ctk232

Sorry - the multiquote confuses me a bit here...not sure where on this thread I actually said "I agree 100%" at all, or potentially in response to Aussie Joe? I could be entirely off-base with how I'm reading that, but just not sure where that might be from... Either way - picking up Davis at the right price doesn't do much to hurt our cap situation or overall defensive talent. If we want to draft LB in the later rounds, I'd rather prefer Burr-Kirven to use in our big nickel package on day 3, but not wholly sure of the LB depth projected for the later rounds or the potential to address other positions in later rounds as well (RB, DB, depth and ST, etc.).

Let's assume that Davis is exactly as you've curtly summarized here, despite other analysis off the board saying he's performed well for his age comparably in the league - would you say Davis next year would be worse than either Stanford or Thompson? Mind you, signing Davis doesn't mean we still pass up on Josh Allen in the draft, if he's there at 9 - or any other LB/outside pass rusher if they become BPA. I just don't see the clear cut, black and white savings that could be used elsewhere if we offer Davis something like a one-year 2.5 - 4 mil deal? We have the cap to accommodate this kind of contract for a year; it would immediately upgrade our depth at the position (something that was clearly exposed when both Tre and MIlano went down this season); adds veteran leadership to the defense after Kyle's departure (won't truly replace Kyle, but will be an added voice); and perhaps most importantly, has played in McD's scheme and knows what it is that is expected of Tre and Milano. If you also want to see Tre develop in this system, you should also want him to have this added bonus. It shouldn't be a priority signing , but there's very little argument for not making this move for the right price.

So I don't entirely disagree with you here, but in looking at last year (also Beane's first full year as GM), what were the FA moves you would have preferred we made and were they even possible at the times when Beane was supposedly knowledgeable about Wood and Incognito? It was also well documented that Beane pursued WR talent, and a top name FA in John Brown turned us down for Baltimore. What other WR(s) would you have preferred we bring in and how do we know Beane didn't extend an offer or consider them? On that thread, how many other FAs (or subjectively speaking, better FAs) did we tender offers to or at least pursue/consider and came up empty? We just aren't going to hear about every move attempting to be made. In terms of the moves that were made - it's also been well-established that Star's impact at one-tech was vital to our DL this year and whether or not he's worth the price tag for that role is up to each individual and how much they know our defensive system and how much it relies on his execution of that role. All in all, Star would not be a failed FA signing, it's only debatable in terms of the contract he was offered. Trent could go either way as well, another graded better than the eye test may sway, but was needed after the uncertainty along the line and was likely cheaper, low hanging fruit with injury history, but still had potential upside. Ivory was a welcomed addition that became the perfect 2 to Shady's 1, and eventually held his own as the 1 when asked. Nothing exhilarating but our OL wasn't going to help any RB this year. Bodine seemed to be reactive more than anything, but by historical standards was an average OL in the league. He didn't pan out for us at Center, something he wasn't primarily asked to do in the NFL, but I agree wasn't our best signing. Regardless, McCarron and Vontae were the true failures after all was said and done, but no one called the Vontae issue, and most saw it as vital veteran depth at a position of roster uncertainty. I don't mean this as an attack, but as a board, I've seen this too often, myself included, and I had to stop and ask these questions too. Not so much in defense of Beane, but just in terms of accurately assessing what exactly hit the fan this past year. I also don't mean to excuse every decision the FO/HC made either, but I can't imagine it was a scenario in which we could clearly say that more could have been done, rather than the best was done that could have been, and now is the time to address the issues we know exist in the best way we can.

Right? I honestly can't get past these conversations of "did we bust with Edmunds"...while nothing is guaranteed yet, for both Edmunds and LVE, there's no reason anyone should be comparing first season production between the two. People overlook just how much his age plays a factor in these conversations. At 20 years old, Edmunds has simply played at least one or two years less football in his entire life than other LBs and NFL players in the league, in general. While other players have seen another two years of football over the course of their lives, they've been able to simply absorb more of the game at various levels. Even though that alone won't account for every discrepancy, you also have to consider the fact that at 20 years old, he still has room left for physical development beyond what he's currently at. Before I get berated by the physicians of the board, I realize his growth spurt and adolescent development are all but over, but for him to be entering the league at 20 will allow him to physically adapt to the game better, and if all goes well, for a longer career than most other peers including those from his draft class. Mentally, he's still developing and the ceiling of growth here far exceeds that of his physical growth, and certainly in comparison to others in the league. Beyond the physical limitations of his age and subsequent experience, you will certainly need to consider the scheme in which both play in, the surrounding help, and how much of the defensive playcall is their responsibility. While I would need to look into these aspects more deeply for a solid comparison, the differences will be important to note. Lastly, and most important - to have these conversations after only one year is beyond ridiculous. Either could tear their ACL next year or have a career ending injury. LVE could regress while Tre takes off, and vice versa. Scheme changes in defense on either team due to coaching turnover may force regression on either or both, or expose weaknesses made null by previous schemes. Anything is still possible, and while we know more now than we did at the beginning of the season, there is no evidence at present as to how either will ultimately pan out.

Have to admit that took me longer to get than it should have - lol

Eh, why though? Coaching turnover is a yearly occurrence, and there isn't any real obligation they have to announce every business move, unless anything is contractual. Don't personally feel that they have any obligation either, but they have a close to the chest mentality with business moves, which I have to say suck as a fan starved for news, but more so appreciate at the same time.

Instantly - it didn't make or break anything but we clearly were hurting when Milano went down, and even when Tre went through the protocol you could see a difference. Until Tre can develop more, if either he or Milano goes down our lack of support there gets exposed. Good against the run you say? Well, if there's one thing we weren't good at this year it's that - especially at the LB level until Edmunds develops that part of his game, and maybe Davis could mentor him in that regard. Who knows, a 1 or 2 year deal, by the time that's over Edmunds should at least be starting to flash his prime self.

I know it seems crazy to think with all the talk from the board (myself included) to going BPA or trade down in the first. But I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Beane trade up either into the late 1st or early second. In my mind, the scenario I envision is more so the latter where we go BPA in the 1st (likely defensive BPA) - then address WR and OL with two early first round picks. I say this over a late first trade up as it's more likely to land an early second, despite what we'd likely have to give up. Wouldn't honestly hate to see it either - while this arguably wouldn't be the draft to do this, might be worth entertaining the idea as Beane showed he's willing to pull the trigger, even in his first full draft.

I actually don't mind a lot of these but question when it is we pick DK here - if it's at 9 that would arguably be a helluva reach. The one I LOVE about this is Burr-Kirven, would absolutely love to get this kid in the late rounds. I'm slightly biased being in Seattle and end up watching the PAC games more than most other conferences, but even comparable to other conferences, the kid has one of the best football IQ/awareness traits of any guy out there. He played in the standard 4-3 LB role, but fits more of a SS/LB LOS defender profile in the NFL. He'll get dinged for not falling perfectly within either the physical or speed schools, as his size holds him out of the conversation at the LB position, and isn't quite fast enough to be the prototypical TJ Smith speed LB, though he can get to the flats for coverage consistently. But what he lacks in top value size/speed he makes up for in smarts and form tackling - kid is great in short-mid range coverage and is able to identify where plays are going before blockers can get there to remove him from the play. His 94 solo tackles this year were insane to watch, and while no guy is perfect, it was great watching him diagnose plays and beat blockers/coverage to the ball. Haven't seen many LBs able to dissect run packages like he can at that level, but his contributions would most certainly extend to ST here, too. He'd be an instant depth upgrade at both the LB position and in our big nickel package, and be a great contributor to ST as well. Would love to see this happen on day 3.

Agreed - not sure if I favor the trade back over BPA at 9, but it will entirely depend on FA. As far as it's been stated, Beane ideally likes to address need in FA and talent in the draft through BPA. Where I'm torn is that a stout OL instantly increases the floor of every single other skill position in the offense in many ways; gives the QB greater protection and time in the pocket, opens up a running game, both of which lead to a strong passing game and more time allows receivers to run their routes. The hope is that we address enough of this in FA that we see enough of an improved OL by the draft that we don't end up reaching for an OL pick that isn't worth the top 10 grade. Whether that's Jonah, Little, or Taylor - if there's better talent on the board and we aren't trading back at 9, the ideal for me would be to take the BPA regardless of defense or offense. While I would prefer to draft by BPA, the need for OL over other positions makes this assessment difficult - I feel an OL pick at 9 this year would be reaching given the BPA talent on the board already, but even if that OL pick improves the line enough, we could see the affect throughout the entire offense. Trading back is the alternative and not a terrible one at that, but there would need to be another team willing to do so, and for the right price. It's difficult to gauge how to best approach the draft without first having gone through the first parts of FA and committing resources to players that may or may not make a difference. Even if we land Paradis or Morse, Saffold or another OG, there's no guarantee any of these guys play well or to the levels we expect either - it's a rough year to be in dire need of OL positions, as we are, both in terms of FA and the draft.

My bad, I overlooked overdrafted - but I entirely agree in that regard.

Arguably no more than measured game speed - which all scouts have the capacity to do as the stats and measurement resources are there. They will still use the 40 times as it is data for what it's worth - but they should and typically do understand the context of the evaluation. If a team runs an offensive system predicated on speedy receivers, then maybe it is a larger consideration, but only if it fits the system, and never as a singular trait without context. The combine 40 time tells a scout how fast a guy accelerates and runs in a straight line from a standing point for 40 yards from a sprinting/non-football position to a non-football finishing position. That's it. It's implications from that are vastly more limited than actual game review and study for several reasons, but mostly in that it is actually very rare for most football players to ever run 40 yards in a straight line. Sure - there are moments where a guy gets in the open and will use breakaway speed down the sideline or for YAC, but on your average NFL play no one is running in straight lines for 40 yards, and other valuable traits in receivers come into play: route running, awareness, hands, feet/fakes/movement, size, etc. Especially when measuring receivers, the route running ability (already inclusive of speed) is a better measurement for evaluation of receivers in terms of separation at point of catch, finding open holes in zone coverage, and creating effective opportunities for the QB. I'd also be careful making the assumption a lot of players get drafted because of fast 40 times, as it is not because of their 40 times that they got drafted, but could and likely is the fact that the best NFL draft prospects also happen to have fast 40 times by virtue of the pool of talent. It's a metric, it's considered variably across the league scouts, but overall is a scientifically limited measurement for football performance.

Texas sized 10-4. What will work depends on the individuals within the system at various roles, and can very much become a chicken v. egg discussion. But without even arguing which is the more effective strategy, having either an HC or GM will usually predicate which way the equation ultimately goes in terms of the balance of power. The important piece in all scenarios however, is placing the authority in the right agent, and the GM/HC duo working in tandem toward a singular goal, through similar methodology and approach.

So it's just an every other year sort of thing? I get putting together a ST roster must be hell given the turnover and lack of experience and tremendously varied experience, but still makes you wonder why those wild swings in either direction each year?

40 time is all well and good but has been found to not translate perfectly to in-game performance, or for the implications it's been believed to represent. Good amount of scouting circles will use the overall combine as a standardized measure, but know that it's implications for performance are vastly limited, beyond just the 40.

It's a bit of both really - but definitely agree. The character pieces he likes to focus on are team guys which include guys who fight and put in the work, but equally as important, don't bring down other guys in the process or with selfish play/attitudes. Times where this line has been tested in the past are with Dareus, Jerry, JPhillips, and Shady to a degree. Dareus seemed to be the guy that either decided he wanted out of BFlo and there was nothing McD could have done (not that he should have), but either way was a scenario where McD/Beane decided it was better to move on and offload. Jerry's issues pertain mostly to penalty discipline and sometimes running his mouth in-game, but McD seemed to find a reasonable stance there to make it work. JPhil was a known loud mouther and lockerroom issue in Miami, but has so far seemed to have bought into the team/family feel here and hasn't shown much transgression of concern. Shady I point out more so for off the field issues, but McD sticking with the player. I would only add Shaq as a great example of a guy who committed to the team and system, demonstrating your point very well to guys who fight and work. But how much of that was coaching from McD we don't know. Of course, management decisions regarding all these guys also take into account the fact that you can't offload every guy who acts up if it creates a very difficult hole to fill/replace/accommodate for in season. But all this to illustrate my point that while McD might be looking for "character" guys, what exactly fits that profile or where the line gets drawn may not be where people think it is.

They also wisely drafted Rudolph's number one guy from OK State in James Washington - also liked him as a WR option. If they get rid of Ben and AB - they could very well transition right back into the same thing with Rudolph/JuJu/Washington.

Or another FA as well. As much as I'm surprisingly happy with the Duke signing, I'd still be all for signing another FA, drafting a guy like Metcalf, AJ, or the like in the second, and this guy in the 5th if he's there. Throw them all in with Zay, Foster, and McKenzie and let them fight it out for the top 5 spots. In reference to Izzy here, I wonder how he would fair against McKenzie as they seem to fit the same role - McKenzie at least having more ST experience and skill to offer. But I'm imagining Izzy and McKenzie running mesh concept crossing routes in tight 2x2 sets with outside posts and getting 10 yards minimum everytime.

Not saying it won't happen, as there is most definitely always "that team." But the chances of it being in the top 10 are still much lower than most other years with QB prospects, or a genuine QB class. It's funny to think about, but to me so much emphasis is put on the QB position in the league now that it almost creates a standard "value" of the position in the draft regardless of the fluctuations in year to year talent. Many equate the position of QB to be a top 10 pick regardless of the talent available, and whether that talent is truly top 10 or even round 1 talent. Regardless of whether he's the best QB in the class this year - is he worth a top 10 pick given the other talent and positional depth on the board? Is he worth a top 10 pick, period? None of it answerable, but you have to recognize how much is played/hyped up simply by context, beyond his demonstrated performance. If I had to guess at this point, I'd say he doesn't get picked up early enough to be top 10, but most likely goes in the first round for those reasons. I should also note that this isn't a commentary on how I feel Haskins will pan out in the NFL, just more so how he currently stacks up against other current draft talent in the context of "value."

Grew up in Philly, lived in Philly for some time, now in Seattle - growing up in Philly made me a Philly fan outside of the Bills and Sabres, but made me a philly type of fan always, for better or worse. I'll always feel Philly as my home, but I'm rather indifferent to the Eagles. That being said, I find myself routing for them when I'm not otherwise invested, or anytime they play the Pats, Cowboys, Giants, or other division rival. I haven't been in Seattle long enough to have the same ties to the city, and very well may never comparably, but I still love the fanbase here and the Seahawks are a fun team to cheer for in the right circumstances. But would have to say I'm certainly indifferent there as well.

I'd take the Bucs off that list - they're all but announcing Bruce Arians at HC who has stated he likes Winston. Could see Jax taking Haskins or trading for a QB, but the Giants problem wasn't so much Eli as it was their OL though they will need a replacement soon. Not sure Haskins would go top 10, or any QB for that matter, given the talent grade levels, and the reach it would be to go QB in the top 10 of this draft pool.

Over the course of the season, it seems like most opinions about Zay are in reference to, or in some regard influenced by, his draft pick and what the FO did to take him. Much in the way people lamented (some still do) about Mahomes or literally any other player we "missed out" on in the draft. If we evaluate Zay's performance in his first two years in comparison to trading up for him in the 2nd round - that would seem to be more a commentary on the FO that made that decision than the actual player himself. By all measure, Zay was the best slot receiver in the draft. He had always played in the slot role and performed highly given the route concepts and corps he developed within. Fast forward to 2017 with an offense QB'd by TT, coordinated by Rico, and in a year where he seemed to have been battling a shoulder injury for most of the season, he's asked to play a role that is nearly all new. He had adjustments to make beyond what his injury and rookie year limited him to, but it's hard to see where people thought he might have WR1 potential or experience. I get that that might have been the intention of the FO, but again it may not - either way, it's more a commentary on the FO that drafted him than it is on Zay. The reason I find most of these reactions as odd; those that say "he hasn't lived up to his WR1 potential" or "was a waste of a pick and trade up given who else was there," I guess is because I personally never expected him to become our next WR1 at any point. His experience, physical traits, and route knowledge weren't going to lend itself to that transition naturally, and he always seemed better suited for a slot/WR2 role. While I get that we haven't exactly had a strong WR corps in the two years he's been with the team, we can't equally put the expectation to fulfill a WR1 hole with a guy not built or potentially not even drafted for the job. All this to say, he's markedly improved from his first year in the league. He's done well in adjusting to a raw, rookie QB with known accuracy issues - and yes, has still had mistakes and issues that he needs to work through. I don't believe he'll ever be a WR1 and feel his game is much better suited to slot route roles. But talk about him being a "bust" or worth offloading is something else entirely.

Feel like the answer is that it couldn't hurt - the counter point being the draft supposedly has deep TE options available. He had a couple big games for Cinci, and helped me in fantasy once or twice down the line, but all in all might be better worth spending the money elsewhere in FA, and picking up a TE for cheaper in the draft with a potentially higher ceiling. Reportedly, Eifert would be the one to go and would be interesting to consider. But with health problems, the same argument of through the draft would apply there as well.

Agreed - people seem to be coming around on Culley (myself included) after Allen's WGR interview. And I have to say this is very much true for the most part. Though, I will say it is easier to gauge areas of weakness when we do know what coaches are responsible for - case and point, Castillo. He was the OL coach and run game coordinator, his role when hired was to instill the blocking schemes and establish the run game - something he failed to do and even to us armchair observers, was abundantly clear was an issue. The usual marker that can be used to discern hot takes from actually calculated assessment is consistency in performance, or lack thereof. In the case of Culley and Allen, many, myself included, we're analyzing more on the week-by-week rather than the overall trend - and while I was overall up on Allen, I was very much of the thought that Culley was holding him back still. The context with Allen was a young, raw, undeveloped rookie, and his performance this year is what one should expect from such a prospect. The difference with Castillo and the OL is that it started with veteran/experienced players. And while it was short two pro bowl starters, was still full of guys who have seen the league and have at one point established themselves as competent. The issue became they failed to even meet those standards and even the most casual observer could see the consistent issues week in and week out, so much so that it became patterned. The overall play improved from the beginning of the season as new guys filled in the ranks, but the line never progressed to the caliber needed to win. That ultimately starts and stops with the OL coach/run game coordinator - while the OC typically installs a scheme and playbook, the OL coach is heavily relied upon, if not responsible (typically), for establishing the blocking/protection schemes, instituting blocking technique, and even for coordinating run plays as they are entirely predicated on the OL matching rushing defenders at appropriate levels and timing. None of this happen throughout the season and it was pretty easy to see where these issues came from.

Well that's certainly good to know, and appreciate the update. I wonder how much of a discount that will be if the Rams are looking to accommodate Goff, Gurley, Donald, and a few other OL and Defensive guys long term...