AU-panther

^This, I'm not sure why its so hard for people to understand. When you trade a player like Burns you don't have to replace him with the draft picks. You replace him with the $25-30m you save. Most years you can find a decent edge for that amount. You don't even have to fully replace him, maybe you find a player that is 90% as good for $15m and then use the other $15m to improve another position greatly. Or maybe you use those draft picks to find an edge, who might not be as good but decent, then spend the $25m on a totally different position. Fans always look at these moves in a vacuum, the goal is to improve the team not just one position. Somebody said Reddick is about as good for $15m, so hypothetically what improves our team the most? Burns or Reddick, two 1st round picks, and $15m a year to spend on a free agent?

Young defensive lineman has his best year in year 3....... That is probably closer to the norm than the guy who is elite his rookie year.

That video is a good example of where fans confuse stats and athletic ability with being able to play QB at the next level. The video clearly shows he has some tools, as in arm strength and some athletic ability as far as running but a lot of throws were pretty basic that other college Qbs can make. Although he did have several nice deep balls but even those just show good arm strength and some accuracy. What you aren't seeing is a lot of throws with anticipation or going throw a lot of progressions. You aren't seeing those deep outs or dropping the ball in the soft spot of a cover 2. Those are the next level throws that NFL QBs are asked to make. I'm not saying he can't do those things, but the offense he is in isn't really asking him to do those things. This is why every year there are QBs that fans like because they see completions and TDs and stats, but scouts aren't as crazy as because they don't see the types of throws or abilities that are needed at the next level. The question becomes is he not doing it because he can't or because he isn't asked to, that is why its so hard to scout QBS.

Thats an incomplete way to look at those stats. You have to compare them to all of the QBs picked between 6-32. On your list there are 22 QBs, of which lets say 8 are above average or good chance of being above average (Ryan, Stafford, Newton, Luck, Murray, Burrow, Lawrance?, Tua?, Wilson?). So 8/22 turned out good, which is around 36%. 36% seems low and supports your argument of not drafting one in the top 5, but that doesn't' tell the full picture. Now go and make a list of all the QBs drafted 6-32 during those same years. Maybe you could up with 60 qbs. Of those maybe 8 turn out above average. That works out to 8/60 which is 13%. At that points you are almost 3 times as likely (36% to 13%) to find a good QB in the top 5. Three times as likely is a substantial amount. Is 13% an accurate number, probably not, I'm too lazy to go back and look but if you want to make the argument that drafting in the top-5 is stupid you need to do the legwork and figure out the other stats.

The idea of a hometown discount is largely overstated by fans. If Burns is truly elite, he will get paid like an elite one, very similar to any free agent out there. Did Reddick cost that much last year? His production was pretty similar. People keep looking at these decisions in a vacuum, that is how team building works. Maybe you trade him and of the $20m you save you spend $15m on an edge that is 85% as good, then with the other $5m you improve another position slightly. Then of the 2 draft picks one of them turns into a good player and that improves another position substantially. Which combination gives you the best team? I'm not saying give Burns away for nothing, I'm actually a big fan of his, I'm just staying the decisions aren't as simple as Burns vs potential edge drafted with gained pick.

So if you can replace him in free agency for the same amount it would take to resign him why wouldn't' you take the free picks. Everyone keep trying to make the argument that you might not be able to replace him with the draft picks, you don't have to, you replace him with the $20m a year you save.

I never said we couldn’t make the cap work, but fans look at keeping/releasing players in avacuum and that isn’t how it works. What helps the team win more? Brian Burns or a 1st round pick and $4 to spend in free agency? You could make a very good argument for Burns. What helps the team win more? Brian Burns or a 1st round pick and $30m to spend in free agency? At that point you don’t even have to hit on the draft pick because you replace a lot of his production with the $30m.

I agree that both Johnson and Dorsey have more overall coaching experience but Moore has more OC experience. Whats a better predictor for success? More overall coaching experience or more years being a coordinator and being ultimately responsible? I’m not saying one is right or wrong but there is an argument both ways.

I agree thatt you can't always be getting rid of all of your players but you have to factor in the cap. The players you get in the draft don't have to be as good, you are forgetting about the cap savings. Lets say player A is a really good player about to off of his rookie contract. 2 options here, pay player A $20m a year, or trade player a for a 2nd round pick and use the $20m to sign a player in free agency that is almost just as good. The pick is almost just bonus. Brian Burns with a $8m cap hit doesn't have the same value as a $32m cap hit. This is the problem with being this bad, we are missing on taking advantage of some good players on cheap contracts. Lets say we go the rookie QB route next year, even if you select the right one, realistically you are really looking at 2-3 years before being really competitive.

People love to point that out but it’s an incomplete statement. You are correct that a top-10 QB doesn’t guarantee they will be good but the chance of an early QB being better is higher than the later ones. Maybe the top-10 ones only work out 20% but if they later ones only work out 5% that is 4 times more likely.

Couple of things I gathered from those excerpts: People want to pain Tepper as a Jerry Jones or Snyder (very controlling) kind of owner, but that really isn't the case. If anything he is a bit too patient and lets people do their Job. Sounds like he was actually right about the Bridgewater deal, if anything he should have pulled rank and acted more like Jones or Snyder. Looking back was Rhule a mistake, of course. Was Rhule a first choice for most of us here on the board? No, but regardless of what people think around here, Rhule was actually on the radar of NFL people. Even the author states the decision made sense on some levels. Fact is hiring a coach is hard, more times than not they don't work. I'll be curious how the next search goes. Was passing on Stafford wise? He won a super bowl so in hindsight it looks like it wasn't but even the author said a lot of owners would have been cautious in that regard. Just like every other bad franchise in the league we need a good coach and a good QB.

That might be a bit too literal. He said Rhule directed the "annual QB chase", which could mean he told his people he wanted en experienced QB and not to go the rookie route. Maybe he directed his people to find options and his people (Fitt and Morgan) came up with Darnold and maybe some others. Maybe of those options Rhule decided on his own which one. Or maybe he did micromanage the heck out of it and he came up with Darnold all on his own and Fitt actually thought it was a good idea and didn't oppose it. Really as fans it's hard for us to know for sure. Personally I really want to like Fitterer. Just as fan's its really hard for us to critique him because we don't know how much he was responsible for the good and bad hires. Fact is we almost have to trust Tepper to make the right decision on him.

nope, the question was...

Most NFL head coaches who are guaranteed to win right away have jobs, the fact they were not winning is usually the reason they are available. Who is on your short list of available, proven guys?

that wasn’t the question…

Yes. There are only 32 NFL GM jobs in the world, any given year they are only a few open. Will an established, proven GM, who is currently in a GM position be willing to jump ship, maybe not, but there be plenty of “candidates” that will be willing to work for Tepper. Lack of candidates will not be the issue, choosing the right one will be the issue, but that is the case for any HC or GM hire. If there was a proven formula every ram would have a good HC and GM.

no its not. That total score is a product of both run blocking and pass blocking and it's very possible they have all given up at least one pressure and still be ranked that high.

Where do you see "ALL" listed?

they didn't declare that the giants had a poor run offense. They stated that the unit (o-line) had a poor day run blocking, which is pretty much in line with what Espn said based on win rate percentage. You can have a great run offense with out your o-line playing great. Example: Offesinve lineman gets bulldozed but the running back breaks the tackle and runs for 65 yards. Thats a bad grade for the O-line but good grade for the running back.

Good thing we didn’t trade down. People were convinced by staying put you were guaranteed of getting an elite player.

???? I never said stat are more important than record. I just amuse me when fans create these false narratives that just aren't backed up by facts. To listen to you we have one of the worst run defenses in the league, which just isn't true. They might be bad to your made-up standard but relative to the rest of the league they are not. Nobody is saying anything about record, we are just discussing how decent one unit of your football team is, that is what people do on fan forums.

I'm just partial to having my opinion based on facts...

Who you are playing is important. Also, down and distance is important. Giving up 5yrds rushing on 1st and 10 is worse than giving up 5yrds on 3rd and 15. On 3rd and 15 you will happily give up 5yrds on the ground, any team would. Football Outsiders actually tried to quantify that with their DVOA stat. It's basically a measure of your results relative to expected results. "not being able to stop it when we knew it was coming" is another artificial metric that fans create and apply in a vacuum. There are probably 20 different fan bases saying the same thing about their team. Here again, compared to the rest of the league what are you basing this on? We were 18th in TDs allowed rushing. 15th in 1st downs allowed. Percentage wise we were actually 7th. 2021 NFL defense rushing stats by Team | NFL.com I think we can all agree our run defense wasn't elite. No reasonable person is saying it was 2nd best because of yards given up. Maybe it isn't as good as some made up standard that some fan creates, and only applies to one team, but relative to the rest of the league our rush defense was by most reasonable standards a middle third ranked defense, not near as bad as some of the people around here want to claim.

So, if a team scored the 8th most points in the league but they were losing games you would say they had one of the worst offenses in the league? That is comical. When in doubt hide behind the "winning and losing card". I do agree that at the end of the day winning and losing is all that matters but it is possible to evaluate parts of the team independent of that. Fact is we were close to average in yards allowed rushing per game, 18th. 2021 NFL Opposition & Defensive Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com but we were actually 8th in yards per attempt 2021 NFL Opposition & Defensive Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com Here again, no where near as bad as some around here would have you believe.

Good and bad are relative terms, so unless you are watching every game of every team your "eye test" is incomplete. All you are doing is comparing them to an artificial standard that is being applied in a vacuum. Answer this, If a team is one of the top 10 teams in the league vs the run are they really that bad???? At the very least you have to admit they aren't one of the worst like some would have you believe.