2024 NFL Draft Position/Tracker - Final Pick #2

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

20 minutes ago, MrJL said:

Gates apparently doesn't think much of himself at guard from the statements I've seen

He should watch himself play center.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, method man said:

This is solid analysis. Just note you can designate Wylie and Gates as post June cuts and split the dead cap between this year and 2025 if you choose to do so. I think you’ll gave to do it with one of them ultimately, likely Gates.

We are 80 mil below the salary cap and not a contender. There is zero reason anyone should be a June 1 cut.

[method man]

5 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

We are 80 mil below the salary cap and not a contender. There is zero reason anyone should be a June 1 cut.

 

80 mil in cap goes way faster than you’d think

[Rufus T Firefly]

4 minutes ago, method man said:

 

80 mil in cap goes way faster than you’d think

If your idea of how this 4-13/5-12 team should go about team building involves spending all $80 mil in cap space and giving away 2025 cap space so we have even more to build up the team right now, then you must be terribly sad that Dan Snyder is gone. 

[zCommander]

24 minutes ago, method man said:

 

80 mil in cap goes way faster than you’d think

 

Should they hire Bruce Allen back so that doesn't happen?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Does this look right for rooting interests this weekend?

 

Chicago over Cleveland

Tennessee over Houston

Jets over Dolphins

Patriots over Chiefs

Giants over Saints

Cardinals over 49ers

Cowboys over Bills

Seahawks over Eagles

 

 

 

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

9 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Does this look right for rooting interests this weekend?

 

Chicago over Cleveland

Tennessee over Houston

Jets over Dolphins

Patriots over Chiefs

Giants over Saints

Cardinals over 49ers

Cowboys over Bills

Seahawks over Eagles

 

 

 

 

 

Tennesse and Chicago only matter if (when) we screw up and win another game. Chicago winning also hurts our strength of schedule and hurts the 2nd we got from them.

 

Since New England and Arizone seem like big long shots this Weeknd, the more realistic best case (along with us losing) would be Dallas and Philly both losing. I don't think that will happen, but it could. 

[goskins10]

12 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Does this look right for rooting interests this weekend?

 

Chicago over Cleveland

Tennessee over Houston

Jets over Dolphins

Patriots over Chiefs

Giants over Saints

Cardinals over 49ers

Cowboys over Bills

Seahawks over Eagles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You forgot one - Rams over Commanders  🙂   

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Tennesse and Chicago only matter if (when) we screw up and win another game. Chicago winning also hurts our strength of schedule and hurts the 2nd we got from them.

 

Since New England and Arizone seem like big long shots this Weeknd, the more realistic best case (along with us losing) would be Dallas and Philly both losing. I don't think that will happen, but it could. 

Us winning another game is what scares me. That’s why I want Dallas to win. Us having a slightly better SoS isn’t a worth it if Dallas sits everybody and gives us a cheap W in week 18.

[Rufus T Firefly]

12 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Us winning another game is what scares me. That’s why I want Dallas to win. Us having a slightly better SoS isn’t a worth it if Dallas sits everybody and gives us a cheap W in week 18.

They won't sit people if they are tied, but they might not be as motivated if they are down in the tiebreaker. 

 

Just Philly losing would be acceptable to me. But I think Dallas is going to lose one in this gauntlet. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

They won't sit people if they are tied, but they might not be as motivated if they are down in the tiebreaker.

Dallas can actually be a game behind Philadelphia going into the final week and they would still play everybody as long as our game is at the same time as Eagles and Giants. In that scenario, Cowboys could win the division with a win and Eagles loss by virtue of having the better division record.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Dallas can actually be a game behind Philadelphia going into the final week and they would still play everybody as long as our game is at the same time as Eagles and Giants. In that scenario, Cowboys could win the division with a win and Eagles loss by virtue of having the better division record.

Only if Philadelphia's L is to the Giants. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Thats what I said.

[Rufus T Firefly]

5 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Thats what I said.

Yeah, I forgot Philly plays NY twice. Was thinking they had to lose to them next week. My bad. 

[method man]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

If your idea of how this 4-13/5-12 team should go about team building involves spending all $80 mil in cap space and giving away 2025 cap space so we have even more to build up the team right now, then you must be terribly sad that Dan Snyder is gone. 

Dan didn’t do that the past 15 years because he was cash poor. This offseason, my goal would be to maximize FA and draft resources into this offense so that Sam or whoever is set up with a great OL and plenty of weapons. A lot of dollars will also need to be spent on this defense.

 

This team has zero blue chip players. The goal should be to procure as many as possible and true blue chip players cost $$$

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 minute ago, method man said:

Dan didn’t do that the past 15 years because he was cash poor. This offseason, my goal would be to maximize FA and draft resources into this offense so that Sam or whoever is set up with a great OL and plenty of weapons. A lot of dollars will also need to be spent on this defense.

 

This team has zero blue chip players. The goal should be to procure as many as possible and true blue chip players cost $$$

Nothing to do with being "cash poor." Don';t know where that factors into anything. 

 

Making a June 1 cut only benefits you by having more space in year 1, at the expense of cap in year 2. If you're sacrificing 2025 cap to have a little more space to sign players in 2024, with the current state of this team, then you are engaging in the exact short-term "damn the future" thinking that was the hallmark of Dan Snyder's roster building philosophy. 

[Koolblue13]

13 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

I dont think it's a no brainer for AZ to pick a QB, they could add Harrison and change the dynamics of their offense, and revitalize Kyler's career.  

Kyler is a ****. Gannon was just dealing with Hurts.

[Est.1974]

8 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

If your idea of how this 4-13/5-12 team should go about team building involves spending all $80 mil in cap space and giving away 2025 cap space so we have even more to build up the team right now, then you must be terribly sad that Dan Snyder is gone. 

I’m very interested to see what we do with Jon Allen and Daron Payne. Both can be pre jun 1st trades, would create about 30mil in dead cap, but that is actually less than the current projected cap hit if retained in 2024.

 

That would be an aggressive move by a new regime and could net some valuable draft assets.

[markmills67]

9 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

We are 80 mil below the salary cap and not a contender. There is zero reason anyone should be a June 1 cut.

I thought we had between 90m and 100m cap space, and that's before any players are released. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Dan style for this cap under Bruce would be mostly cheap junk in FA.  And they didn't really push the cap like some other teams did.  Why buy a $60 piece of steak. Lets get 30 hot dogs instead. 

 

Lets load up on our Ziggy Hoods. Kendall Reyes.  David Burton. Orlando Scandrick. Terrance Garvin.  T. Pryor.  B. Quick.  Cheap.  Or cheap and over the hill.   On occasion they'd make a big signing but it wasn't what they majored in.  I'll never forget Bruce grinning ear to ear in an interview after signing Quick and Pryor and talking about how much "production" they signed at such a good price and ressuring fans we will be fine without D. Jax and Garcon.

 

They actually weren't bad at carrying over cap room for one year to the other in some years.  As bad as Dan was with Vinny.  At least they weren't boring then and won more games than post Cerrato.  Every Dan regime sucked.  But part of me missed the idea that as much as Dan sucked at least he was willing to spend money under Vinny.  But the version of Dan sucking and not spending money like some other teams were even worse than the earlier version IMO.

 

Boh Keim and Russini got the vibes from sources that this ownership plans to swing hard in FA.  It makes all the sense to me that they will.  But with a key caveat.  That is, if Howell is the guy they bet on.  If Howell is the guy they have to swing.  Just like the Eagles did towards the end of Hurts contract.  What's the point of using the last years of a cheap contract if you don't actually captalize on it?  Also, I think we are conditioned by our coaches who underacheived here including Ron that rebuilds take forever.  When other teams do it in 1-2 years.

 

Now if they don't run with Howell.  That changes the dynamic.  You got 5 years on a cheap contract.  That would feel more like a rebuild.  In that case, I think you are more likely to see some cap room unused.  Don't get me wrong everything being equal, I like to have carry over unused space.  So I didn't have an issue with Bruce's frugality on that front.  If I had to pick one thing i liked about Bruce (and its the only thing) is he stopped the Cerrato approach of staggering contracts with signing bonuses where we ended up paying for example Portis years after he was gone, etc.  

 

https://www.commanders.com/news/redskins-will-carry-over-substantial-unused-cap-space-in-2017-18465043

 

Redskins Will Carry Over Substantial Unused Cap Space In 2017

 

https://commanderswire.usatoday.com/2020/03/30/redskins-have-a-ton-of-cap-space-left/

 

Redskins still have over $30 million in cap-space — 6th most in NFL

Edited December 16, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[CommDownMan]

10 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Nothing to do with being "cash poor." Don';t know where that factors into anything. 

 

Making a June 1 cut only benefits you by having more space in year 1, at the expense of cap in year 2. If you're sacrificing 2025 cap to have a little more space to sign players in 2024, with the current state of this team, then you are engaging in the exact short-term "damn the future" thinking that was the hallmark of Dan Snyder's roster building philosophy. 

 

June 1st cuts shift savings into year one, but nothing is available until June 1st, so it doesn't help during main spending phase of free agency 2024.  It can offer more cap flexibility during the season or be useful for extensions later in the summer for current players.  Then anything left over in 2024 still rolls over to 2025.  Ultimately, I don't think it makes much of a "damn the future" approach due to the timing of things.

Edited December 16, 2023 by CommDownMan

[Thinking Skins]

15 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

Here are your Super Bowl Winners in the past 35 years (which btw, aint the modern NFL, the modern NFL is basically the PI and QB hit restriction league of the last 20 years or so), but anyway:

 

1988-1989: Joe Montana- 3rd rounder

1990: Hostettler: Phil Simms team, he was a top 10 pick. 

1991: Rypien: Day 3 pick equivalent

1992-1993, 1995: #1 overall Aikman

1994: Steve Young: USFL $50 Mill man (like 250 mill or so today), hell yes he would have been top 5. He was a supplemental first by the horrific Bucs at the time. So yeah, easily top 5 pick. 

1996: Brett Favre: 2nd Rounder

1997-1998: Elway, another top 5 guy

1999: UDFA Kurt Warner

2000: Dilfer: High Comedy top 5 guy

2001: Tom Brady  5th round guy.

2002: Brad Johnson: Day 2 or Day 3? I forget which.

2003: Tom Brady again

2004: Tom Brady again

2005: Ben Roth: Top 10 overall guy. 

2006: Manning: #1 overall guy

2007: Eli: #1 overall guy

2008: Ben Roth: Top 10 guy again

2009: Brees: 1/2nd round turn pick.

2010: Rodgers: Expected to go top 2, dropped to pick 23 or 24

2011: Eli: #1 overall guy

2012: Joe Flacco: Mid 1st guy

2013: Russell Wilson: day 2 guy

2014: Tom Brady again

2015: Peyton, #1 guy

2016: Brady again

2017: Foles: later 1st round dude if memory serves

2018: Brady again

2019: Mahomes: Another high first

2020: Tom Brady again

2021: Matt Stafford: top of draft guy

2022: Mahomes: Another high/mid first guy

 

What's funny about this, is that two things make it really funny looking: Tom Brady, and the QB's in that five year time period between the Post Elway Beginning, and the arrival of the '04 QB class to join Brady's dominance of the league. 

Brady, and that window alone account for nearly every single non 1st rounder QB. There are a couple that fall outside of that zone, but they're basically Wilson's a decade ago, and some weird stuff in the late eighties and early nineties. For instance, do you consider the Giants Super bowl about Jeff Hostettler? Or about Phil Simms who basically ran that team throughout the entire Bill Parcells era? To me, I give Hostettler the performance, but I give Simms the season. 

 

What matters when you arrange ---- like this, though, to me is how your building your evidence, and whether you're basically loading the dice for the result you want. For someone who wants to emphasize QB's don't matter, you go further back in time, and you focus exclusively on Super Bowls. Then you get a load of Tom Brady (nearly half of the QB's who played in super bowls the past two decades alone) boom, you get your result. Go back further, and you have Joe Montana, Rypien, and Hoss doing the work for you from 1981-1991 with only Phil Simms sticking out as an exception. Boom, win your argument.

 

I prefer to use Final Fours, because you get more sample size form that. You get 40 different QB combinations possible for 20 years. So a 40 performance sample size largely since the rule changes went through. When I've run that sample, you get about 75-85% of QB's playing in Final Fours carrying Blue Chip to mid 1st round draft capital.

 

It depends upon how you set up the argument. Even the guy talking about the past 35 years loaded the dice of the argument, he incorporated dissimilar era's, than tweaked the zone of where QB's were selected in round 1 to shrink how many QB's actually won titles, and really, is that what fans want? Yes and no, but honestly, what fans really want is to contend, and win as much as possible, Bucs fans would gladly trade 2002 to the Raiders, if they could get a Ravens period of contention, rather than the 1999-2003 run they had. To me, be honest, don't load the dice, use nuance, and what do you get? 35 years, and of the teams, who were lead by blue chip caliber QB's even taking into account Brady's? Simms, Aikman, Steve Young, John Elway, Ben Roth, Peyton and Eli, Aaron Rodgers, Flacco, Mahomes, and Stafford. Those guys account for half the wins: 18 of them. Now you can quibble with how blue chip they were? Flacco wasn't, and Rodgers was projected to go by #2 for everyone which is part of the reason the league tweaked who they called in and how they handled players that had to sit for hours when they thought they'd just have to sit for minutes. But regardless, the story of the last 35 years is really, primarily 1st round QB's, Tom Brady, and 1 off winners. Simple as that. 

 

I prefer my "Final Four" evaluation system because it opens things up more to guys like Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, the Ravens in general etc, basically teams that consistently made deep runs, and there you get how it works, and it is pretty straight forward. About 3/4's to 4/5's of contenders are helmed by elite franchise QB's, usually drafted high but not always, and about 1/4 that are flash in the pan types (Hostettlers, Foles, etc). 

 

Go get that QB, I'd rather bet on the blue chipper, than the teams that are usually flash in the pan types (Ravens, Niners, and Bucs squads of the last 30 years are the primary exceptions to that, helmed by Flacco and Lamar (the latter is elite of course, Kap, Garop, and now Purdy, and the Bucs with King and Brad Johnson) because its an easier build. The Bucs, Ravens and Niners had to nail practically everything else, and have superb coaches and quality FO's to have a chance-that's nailing everything. Mediocre FO's and solid but not elite coaches can win with great QB's, it's hard to hit on QB's, but I'd argue its even harder to hit on literally everything else, which is what's necessary to build a sustained contender that has a league average type QB. 

 

The problem with this argument is that it's just comparing SBs. I love SBsv and it's definitely the ultimate goal but it shouldn't be the definition of a winning season. For example. We were saying that making the playoffs would be good this year. That's a much lower bar. Now we can't ask that same question because many top 5 and top 10 QBs have made the playoffs so you'd have to look at something like

 

What's the dropoff in expected career winning percentage for a QB by their draft slot pick. 

 

I'm sure that's a stat somewhere. If not I can calculate it from pfr. Thing is. It is assuming that winning is a QB stat. But that's doing nothing more than what's already going on with the top5 and top 10 stuff. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

13 hours ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

I think the only OL cut candidate it Leno. I think I read an article from 2016/2017 when he was in Chicago that said Leno struggled at RT. We could cut him and use those savings alone to cover the cap hit for a FA OL. 

 

I think we draft an OT in R1 who plays at LT. So we could sign a RT and kick Wylie to LG. I think we draft another OL in R2. Could be a Guard to compete at LG. Or a Tackle to start. It’s risky to start 2 rookie OTs. But that could be the reality unless we find a stud in FA, which seems unlikely esp now that Austin Jackson extended in Miami. 
 

I think we sign an OL in FA to start and draft at least 2 who should compete to start. Plus a 3rd in R2-4 that can provide backup and future starting potential. 

They’re going to cut Gates or Wylie. There isn’t room on the 53 for them if you’re trying to develop depth and replace them as starters, which I’m pretty sure they’re going to do.  
 

Leno might get cut also.  I think 2 are gone and Wylie is the biggest cap hit so he stays by default. 
 

Just a hunch.

 

Pity, Leno is the best of the bunch.  He should be the new Lucas when Lucas leaves in FA.  Backup swing tackle.  Wylie is the worst and he should be cut but dum dum Ron gave him a contract that’s hard to cut.  Though he might be a July 1st cut.  
 

If Gates can’t beat out larsen, he needs to be gone 

[DWinzit]

20 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

They’re going to cut Gates or Wylie. There isn’t room on the 53 for them if you’re trying to develop depth and replace them as starters, which I’m pretty sure they’re going to do.  
 

Leno might get cut also.  I think 2 are gone and Wylie is the biggest cap hit so he stays by default. 
 

Just a hunch.

 

Pity, Leno is the best of the bunch.  He should be the new Lucas when Lucas leaves in FA.  Backup swing tackle.  Wylie is the worst and he should be cut but dum dum Ron gave him a contract that’s hard to cut.  Though he might be a July 1st cut.  
 

If Gates can’t beat out larsen, he needs to be gone 

Yeah Gates is useless since Larsen did beat him out. Larsen is not under contract though and Gates is. What an albatross.

 

As disappointing as Gates turned out to be, it is almost as much of a bummer that Strom couldn't have stayed healthy and grown as a player at C (G too but more for C)

 

And there's Wylie...

[Est.1974]

We should draft a centre to either start or compete with Strom.