but I’ll understand if he winds up getting traded… I’ll add that I think it would be dumb for draft status to reflect in his value… though I’d expect inquiring teams to bring it up, lol. Edit: Regarding the “crap circumstances”, it’s not just the play calling, imbalance, lack of protection, the horrendous defense, etc, it’s also that defenses knew we were going to pass, knew we had to get the ball out quick, and so could sit on the short stuff and not really worry about playing the run. Almost the ultimate ‘set up to fail’ conditions for any qb, but exponentially so more for an inexperienced one in an unfamiliar system IMO.

I’m a fan of Fuller, but wonder about his fit in this D. I also think some combo of younger/cheaper/short term deal might be a big part of the calculus - IIRC, he’s one of the higher ranked FA corners.

You could well be right, but we know who Jones is at this point, Howell has a lot more upside IMO. Gonna respond more fully in the qb thread though…

Feel like the minimum is like 89 or 90% over two years? If I’m right (big if), 10% is 25 mil this year, and the same next year if the cap holds (~50mil over two years). Suggests to me that if you hold onto 40mil this year, you could only hold onto 10mil in the second year.

I wonder about the idea of bringing in an(other) ILB with Luvu playing more of a WLB role and Jamin used situationally, maybe even as more of a SLB? Never would have considered this, but for some reason Marcus Washington popped into my head earlier and I could see Jamin matching that style of play. I know Luvu got some experience at MLB and with the green dot, but not sure that’s his best fit, wonder about he and Jamin overlapping roles/skill sets, we could use more depth, we might want another starting backer for “base” D, and Jamin might not be around much longer. Could just as easily see being content just bringing in a rookie (along with a pure STer/depth type).

Up to now, I wanted no part of Chase Young. With Ferrell in the fold though, I think I’d be ok bringing Chase in on a cheap, 1 year deal letting him sub in for Ferrell as a situational rusher (ala Clowney over the past few years). Takes the leadership/culture/tone-setting off his plate - let him deal with humbling himself as he works to earn a long term contract (elsewhere, lol).

I think the term is indeed being used in reference to his draft status, so I can see the logic on that front. JMO though. 3 of my favorite safeties in the draft over the last several years were FAs this cycle - Byard, Savage and Chinn. Bummed the former two (especially Byard) are gone. But there’s still Chinn!

Yeah, beside swing tackle, I didn’t (and maybe should have) included depth. We’ll sign a bunch of cheaper guys, though I doubt they affect our top 51/53 too much.

Not against calling him a reclamation project, but I’m reminded of Quinn/Whitt talking about finding what guys do well and using them to their strengths. Ferrell’s gonna be setting some edges in the run game for sure.

10ish mil for rookie class, and I’m guessing they’ll wanna hold onto 20+mil for in-season moves and to roll into next year. Maybe earmark some money for a Cosmi extension? Still gives them 30 or so to play around with. OT, possibly/likely a swing OT, safety and corner left to sign.

Dang, Goff with 9 out of 44 games in which his D didn’t get a turnover. Meanwhile Howell with 7 out of ~ 16?

Man, I thought it was obvious: this proves Heinicke is the 8th best qb in the league 😜

Amen. The good news is that we’ll be very active in FA. Might not be a bunch of studs, but we’ll land starting caliber players at most spots IMO. And FA lines up pretty well for several of our needs - ILB, DE, S, C and there are some decent G options. I think picks 2.4 to 3.2 are going to be really interesting, because 1) to your point, those defensive positions could fall favorably to the 2nd rounders, and perhaps guard and ILB to the early 3rd. The question becomes where does OT come in, and what about wr, TE, and a 3rd down back? My hunch, as of now, is we sign a 2 OTs* (one as a swing tackle), a G, a C, a corner or two, a safety, an ILB and 2 DEs, most of them decent starter level talent. Probably a cheaper wr (ala Crowder/Pringle), a STer, and maybe a back. Frees us up to either draft OT at 2.4 or trade back if our favorite OTs are gone, hit OT and wr in round 2, and then some combo of ILB/TE/corner/DE/G/RB in rds 3-5. *Unless we sign a FA OT that can play on both sides, then maybe we just sign 1? This is the one position I have trouble seeing us address at least adequately, through no fault of the FO. Tangent off that - as lacking as the roster is, the good news is that we have 1) young rbs, corners, safeties and DEs that have gotten some pretty serious experience (Dotson too), 2) a FO that will surround them with talent/experience and veteran leadership, and 3) quality coaches that can hopefully up their game.

My guess… If Maye is the general consensus to go to us #2, then I think it becomes the “safe” pick in terms of perception. If Maye doesn’t work out, oh well, we took our shot. If Peters were to trade down and either Maye or Daniels (or both) become franchise guys, Peters will get a lot of flak… presuming he doesn’t find our franchise guy by some other avenue. If he trades up for Williams and Maye and/or Daniels outperform him, Peters probably catches some serious flak as well. So someone that isn’t an enamored with Maye might feel like Peters is taking a risk, but they can at the same time believe that big picture it’s probably the least risky move for Peters’ job security. I think it’s semi-analogous to the idea that signing Kirk is a “safe move” in terms of giving us a high floor (and job security), but risky if we’re shooting for a Super Bowl. Of course there’s a lot more nuance to that conversation.