Mr. Scot

Which, in Nguyen's analysis, means overpaying for him not once but twice.

Because he's known as a really good personnel guy and likely a future GM in his own right.

Then you stand a good chance of losing Adrian Wilson too.

I haven't seen any confirmation that they're "actively shopping" anybody. Sanders and Hurst have been the subject of trade speculation, but no actual reports.

The same GM that drafted Josh Rosen is the one that moved on from him. It wasn't a case of a new GM. It only makes sense to trade away previously acquired quality players if they don't fit a new coach's system. I haven't seen anything confirming that regarding Poles. I have seen this regarding Sweat...

I've read his resumé... Morgan's too. Hell, the profiles written up by various sources when both of them got here will tell you that. If you look up articles about them you'll see the same thing, especially ones discussing the division of labor between Scott Fitterer and Trent Kirchner in Seattle.

FYI:

Does that matter if they're still good players though? Jaylon Johnson certainly isn't a bad player. Roquan Smith is one of the names mentioned in these complaints.

Possible. Don't know yet. Common complaint I've heard from Bears fans is that Poles won't extend their own players but is willing to trade away draft picks for players on expiring contracts. This may or may not turn out to be an example of that.

It always "costs" you a pick to draft a player though, so...

He's only under contract through the end of this season. To keep him, they'll need to work out an extension or maybe franchise him.

Like I said earlier, I think they might be getting ready to make the switch from Rivera to Bieniemy. (less emphasis on defense, more on offense)

There are indications that they're looking at moving Young as well.

This is the kind of thing that helps understand why you really need a smart player in the quarterback spot.

Saw an analysis (will post it if I can find it again) about one of the issues with the defense Wilks is calling right now. Ideally, there should be a synch between what your front for and your back seven are doing. This analysis showed that's not happening with the 49ers right now. Generally speaking, even his biggest fans would agree that Wilks is much more of a motivator than a technician. The best coordinators are technicians.

A lot of us didn't.

Giving up two firsts but getting one back means only losing one first. Don't really get why that'd be difficult to understand unless you're deliberately trying to obscure the point.

They're getting set up to switch from Ron Rivera to Eric Bieniemy 🫥

A price so high Jerry Jones won't pay it?

Pro personnel is Morgan's area. Fitterer is primarily a draft guy.

We are rebuilding... always were. Doesn't matter how they described it publicly. That's what's happening.

Here's the incorrect portion of the post I originally replied to... I didn't address the full package. I corrected the notion that we gave up two firsts. The only first rounder we actually gave up was next year's. The 2023 transaction was a swap of #9 for #1. That isn't "giving up" a pick. Characterizing a pick swap as a net loss is incorrect.

There are things that NFL teams might conceivably find embarrassing. Giving a guy a workout (which is all we've done at this point) or even signing a guy to the practice squad doesn't really register on that level. That'd be like saying a bad seventh round pick ruined an entire draft.

Yes, you give one up. You also get one back. In our case, the one we got back was eight spots higher than the one we gave up. There's no "fuzzy math" in that. It's just an understanding of what "net" means.