Thurman#1

A key reason? No, probably not. The injuries in the D-backfield and the D-line were bigger reasons. Part of the problem? Yeah, fair enough. Our LB depth were JAGs. As is the LB depth on most teams. While I agree the D was the major factor, any team with the amount of injuries we had last year would have had huge problems, as we did. And there's absolutely ZERO reason whatsoever to think that a WR we choose in the first would be our sixth passing option. Nor to believe that choosing a WR is such a bad decision in the first that it would keep us from being competitive. The idea's ridiculous. On the other hand, if there is some good defender available in the first, picking him might make a ton of sense.

I like him. I don't see it happening.

Just saw that. What a shame. Far far too young.

Yeah, I haven't heard it either, and I do listen to some sports shows. You're right on target. He's sensational, and he could be even better, particularly at just executing the plays as they're drawn up. This is stupid. Like Allen wasn't good enough in the 13 seconds game? Nonsense.

And your evidence that the reason they were defending the sideline and giving that cushion was on the coaches? You're saying that it has to be the coaches and can't be the players because .... that's what feels right to you. In other words, more confirmation bias. The fact is, Levi Wallace has said in public and carefully explained that they called the right play on that second pass, but that Poyer and he mis-communicated, Poyer playing deep and Wallace not looking at him, assuming that Poyer would play up, so that Wallace could play further to the side. Look up the John Fina podcast with Levi Wallace. It's not clear what happened the first play. But that doesn't mean you can blame the coaches. It means we don't know who is to blame. It certainly could be the coaches, But it also might be players mis-playing the play that was called. And again, the kick appears to have been some kind of miscommunication. The rest of the STs players clearly expected a squib, while the kicker kicked deep. But who was responsible for that miscommunication? We don't know. Most likely it was the STs coach, as he was let go. But that's educated guesswork. So that's the way to bet, but there's no way to know. Nah. That's both sides. Anyone who thinks they know for sure ... doesn't. Thinking you know for sure says more about a person't ability to understand the difference between knowing and having an opinion than it does about anything else.

Again, flat-out nonsense. What he was saying is that several mistakes were made. If you take that for him blaming the coaches, it just tells what you want to believe. You came in wanting to blame the coaches, so if nobody is blamed you figure it must be the way you see it. Confirmation bias. Classic stuff. The evidence we have isn't conclusive, but best guess on the kick is that it's on the STs coach, because he was let go. And Levi Wallace has said it was on him and his communication with Poyer on the second offensive play. Nobody's really made it clear about the Tyreek play. The coaches are certainly due for their share, though it's not clear they get all of it. Yeah, this really is part of it. How come the Chiefs D couldn't even begin to shut Allen down the last four or five drives? He was simply playing too well, out of his mind. Same with the Chiefs as well. Still, you'd think they could have gotten a kick squibbed. How come the kicking team clearly thought it was a squib and were shocked when it went in the end zone. But both offenses were simply playing offense as well as it could be played. If we'd won that coin flip, we'd have won that game.

That's nonsense. And very convenient nonsense for someone who wants to blame the coaches. By that logic, no mistake could ever be blamed on the players. By that logic, if the coach said "In situation A, take action B," and he said it many times, but the player still didn't do it, well, "everything falls at the feet of coaching." That's just nonsense.

This totally makes sense, though I'd add in a 10 - 20% chance that he likes someone other than Brian Thomas enough to wait till #28 and have that guy as his best player there but not enough better to feel he needs to trade up, maybe Adonai Mitchell or Troy Franklin, someone like that. I think your three scenarios are all more likely, though.

Yeah, it's really important that your third teamers and bubble guys on one-year contracts are young. Well, not really. Nothing there to get really angry about. Or thrilled either. We'll see, but it looks OK.

Clearly you could be right. I'd put the odds of that closer to 20 - 30%, myself. We'll see. But I'd put the odds of moving into the top ten at just about zero. Trading up far enough to require giving up high round picks the next year is just not best practices unless you're trying to acquire a franchise quarterback. Doing it for another position works out badly more often than not. And that's not me, that's what all of the studies say. https://www.bruinsportsanalytics.com/post/nfl_trading_down https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/opinion/nfl-draft.html Massey and Thaler https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/massey---thaler---losers-curse---management-science-july-2013.pdf Harvard Sports Analysis Collective https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/dont-trade-up-in-the-nfl-draft/ There are plenty more and they all say much the same thing. Not that you should never trade up. But that you shouldn't be overpaying by using such strategies as trading next year's 1st rounders because of your faith in one player you have targeted. You lower your chance of success. Beane has said he knows this. And IMO he'd be even likelier not to do that in a year where we're already lacking a 3rd round pick.

I do get your point, and it's true. But while you could say that Diggs was a 5th rounder, you could also say that we gave up a 1st for him. But I agree that they love for their mid-to-late-round guys to make contributions if possible, and for the right guys they make it possible. And I think people may be forgetting how good Shakir was getting near the end. In the last ten games he put up 536 yards, 53.6 YPG. If he manages that rate per game, 17 games would be 911 yards. And he was trending up.

I doubt they go with him. But I would understand. If the WRs and DEs, and maybe DTs that they like as first-rounders are gone, I'd expect them to try to trade down. If they couldn't do that effectively, I'd expect him to be near the top of their options at that point.

I think having the two of them doesn't double the chances of having a good QB on the roster. But it increases them. A smart move, I think, but not a great one. I think they know that.

Yeah, it's not yet plainly obvious that there will be a group of 6 - 10 solid but older DEs available late into the offseason the way there was last year. But it could still easily happen, perhaps in smaller numbers this year. Or not. Not yet clear.

That's nuts in many ways. But just the financial costs of trading him are enough to rule this out unless he starts making himself absolutely radioactive to force himself out and leaves us no choice. Next year would be the first year it would be reasonable. IMO he's most likely here two years or more.

It'd depend on the price. As a lot of all of this does. My guess is he gets somebody to pay him $3 - 5M, maybe. The guy has had tremendous YPC numbers in all the years except last year when he only had 8 carries. His injuries will push it down of course, but again, I think someone will pay him. And for that money, I'd say no thanks. If we could get him for significantly less, yeah, maybe.

YOU are the one who said this. Changing it now to suddenly $30M is calling your shot and then moving the goal posts closer (an argumentative specialty of yours). Answers in red above. But basically, you claimed to be trying to "clarify" what I meant. And then you threw out misunderstandings and straw men that were either deliberate or show really really pitiful understanding. If you want to know what I said, read what I said. This ain't rocket science. Don't paraphrase me, because you appear to be extremely bad at it. Quote me. That way we all know you're playing it straight. You also put on an absolute clinic in moving the goal posts. The constant mis-statements of what you said and what I said make it increasingly impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.

I don't think it's fair to say Edwards is the equal of even last year's Poyer and Hyde. Even a step slower dealing with the injuries late in the year, Poyer was starting caliber. Edwards has not even started consistently. Two years ago he played 94% of snaps. The next year right back around his career level of 57%. He has a lot to prove. Poyer and Hyde weren't probably any better athletes than Edwards. It was that they'd both played a lot and developed really good chemistry fairly quickly. Can we count on that happening with Rapp and Edwards? I don't think we can, though it's certainly a possibility. I do agree with you that White was really playing better as time passed. Made it much sadder to see him go down again. I'd argue the order of importance for DL re-signs went Jones, then Floyd close, then Epenesa further behind. Floyd was really good here last year. Even though he did slow up in the end, other than possibly Ed Oliver, Floyd was easily our best pass rusher over the course of the year. We haven't replaced those pressures. We can hope Von replaces them, but it's far from a sure thing. And we've been most successful against Mahomes when we were pressuring him a bit. We did not do that in the playoffs last year. It's hard to sack the guy because he moves so well, but if you keep him moving you stand a much better chance against him. We didn't really do that. We will need to start.

I wouldn't mind him if they like him. Recently I've seen at least two draft sources who wouldn't be surprised if he goes within the top twenty. Neither is predicting him there, but neither would be surprised. A fantastic first step is an awfully good start in a pass rusher's evaluation, and nobody seems to disagree that Robinson has serious giddyup.

Gee. I stand in the shadow of your genius at being able to understand that you shouldn't spend more than you have and that important things tend to cost more. Which is basically what you took hundreds of words to tell us despite the fact that we already know all of it. If you're going to attempt condescension, you ought to have something to say that's not boring and obvious to all. It's a factor. It's an important factor, if you need that word. But others are far more important. I've said this for three straight posts now. But I guess if you want to continue to pretend that I don't think it's a significant factor, or that I don't understand it, fell free to blow some more hot air at the problem in your next post as well. As I actually did say, it falls 1) far below getting the BPA at a position of need, particularly in the early rounds, 2) far below finding guys who fit your scheme, and 3) far below not using high draft picks to bring in backups for guys you're already happy with who are playing well when you've got areas of relative weakness. Another thing you ought to understand if you're going to attempt condescension is what the terms you use mean. You said, "current market value." You even bolded it. I'm sure that felt very macho to you. Did you flex as you bolded it? Thing is, you misused it in a rather stupid way. In the phrase "current market value," you apparently haven't realized that the word "current" means "now." What it does NOT mean is "in the future." The idea that Joe Burrow set the current market value for franchise QBs is idiotic. Joe Burrow set the current market value for Joe Burrow. And a bit more generally for elite to near-elite QBs. But that's not what you referenced. You referenced "franchise QBs." The idea that the 12 or 15 franchise QBs in the league are now worth $50M because Joe Burrow is worth $50M is just dumb. You say it's "beyond a doubt ..." that these guys get contracts over $50M. Here's a clue for you, when you predict events in the future you are guessing. It is absolutely NOT beyond a doubt. IMO for several of those guys it's a very good possibility. And for several more of the names you mentioned much lower. More, it's precisely that guys like Allen, Lawrence and Mahomes, the elite, are NOT getting contracts soon that keeps values down. What is Allen's value? Take a look at his contract. That's his value. That's what value means. The fact that he could get more if he was getting a contract now is beside the point. That's his theoretical value, not his value. He's signed. He ain't getting more until some time in the future they negotiate for it. theoretical value. His value is what his contract says it is. In the future as prices rise, franchise QBs may well become worth that. They are not now, despite the fact that Joe Burrow is. Atlanta was thrilled to bring in a new franchise QB in Kirk Cousins. He got $45M. That's the latest data point for franchise QBs who are non-elite. Again, your exact words were, "Franchise QB's are $50M now. Elite pass rusher, LT are $35M now." Nonsense, particularly when the highest LT contract is $25M now. Saying the market is $35 is complete nonsense. You at least have Burrow to try to make your argument about QBs. Where is your data point to that elite pass rushers and LTs are $35M now? There are none. Not one non-QB has made $35M. Not one. "Let me try to explain it a little more clearly for you," as you so kindly put it. Not one means zero. None. The situation has not yet occurred. If it does, it will be in the FUTURE. Again, "let me try to explain it a little more clearly for you." The future is what happens after now. Later. See? You don't know for sure what will happen in the future till it happens. And in the NOW, three non-QBs have made $30M or more, and none $35M or more. Your guesses about future events are certainly not "current market value." Know who sets the market? The market does. Not some doofus guessing on the internet, whether you or me. In the future, we will see what the market says. At some point it will indeed reach that point. That point is not now.

Wow!!! I have to understand the concept of "current market value"? Wow!! But but but ... those words have more than two syllables, most of 'em. Thank goodness we have real real smart people like you to explain difficult concepts like "current market value." Gosh, you must have a large head!! Thanks for passing on your smartitude!!! Wow!! Gaaaaw-ly, Sarjint! Definitions aside, you absolutely are wildly inflating values. Your exact words were, "Franchise QB's are $50M now. Elite pass rusher, LT are $35M now." Both of those are nonsense. You can't say elite pass rushers are $35M when ABSOLUTELY NONE of the are at that level, including Bosa who just got his contract. Same with LT. ABSOLUTELY NONE of the best LTs in the league are making the money you claimed. The absolute best that could be said about that is that it's pure guesswork. You then go on and say "Justin Jefferson is the next proven WR1 up and he will pass those figures by a lot. The former Vikings GM Jeff Diamond predicts a $34.5M aav." Yeah, um, you didn't say anything about WRs. And the lowest number that I contested was $35M. Now, where I come from, $34.5M is not "passing those figures [$35M] by a lot. Or at all, actually. None of the numbers you mentioned, which presumably you thought were your best examples, did. None. You'd have had an argument if you'd said elite or near-elite QBs were $50M. But you didn't say that. You said "franchise QB," and there are a lot more franchise guys than the four making $50M or more. Those are both pretty much the definition of wildly inflated numbers. Will they reach those eventually ... say some time in the NEAR FUTURE, next year or two? There's a good argument for that. But that's not what you said even in this dumb reply. You said, "CURRENT market value." The sad thing is that all you had to do is say something along the lines of "Franchise QBs, elite pass rushers and LTs are really expensive right now." You'd have been right. But no, you had to pump up your numbers beyond reason. Again, the rising prices of contracts is indeed a factor in draft decisions. Factors with a higher priority would be things like BPA at a position of need, scheme fit, and whether you already have guys you're happy with at the position.

On the contrary, the defense was ripping things up through the first six weeks or so, till the injuries started to land. The Broncos game the defense was in week 10. Newsflash: week 10 is not in the first nine weeks. See how that works? And more, the D was solid in that game. That game was mostly on the offense's turnovers and problems. The Broncos started their first drive on the Buffalo 28, their fourth drive on the Denver 48, their fifth on the Buffalo 31, their 7th on the Buffalo 47, their ninth on the Buffalo 48, their tenth on the Denver 46. It was a terrific job by the defense to hold them to 24 points with drive starts like that. And the 12 men on the field was on the STs, not the defense. That leaves three games that weren't great by your own reckoning, and they were in weeks 5, 7 and 9, mostly after the injuries started hitting. The D was terrific early in the season, before that.

Have not taken a step back? We really have. But, you be you. There's every reason to think we can still compete for a title. But yeah, we took a step back.

Players kept stepping up? I mean, yeah. But it showed up. How did the DBs look against the Chiefs? The LBs? We weren't the same defense as we'd been in the first 6 - 8 games, we just weren't.

Boy, I'm not seeing much of that. Von could replace Floyd's production, it's not outrageous to think that. But it's optimistic. My guess is that's the ceiling, but not the floor. I'd love to be wrong about that, I hope I am. Milano is back. How will he perform, especially early as he finds his feet? Edwards is an upgrade? From Poyer and Hyde? Not seeing that at all. Nor the other side, Rapp. I expect this area to be addressed further, but I question your point about the players we have at safety now. And last year's CBs, Douglas, Tre and Benford, with Taron at slot, look a bit better to me, though I see the chance of this year's group developing further. Tre and Benford vs. Benford and Elam this year looks to me like far from a sure thing to be as good. Could be, but it's nothing we can take for granted. And who's this year's Dane Jackson at backup? It's still early, and we haven't seen the draftees yet.