philibusters

He was technically a safety in college, though he played a majority of snaps in the slot. His run grade was a 91 last year and coverage grade was a 66. He gave up 42 receptions for 611, which is a lot, albeit, without knowing the scheme its hard to put that number in context. He is a versatile guy in coverage, he can cover the slot, play deep, play outside corner if need be, or play in the box and because of his versatility we should be able to disguise what he is doing. But he was not an elite coverage in college. In terms of the pick, I would have taken an O-Lineman, but I think Martin will be fine

Today's was Martin's first day. Should be interesting how he looks in coverage as that is his weakness.

I was in the same boat. With hindsight, people are going to ask, how could you have been excited for Haskins. But I thought the last 3 or 4 games of 2019 he played reasonably well (albeit against weak competition). He came out pretty meh to start the 2020 season, but honestly he wasn't truly terrible. The offense was stalling, but he wasn't turning over the ball. I think if he had been a better worker, he probably would have had a longer leash in 2020.

Like you, at some point I was excited about Shuler, Frerotte, Ramsey, Campbell, Beck, Haskins, Heincke, and Wentz. And none of them ended up being good QBs. A few of them didn't reallly ever flash anything (Shuler, Beck, Wentz), but guys like Frerotte, Ramsey, Campbell all showed some flashes where after seeing them play, I wanted to see more. None of them developed into a franchise QB, but none of them were terrible. And that may end up being the most likely scenario for Howell. He flashes some, but is just okay. He ends up a serviceable starter, but not a franchise guy. But its the time of year where hope is in the air, so fingers crossed.

How do you figure Wylie is better than Leno. Wylie probably is a better run blocker, but Leno seems significantly better as a pass blocker.

I think GM's and coaches are incentivized to be too conservative when it comes to young QB's. Ron is actually being quite bold with Sam Howell. Generally speaking if you draft a QB high, the GM and coach will have their jobs ride on the success of the QB. Most of the times its difficult to survive a QB flop. Realistically your team has to still be winning for you to avoid getting fired if you commit to a QB and they flop bladly. Joe Douglas for the NY Jets may survive Zach Wilson, but they went 9-8 in year 2 of Wilson despite Wilson flopping. Likewise in San Fran with John Lynch missing on Trey Lance. 80% of the time if a QB flops your GM and coach are going to get fired. I think the Raiders, Titans (at 11), the Commanders, Patriots, and Bucs should all seriously have considered drafting Will Levis. I am not saying we definitely should have because to do so would be to some extent be giving up on Howell and if this staff really believes in Howell they should back him. But in general if you don't have a QB you should draft the best QB available and if that QB flops, ownership should be patient if it appears the GM and coach are doing a decent job otherwise. A QB failure should not lead to a firing even if the team disappoints because of the QB flop. To me an idea owner should tell the GM and coach, get me a good QB, make a good plan and come to me with the plan so I can approve or not approve it. If I approve it and it doesn't work, I will back you. Now if this happens like 3 times, I am probably going to fire you, but if you miss once and I signed off on it, I am not going to fire you as long as you are doing a good job other than the QB (and that includes making moves for the long term benefit of the organization rather than always trying to win now).

I think I see a bigger role for the owner than you guys. For me, the owner should have a say in the big picture plans for the roster. Do I want to get younger, do I want to tear the roster and start over, continue to do everything I can to win now, or take a middle approach, how important is a championship to me-- do I want to put in all my chips for maybe a 2 window and do I want to build a consistent winner than can make the playoffs 8 out of 10 years. And most big roster moves like resigning your highest paid guys are going to touch on those areas and are the owners decision in my opinion. I think GM's and coaches are often bad at doing those big picture things. They usually want to win now because it is their only hope of job security. I think GM's tend to see themselves as the top scout in organizations and often will disregard process for their gut. That is not to say all GM and coaches are bad at these big picture items, but a lot are. To me the owner makes the plan and the GM and coach are the technical experts who carry out the plan.

The rumors that I picked up from podcasts are that Nick Caserio wanted to draft Will Anderson with the second pick. He wasn't sold on any of Stroud, Levis, or Richardson. Ownership pushed him somewhat against to will to pick a QB. They didn't dictate which QB he had to pick, but told him to pick a QB. As a way to make everybody happy, ownership then let Caserio trade up to #3 to draft Anderson at the cost of pick 12 in 2023, pick 34 in 2023, Houston's first round pick in 2024 (likely a top 10 pick), and Houston's third round pick in 2024. Just rumors, but it does sound plausible.

What is your take on what happened in Houston with the draft. Supposedly the GM was not sold on Stroud (or any of Stroud, Richardson, or Levis), but ownership wanted to take a QB, so they took Stroud, but then traded up (and probably paid too much) for the third pick to take the GM's preferred player. I put that on the GM myself. To me a QB offseason decision is a big picture decision that is in the owner's portfolio of decision making and when he overruled the GM, the GM just needs to accept it. I thought they way overpaid for the third pick and I put that on the GM.

I actually think you could get a decent haul for Chase Young. That said, Kevin Cole on Unexpected Points made the point on one of his podcasts, now not the time to maxmize your return in a trade. You can get more after a player gets injured and there is an immediate need on a contender or alternatively if a team that wasn't expected to be a contended is better than expected and is suddenly a contender. You usually get more in return once the season starts. Right now teams are as happy with their projected 53 as they are likely going to be. Injuries will happen and a certain amount of players just won't be as good as they were hoping. Chase Young was a blue chip prospect. There hasn't been as good of a DE prospect in any of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 drafts. When he has played, he has been a good run defender (run defense grades of 80.4, 84.5, and 73.9. He hasn't been as good as a pass rusher, but not bad. 79.2 as a rookie, then 71.2 in 2021 (he only had one sack in 8 games though he had one sack called back against Atlanta on a bs unnecessary roughness call so that would have been 2, but he had 24 pressures, so he was getting 3 pressures a game) and 62.8 in three games as a rotational player in 2022 (he actually had 7 pressures in those 3 games--so he got 2 pressures a game). He has been a good player. Given his blueblood pedigree I think you could potentially get a first rounder for him. Even if you traded him now in the offseason when trade values for players are down, you could possibly get the 2nd and 4th somebody mentioned as a hypothetical. I think people are underselling how Chase Young is viewed throughout the league. As a corollary, if you want to trade for a player, now is the time to do it--after the draft, but before camps start. Players have arguably their lowest values right now.

I like Quan Martin enough, but when I go back to this draft, that pick is where I struggle to agree with the reasoning. We needed O-Line for that second pick and we had four good options available. The ubertalented, but terrible attitude Dawand Jones, O'Cyrus Torrence, Cody Mauch, and Jon Michael Schmitz. Instead we went with Quan Martin. Maybe he is the best player of those 5. But even if he is, after taking Forbes in the first round and geting Cameron Dantzler, O-Line was a bigger need than DB. Further Nickel backs are not that expensive in free agency. You can get a player like Bobby McCain for for 4 million. Whereas getting even a cheaper Tackle is going to cost you 8 million or so per year and getting a cheaper guard would be around 6 million per year. We picked a player at a position where we can get somebody in free agency a bit cheaper and thus the surplus from the draft pick will be cheaper. Plus with hindsight we know slot corners fell pretty hard in this draft so there were lots of options available on day 3. Now if Quan Martin balls out and is an clear upgrade of McCain, I will like the pick. But if he is plays at a Bobby McCain level, but just provides a little bit more versatility, it was a bad pick because you can get a proven guy in free agency to do that fairly cheaply. And we missed a good opportunity to upgrade our O-Line.

Don't know what game you watched for McCarthy, but overall he was a mild disappointment for Michigan. He just had too many clunkers. That said he has physical tools and he had a handful of really good games. He was only a RS Freshman last year, so we'll see if he cuts down on the amount of clunkers he has and is more consistently good or whether the inconsistency persists.

Don't forget Dantzler. He has a three year sample size, where he has started about half the games in those three years for the Vikings and the indications are that he is a servicable starter/high end backup. In three seasons, in which he palyed 505, 685, and snaps he has had PFF coverage grades of 64.7, 67.6, and 69.8. Those numbers are somewhat similar to St Juste (actually a tiny bit better--who for example had a coverage grade of 60 last year in his second year) who most of us are still high on. Though with the two Mississppi St. guys in Forbes and Dantzler we have a bit of a type. Dantzler measured in at 6'2 188 pounds at the combine which was considered very slight and meant he would probably do best in an off coverage system like ours, much like Forbes. Despite being in the league for three years, Dantzler is only 24 because he came into the league at age 21. He is a full year younger than St. Juste despite being in the league one more year.

I am still on the Rivera train and would like to see him back in 2024, but I agree this offseason was disappointing in the sense we didn't address two of our three most obvious needs strongly. Yes they did make moves with the O-Line bringing in Andrew Wylie and Nick Gates, but neither guy really moves the needle and Gates has been injured each of the past two years. They also let Schweitzer go which didn't make sense to me (though getting rid of Turner, Norwell, and Roullier did make sense). And while the guys they got in the draft could develop into starters, they had a shot in the second round to grab either of Dawand Jones or O'Cyrus Torrence and passed on both and to get a nickel back. Then they passed on Jones again in the third. And while I think Quan Martin will likely be starter quality, there is a possibility he is available at 97. One of the podcasts I listen to mentioned that one of the themes of the draft was nickle corners went late starting with Brian Branch falling all the way to 45, but then lots of other nickel players fell like Antonio Johnson I think to the 5th and Anthony Johnson Jr. to the 7th so even if Quan Martin is not there at 97 which is a real possibility there were decent options in the 5th, 6th, and 7th rounds for players who could play that role. Then the other position they failed to address was LB. They let Cole Holcomb go and bring in Cody Barton. It can definitely be argued that is a lateral move, but to the extent the move is an up or down move, it probably was a down move for the unit. There have been a couple decent options that were fairly cheap at LB that signed else already (see link below) and now our options seem fairly limited. So I agree its been a lackluster (though not terrible offseason) https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/inside-linebacker/

I feel like he is a high floor guy. His floor to me is a solid rotational piece. I would be disappointed if he is at a Shaka Toney or William Bradley King level (fighting for one of the last roster spots). To me, his floor is likely in the range of a James Smith Williams and Efe Obada. On the other hand, he is 24 years old not a domnant athlete. He does have some starter upside, but maybe not high end starter upside.

The 2023 draft was kind to the Terps with 5 players getting drafted after only having 2 players drafted in each of the previous two years. 2024 likely won't be as kind as I think it will be another year where maybe only two Terps get drafted, but they do have some decent players, and you never know who will have a breakthrough year. My first of what will probably be a couple summary of the prospects from teh University of Maryland. All of these guys are draft eligible, not all will have exhausted their eligibility after the 2023 season so may go back to Maryland for 2024 1. Quarterback Taulia Tagovailoa: Undersized and below average arm by NFL standards (there are questions about his older brother Tua's throwing power and Tua has more throwing power than his younger brother). In terms of arm and mobility he is maybe comparable to a backup like Colt McCoy. He is accurate and very good in the quick game. Processes reads okay, but not particularly quick at getting through his read. Has decent anticipation but nothing special. 2. Running Back Roman Hemby: Had 989 yards on 188 carries. He likely will return to Maryland for the 2024 season as he will just be a RS Sophomore this upcoming season, but if he has a big year, he could declare early. He has a nice combo of power (contact balance) and homerun ability. 3. Tackle Gottlieb Ayedze: I don't know a ton about him as he just transferred into Maryland this spring from DII Frostburg St. where he was a first team All American DII player. The reports from spring camp was that he could be a decent Big 10 starter next year. Heard he was a good athlete. 4. Tackle DJ Glaze: Was Honorable Mention All Big 10 as a RS Sophomore this year. Took over a starting tackle spot midway through his RS Freshman season where he played really well. Definitely could return to Maryland for 2024, but he could declare early if he has a really good year. I thought he was the best O-Lineman on the Terps this year and two of his fellow O-Lineman ended up getting drafted (Jaelyn Duncan in the 6th round and Spencer Anderson in the 7th round). 5. WR Kaden Prather: A WVU transfer who had 676 receiving yards for WVU last year, he is a big body receiver 6'3 210 who got solid reviews during spring camp. 6. Cornerback Tarheeb Still: Will be a four year starter (if you consider the third corner a starter). He was the third corner for Maryland last year (Deonte Banks went in the first round and Jakorian Bennet in teh fourth round), but played 700 snaps (about half of them in the slot). Had a mildly disappointing season, but only mildly--with a 65 PFF grade (after having a 72 PFF grade in the previous year). With Banks and Bennett gone he'll likely be the top corner unless Sheppard (see below steps). 7. Cornberback Ja'Quan Sheppard: A transfer from the University of Cincinnati where he was a First Team All AAC player largely on the basis of the 5 interceptions he had. Despite being First Team All AAC, PFF didn't like him only giving him a 57.4 coverage grade. His stats are okay, was targeted 64 times and gave up 36 catches (57%) and had an impressive 5 interceptions. That said the interceptions may have masked average overall play. 8. Strong Safety Beau Brade: He is a guy I expect to return to Maryland in 2024, but as a RS sophomore starter last year he put together a solid season, earning Honorable Mention All Big 10 honors and a solid 73 PFF grade. I thought he was as good, maybe even slight better than the guy he replaced, Nick Cross who went to the Colts in the Fourth Round, though there are major differences between the two, for example, Cross ran a 4.36 40 yard dash at the combine, whereas Brade would likely be more like 4.56. But he is a good player. He is aggressive against the run--ocassionally that aggressiveness backfires but he makes plays. I was surprised by how many plays last year he made in coverage.

If I were in shoes of the new ownership, this would be my philosophy on building the franchise: 1. Have a plan to minimize the principal agent problem: The ownership, management, the coaching staff, and the fans all want to win. However everybody does have slightly different goals in addition to winning. The owner wants to turn a profit, management and the coaching staff want to keep their jobs, and the fans want long term success. I have been listening to a couple podcasts that have former General Managers as hosts: Thomas Dimitroff at the Sumer Sports Show and Rick Spielman over at CBS sports. After listening to them I am more and more convinced that the principal agent problem is very important for teams (and is closely related to my second point of avoiding short-termism). Management and the coaching staff had an interest in keeping their jobs and that creates two main areas where their interests deviate from ownership and fans. First management and coach are more short term thinking in terms of the management style. Especially if they are in year 3, 4, 5 and beyond, they are not going to want to make moves that are long term winners, but hurt the team in next year or two. You see that in how future draft picks are discounted severely. There is no reason a 2025 pick is worthless than a 2024 pick from a teambuilding standpoint. You are often talking about 25 to 30% discounts on next years draft picks. This short term thinking is about drafting immediate needs rather than drafting high value positions. Its about not front loading contracts during a rebuild that will allow you to sustain success as well long term. Second, management's desire to keep its job leads them to discourage diverging opinions. GM's and don't like it when scouts give opinions radically different from the consensus in the room. Management wants consensus because its give them a good argument that if things go wrong with the decision, they can say, there were no other viable realistic options, there was a strong consensus on the point. This is the collectivization of failure. That said the literature on the point indicates organizations make better decisions where they lots of competing views. Ownership can address these two divergences. In terms of short term thinking, ownership can really emphasize to management that their priority is long term planning and that they are being judged on that criteria. It also means giving management and the coaching staff some job security. In terms of encouraging diverging views, ownership can ask management for alternative plans, ask them them to present the opposing views. 2. Avoid short-termism: One of the more difficult parts of the NFL for me to understand as a fan is short termism. I would be trading this year's pick for future picks given the discount. I would focus on drafting the BPA at high value positions rather than filling needs in the draft (though obviously you are always doing a bit of both. During a rebuild before the team is a contender or when I had a QB on a rookie contract, I would be trying to frontload contracts of my highest paid guys, I would refuse to a pay top dollar for good players who are not elite (sorry Daron Payne) 3. Culture is important: An organization should have a professional culture where people understand good work and behavior is rewarded and bad behavior and inappropriate behavior is punished. The organization shouldn't play favorites. Synder often failed on this point. Ability to thrive in the relationship was based off personal relationships. People close to Synder behaved inappropriately and were not fired and disciplined. I do think on the football side of things, right now we have a good culture with Ron and Mayhew. Players understand if they buy into the team it will help their career not hurt. I think we are good on that front. The goal should be to build that kind of culture on the business side of the organization. 4. Trust your employees, but be well informed, and dictate the game plan: I have already made this point indirectly, but I think the ownership sets the game plan and then lets management execute the game plan. To me the Houston Texans had a disaster draft. The GM, Nick Caserio, was not convinced any of Stroud, Levis, or Richardson were franchise QB's. He wanted to draft Will Anderson, a very good draft pick, but probably a tier below Edge rusher like Chase Young, the Bosa's, and Myles Garrett. He was more in the Aiden Hutchison tier of Edge players. The problem is the owner wanted a QB, which is understandable, given that a QB can make a franchise. The problem is ownership did not set the game plan from the start. The owner needed to let Nick Caserio know from the start that the franchise was drafting a QB and set the gameplan immediately. Then let Caserio pick who he thought was the best QB. The result of not having that gameplan was that the Texans severely overpaid for the third pick. I would argue that pick 12, pick 34, and a second rounder next year is fair compensation for pick. Instead they traded pick 12, pick 34, next year's first rounder (lets say pick 8), a third rounder next year. So instead of giving them pick 40 next year (estimating they pick 8th), they gave them pick 8 and pick 78 next year. That is bad process and could have been avoided if ownership set the game plan from the start. An owner is not a technical expert. An owner should be wary of considering themselves an expert scout. But an owner is often in a much better position to game plan for an organization. An owner should dictate the game plan and the GM should execute the game plan. And of course management will have input into a game plan, much like players have input in the weekly game plan, but don't get final say on game planning.

With the unbalanced schedule (17 rather than 16 games) where we alternate between 8 and 9 home games per year, I think this will be more likely than it was in the past.

Will be interesting to see if any of the tryout guys get a camp spot

They would have to be able to move Murray to another team (maybe take a portion of his salary in a trade). If the they cut Murray after this season, they would have a 81 million deadcap hit. https://overthecap.com/player/kyler-murray/7792

Thats a good quote. One problem with the Constitutional Convention from a historian's point of view is that no notes were taking (with the idea of giving people more freedom to debate and act on their conscience). I do concede that in light of that quote, does go against the evidence on that point. Madison was the main drafter of the Constitution so a quote from him goes a long way. I do think we should scrap the electoral college. That said I do not see as politically feasible right now. In the past it has been politically feasible (as recently as the 1960's or 1970s I think) and it could be politically feasible in the future. However, right now with the electoral college clearly favoring Republicans and hurting Democrats we are in a situation where the vast majority of Republicans want to keep it and the vast majority of Democrats want to get rid of it and given that 75% of the states have to ratify any amendment, there is almost no chance the Democrats can get that many states behind it. So the practical side of me thinks even if I don't like it, its here to stay.

I don't think that is historically accurate. Slavery was an important issue at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, but it was not as dominant as it would become in the next 50 years. At the time Tobacco was dead as a cash crop, sugar was not suitable for most of the country as a cash crop, and the cotton gin would not be invented until 1793 so cotton was not a viable cash crop. I don't want to downplay the importance of slavery, the south was definitely moving in the direction of slavery becoming ever more important in the social structure, but without a cash crop, the process wasn't near as complete as it would so become. Further, there had never been a strong central gov't. If you asked somebody in 1786 what place they were a citizen of, they would have most likely told you the state they were from. At the time, states were the most important gov't and always had been. Our Constitution, which allowed for the creation of a much stronger national gov't, eventually changed that equation and now if I was in France and somebody asked me where I was from, I would say the United States, not Virginia, but back then it was different. The most analogous thing now, may be the EU. If you met somebody from Germany and asked you where they were from, they likely say Germany and not the EU, but things change slowly and certainly its possible that in 200 years the EU starts to overtake the individual countries in terms of precedence of identity.

I don't think parents have problems with schools implementing basic morality. For the sake of argument lets say 95% of morality is via consensus and 5% is disputed. I think most of the controversy is over that 5%. I think both sides want to control the narrative on that 5% but they go about it in different ways. On the right, where they are more likely to control the political processes and less likely to have a majority of teachers who hold their beliefs, they want to control the narrative via legislation and control from the top. On the left, where they are going to have a majority of teachers who hold their beliefs, they are more likely to let individual teachers do their thing and then argue teachers need a wide latitude of discretion if challenged on it.

I think he is going to be okay in the run game. He was good against the run in college. If he gets blocked, he is going to have problems. But that is true of most corners. I think he has good instincts and some ability to avoid blocks so he'll be alright. On the other hand, I worry about his durability. If he does get blocked by a TE or WR he is small and those blocks are going to take a toll.

I don't buy the argument that Howell is a rookie. Is Chris Paul, Christian Holmes, or Percy Butler rookies. They all played minimal roles last year. But yet I still think they will be quite a bit further along in year 2. Look at Derrick Forrest, he really only played special teams in year 1, but the coaches felt he made progress and he was a good role player in year 2. On the other hand, I do agree about your point about him not having to go against defenses that game planned for him. The Dallas game worked out really well so didn't have to throw it. That allowed Scott Turner to use a dumbed down game plan. I remember Logan Paulsen talking about the game afterwards and his point of caution is that over the course of the season Heincke and Wentz probably had 2/3rds of their dropbacks on plays where they potentially had to go through multiple reads and only 1/3rd where it was one read or check down or run, that ratio was flipped for Howell in his one start last year and a lot of that had to do with situational stuff and getting a big lead and the run game working. So he had 19 dropbacks but maybe 12 of them were one read plays, which is going to be easier for a player facing his first real action. But its not sustainable over the course of a season to have 2/3rds of your plays be those types of plays. You are going to be in third and long where you have receiving personnel and the other team knows you throwing for example.