philibusters

Did we ever figure out if the blown coverage was Curl or St. Juste? If it was a standard coverage it would have been on Curl, if it was an inverted coverage it would have been on St. Juste.

Short term, you probably downgraded LT (I don't know much about Morgan--but the odds are as a rookie he would be a slight downgrade to Charles Leno, even if he ends up being a solid starter eventually), Jonah Williams is probably about the same as Wylie, maybe a slight upgrade, but that is close. Wylie is an upgrade at LG over the combo of Shaddiq Charles/Chris Paul. Likewise I don't know much about Sedrick Van Purn. Our Center play has been worse than our LT play this year, so its possible you get could get an upgrade, but you could also get a push or a slight downgrade, its difficult to project with rookies. Overall long term that O-Line is set up better, but short term, not that is not a big upgrade if its upgrade at all.

If Howell was 6'4 he would see the middle of the field easier, probably process that area of the field slightly faster, and probably would have been a 1st round pick. I agree 4 inches makes a significant difference.

I understood the point the poster made but was also surprised they lumped Lawrence and Fields together. Lawrence struggled as rookie, but he very good the second half of last season and this season so far. But I can see how you remember hearing talk from say mid-last season that Lawrence really hasn't hit yet and remember that and not realize he took off the second half of last year and played well this year.

At times it was fun to watch, but less so the last few weeks.

I have been and still am pro-Howell. The one thing that annoyed me that some of the extreme Howell fans did was they refused to acknowledge that he was a big part of the huge amount sacks we have given up. I have been pro-Howell, while acknowledging that he has his faults and there are things he needs to improve. Where I have clashed with other pro-Howell people specifically though is on the sacks. This is a normal bad O-Line. They are probably not bottom 5 in the NFL, though they are pretty clearly below the mid point mark amongst O-Lines. Clearly not all the sacks are on Howell, but a decent portion of them are. Its a truism that got put into my head listening to NFL podcasts the last few years that sacks are generally more of a QB stat than O-Line stat (though obviously the stat reflects on both to some degree). So coming into this year that was already a strong belief in me that QB's have a big part of the sack total. So maybe its the religious zealot side of me that does not like a foundational belief to be questioned, but it annoys me that some of the fan base is putting the entire sack issue on the O-Line.

I kind of want Terry to get his 1000 yard season

Yeah, I don't know what the analytics say but I could see a strategy of signing solid LB'ers in free agency (TJ Edwards--good but not top of the market money) and drafting LB'ers late in the 5th or 6th every two out of three years or something like that being a good strategy. I think we probably made a mistake letting Cole Holecomb go. He signed a 3 year 18 million dollar deal but only 5 million of it was guaranteed (on the 5 million dollar signing bonus was guaranteed--though the odds they would have cut him before this season, which he had a 2.7 million dollar salary for were low).

Chad Ryland. A lot on the board are going to be familiar with him because he kicked for Maryland his last year of college (transferred from EMU). He was a good college kicker, not having a good year, but yeah, don't spend more than a 7th rounder on a kicker unless its a generational kicker, which Ryland wasn't. There is a certain amount of variability with kickers. Ryland could end up being decent in time, but I don't think he is a stud. Kicking is a bit like golf. One day you may be 10 over par (which is a very good day for you) and the next day 23 over par which is a bad day for you. I feel like Ryland had a pretty good last year of college and maybe is playing at the low end of variability, but I do agree that spending a 4th round pick on him shows a lack of judgement because it shows a lack of understanding that kickers have more variability than other positions.

It looks like I misremembered. It appears 6'0 and 5/8ths was the official measurement.

Campbell has been up and down. The modern NFL offenses really put a lot of stress on LB'ers and you should expect a learning curve. Is Campbell a good player--no, not really. Is he as good as Jamin Davis in year 3. Probably not, I give Jamin Davis a slight edge, but he is better than Davis was in year 1 and probably close to Davis in year 2. Its tough to take a LB in round 1 just because the learning curve for that position is steeper than some others, so it may take an extra year to develop that player. Where a WR is in year 2 is where a LB will be in year 3 for example, so you waste a year of their rookie contract. In terms of whether the Lions should have taken Jalen Carter at pick 6 or whether they did well to trade down from 6 to 12 to take Gibbs and use the extra pick they got to take Sam LaPorta, it comes down to Carter vs. Gibbs and LaPorta. I think LaPorta arguably has the most impressive season. Jalen Carter came out on fire with 24 pressures in the first 6 games, but in the last 9 games he only has 15 pressures and looks more like a mid level starter. I think ultimately Carter will be a pro bowl stud and if I just had to pick one of the 3 players, due to positional value, he is the guy I would take. That said its a close call between Carter vs. LaPorta and Gibbs and that is not even really factoring the off field issue with Carter and the car accident.

I feel like the Rams played the type of game, where we could have stolen a win if we played one of our better games. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you think of it from a draft positioning angle) we did not play a particularly game. Defense gave up an easy TD on a coverage bust, gave up a fg on a botched snap on a punt and gave one point on botched extra point snap, if you were ranking Howell's game 1-14 for the 14 games he played this year, yesterday probably ranks 9th or 10th. Turnovers were not an issue but he simply missed (by not seeing them) more open receivers yesterday than typical. 80%+ of the time if you win the turnover battle by two you will win the game. I felt the Rams were beatable, they are the definition of a middle of the pack team. Better than us, but beatable especially if the turnover battle goes our way. Not an impressive effort from our guys this year. In terms of draft position, that is a good thing though.

Howell is 6 feet and 3/8ths of an inch. He got officially measured at the combine, so there is a definite answer for that one.

Either QB could win next week, but if we win next week, I doubt its because the offense goes off. More likely the Jets struggle to score against us and turn it over once or twice. The Jets offense is not good, but their defense is probably a top 5 defense .

Today didn't change my perception of Howell much. I still like him, but am interested in 3 QB's (Williams, Maye, and Daniels) if available. All in all, I am still happy with Howell this season. Likewise I still think he has to get rid of the ball quicker. I think sacks are more of a QB stat than O-Line stat (though its close between the two) and I think Howell is just a little slow with his reads. But a bad day doesn't change the picture. I am still starting Howell next week if I am the coach without any second thought. Thats part of it. The other part of it was our interior gets pushed back. We need more size back there.

I don't know if I completely agree that the Chargers were that far away from being a contender with Herbert. The last two weeks they have not had Herbert and got outscored 24-7 and 63-21 and -59 point differential. With Herbert they were 5-7, but had a positive 17 point differential meaning they were a little bit better than their record indicated. I don't think this Chargers team was really that different from teh teams that went 10-7 and 9-8 the past couple years, I think this team was just losing close games. That said the last couple weeks they have collapsed and the difference between Herbert and Stick doesn't explain a lot of what happened the past couple weeks. I think the team kind of gave up

Sure, but we are talking about how attractive a job is to a GM or coach candidate. They are going to assume that they are going to get it right.

I disagree. Just tear down the roster for a year. Eat a lot of deadcap and just be really bad for a year. Then next offseason your cap situation is a lot better, you have a really high pick where you can get a bluechip prospect or trade down and get an extra first rounder. Where the Chargers run into problems is if they feel they have to compete every year rather than rebuild. I think they should rebuild and the rebuild should be a lot easier because they already have the QB.

To me the number 1 that you have to have to build a consistent contender is a franchise QB. Justin Herbert is a franchise QB in my opinion. If you have a franchise QB, you will get consistent surplus value out of that position, which will make rebuilding easier.

I may have completed missed it, but Monty Rice was released a couple weeks ago, I wonder why we didn't put a waivers claim on him. He is not the LB fans fantasize about, but my impression of him is he would have been the third best LB on this team behind Jamin Davis and Cody Barton. The Saints got him off waivers and we would have likely been a few spots ahead of them in the waiver order. Maybe if Davis and Barton were both healthy I could see passing, but with Davis out, he would be nice to have. Granted I do understand its near the end of the year, so by the time he learns the defense, there may be a game or two left, which won't be meaningful for us, so they may have just thought what was the point.

I agree with the top two in the ranking: the Bears and the Chargers. How he ranked 3-10, I would change up quite a bit. Atlanta doesn't seem desirable because it seems like the type of job where you stay mediocre for a while because you are expected to compete right away with a decent roster that is lacking a potential franchise QB. If they trade for Justin Fields, you can certainly make the playoffs with that roster, but you are probably looking at 10-7 or 9-8. The roster is solid, not great, and no QB, and because you'll likely be picking in the middle of the 1st round, it won't necessarily be easy to get that QB to build around. I don't think New England is attractive. Its a complete rebuild, which some potential coaches may like, but you have very little to work with on offense in your first couple years and you are taking over a defense that has a lot of older good players (though unlike the offense it has more young good players too) where it is going to be tough for it to meet the production it had under Belichick. One nice thing about New England is you should have the pick to get your QB this draft. Possibly QB 2 in a strong QB draft. Maybe it is the homer in me, but I would probably put the Commanders third. The homer in my says Josh Harris will be an involved owner but not domineering which is fairly ideal and we likely either have a young QB on the roster already or will have a high enough pick to get QB 3 in what looks to be a pretty solid draft class.

Because of the covid year not counting it feels like some of those QB's have been around for a long time. For example it will be Dillon Gabriel's 6th year and because he took over as a starter at UCF as a true freshman due to injury like I actually remember him from that 2019 season. He'll have 3 years at UCF, 2 at OU, and 1 at Oregon. However, because he was an 18 year old true freshman (rather than 19 or even some true freshman are 20), he'll only be 23 for his senior year season, and 24 as a rookie, not that unusual because there have always been 5th year seniors who started out as 19 year old true freshmen. It will likewise be Grayson McCall's 6th year. Unlike Dillon Gabriel he didn't play much as a true freshman so he wasn't on my radar until the 2020 season when he took over as a starter. Also like Gabriel he was a 18 year true freshman, so he'll only be 23 next year and 24 as a rookie. But yeah I remember this board discussing BYU vs. Coastal Carolina in 2020 where everybody was scouting two potential future pros in Zach Wilson and McCall... https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401237514 We are two years away I think from being done with players who got a 6th year because of the covid year. In some weird way I am kind of looking forward to that because I feel like its tough to evaluate 24 year old men against mostly 19 to 21 year old competitors.

I cannot even remember the last time a franchise QB let a top 8 or so QB in their prime go (either via trade or free agency). The closest thing I can remember off the top of my head is Kirk Cousins (and he was not considered a top 8 QB, though he was probably considered top 16---and we turned a first round pick from the 49'ers)

They define true pass sets as pass plays that are not screens, playaction, rollouts... https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-true-pass-sets-and-their-importance-to-player-evaluation I am don't know how much the teams pay for their services but I am guessing it is a lot. That said teams get a lot of stuff casual fans don't. For example, lets say a player with 400 snaps has 47 plays graded at 1+ points or -1 points. The rest are graded at 0, .5, or -5. I think teams can filter and only watch the plays graded at 1 or more or -1 or less when say looking at a college prospect. They also provide a lot about team tenedencies. How much coverage a defense plays in this situation vs. another. Same for offense. There is no doubt that PFF has done well since Chris Collinsworth bought a majority stake (in 2014), but because they were one of the first analytical companies selling data to teams (they started in 2006) some of their statute was just being first to game which predates Collinsworth.

Kam Curl is a good player, but he doesn't make splash plays in coverage. He ran a 4.60 at the NFL combine. He plays smart in coverage and part of playing smart if you lack speed is to understand you don't have the speed to get out of position. Thus he tends to be a fairly dependable but not great coverage player. As a run defender, he is very good for a safety, possibly a top 10 or so run defender amongst safeties in the NFL. That said splash plays are made by safeties in coverage--not in run defense. A fair deal for Curl would be something in the 3 year 40 million dollar deal.