BrianS

I've often wondered how many of the guys who are paid in the top 10 at their position actually play in the top 10 at their position after their contract. It's frankly a little scary how many of them tail off.

This is the thing that has changed so much in the college game and caused so many issues with college QB's translating. The college game has so many one read systems in it now that QB's there just don't get the chance to learn how to quickly work through a progression. You really have to learn how to watch a college QB for traits without getting hung up in their statistics.

Hopefully he took care of his money. NFL players have the opportunity most of us never will to be set for life by the time they are 30. I hope he took it.

I like Zeitler a lot, but I am not sure we can afford him, even with the year being the way it is. He's above average to me . . . he's not quite at that Pro Bowl, All Pro level, but he's awful close. One of the least penalized IOL you'll ever want to see.

I'd certainly love to see us pick up an interior OL. Just an average NFL starter, not a star. Someone who can do a job for 2 or 3 years as we continue to rebuild our roster.

I believe Luke and Greg are the ones who will make it. I hope that Luke's short career isn't held against him because he was CLEARLY the best MLB to ever play the game. With Greg, he has the 5th most receiving yards by a TE. Three straight 1000 yard seasons. I don't think there should be any questions there. Cam is hard to predict. His passing stats are not even close to HoF, but his rushing was important. He's a QB. How does that get weighed? If they take his rushing yards and TD's into account, I think he gets in. If they don't, he won't make it. Kalil was a great Panther, but he isn't close to NFL HoF caliber. TD is just in a crowded room. Wilber Marshall, Cornelius Bennett, Lance Briggs, Bill Romanowski and Ken Norton JR are all in the same sort of area as TD and none are in the HoF.

I cannot believe we had all that talent and no ring to show for it. These guys deserved better. That's six Ring of Honor players right there, and probably two gold jackets.

This is why we can let Curtis walk. FWIW, Agent89 "only" managed 1200+ yards from scrimmage five times in his career.

There's a LOT of truth there. When you look at Tannehill's numbers, he actually IMPROVED under Gase as a QB. The team didn't succeed under Gase, but Tannehill learned and improved. I don't want either of the Sams - Darnold or Donaldson - as our QB, let alone give up anything to acquire them. The fact that they are willing to talk about it is a pretty good indication that they want to go QB, but can't figure out how to make that work.

This is where people go off course. None of these things bolded above are a skill set. Those are statistics. Skill set is things like ball velocity, arm strength, timing, anticipation, touch, accuracy, leadership, pocket presence, running, etc. Jones has shown: Touch, accuracy. That's what we know of his skill set. You know who else has those traits? TB5. Alex Smith. Yes, many QB's with touch and accuracy have won rings. But they also display many of the other traits I listed above.

The NFL brought this problem on themselves. They've continued to emphasis offense over defense, and every offense starts with the QB. It was much easier in the past to compete with an "average" QB, but you now need a "good" QB just to compete week in week out. The college game isn't preparing it's QB's for the NFL properly because of all the vastly simplified one read systems. One day we'll see a shift, I hope. I'd like to see teams at least have a chance without that super high level QB, mostly because there are so few of them.

Good player, but it's a luxury signing on a roster without a lot of room for luxury.

Mac Jones couldn't beat out Jalen Hurts or Tua . . . but is somehow better than Fields? The guy is .500 in games decided by less than two scores. He lost one last year, badly, to Auburn. He should have lost this year to Florida, but got bailed out by the Florida receivers. The guy just hasn't shown anything but good touch. That's it.

You say this all the time . . . but where is it coming from? Wilson has never missed a game. Wilson is 6-3, 210, BMI of 26.2. For comparitive purposes, Eli Manning was 6-5, 220, BMI of 26.1 and Alex Smith was 6-4, 217, BMI of 26.4. Neither of those guys had "durability issues". I don't get it man. He's not yet a college senior, yes, he could stand to put on a few pounds. What college prospect do you NOT say that about? Wilson may or may not succeed in the NFL, but it won't be due to durability.

Obvious troll is . . . obvious?

Bear in mind we're spoiled around here. So accustomed to absolute top notch LB's. Unfortunately, I don't think we're in a position to get one with our other needs so blatant. We've got to get off the field on third down. Our issues were largely just getting guys covered long enough for our pass rush to get home. Burns and Brown were nightmares for opposing offenses, but our coverage wasn't giving them that extra half second they needed. We've got to start by getting better coverage on the outside. Our defense would look a TON better if we could just give our pass runs another half second to second. A LB just isn't going to do that for us.

Sounds like he could be good for Derek Brown's development. Here's hoping.

Don't mind the idea of a developmental QB . . . but if we take a QB at the top of the draft, or give up picks in trade for one, we can't waste any picks on a developmental QB. The entire team is still too thin for that.

I'm not a Trey Lance fan at all, but there is NO WAY you take Jones over Lance at any point. I'm not sure Jones is even Kellen Mond or Jamie Newman. He's definitely no Trey Lance. If you draft Lance, at least there's the chance that you just drafted the next Kyler Murray / Lamar Jackson / Josh Allen / etc.

Isn't Kiper the guy who was gonna call it a career if Pickles flopped? I mean . . .

The actual numbers over the last 25 years is that the first round QB's succeed at about 50%, and the other rounds at about 10%. The last 10 years or so have been weaker. I read somewhere on the Huddle in the last couple days that an analyst had predicted that would be the case due to so many one read systems cropping up in the college game. If true, that guy is a genius. ffs this again. Mac Jones hit receivers running so ridiculously wide open that anyone could have done it. This is the same Mac Jones who couldn't manage to beat out Tua at 'Bama. Tua, who has looked flat out bad in the NFL. Show me Jones fitting a ball in a tight window. Show me Jones hitting the deep out cross field. Show me Jones bringing his team back from behind in the fourth. Listen, it's not his fault he never had to show that. I get it. But he still hasn't shown it. I'd rather have a guy who has shown those things. I'd rather have a guy who played out of his mind on a two or three loss college team, that dealt with adversity, who didn't have the best around him and showed some of those NFL traits.

This to me is the biggest strike against Bridgewater. I don't care how far he throws it, as long as he wins. I don't care who he throws it to, as long as he wins. Bridgewater had eight opportunities this year to show me that he's a WINNER. He failed to accomplish it . . . EIGHT TIMES. You can't go on a Super Bowl run with a guy who can't come up big in big situations. This is the problem with Teddy. Imagine Teddy managed to get it done four times out of eight. Again, I don't care how. Had he done so, this team would have been 9 - 7 and we would have all been amazed at how quickly the franchise turned. We would have gone into late game situations with the mindset that "We have a chance". Nope. We have no shot with TB5. Even the locker room at this point has to see it. He just didn't get it done, and you can't go to war with "that guy" leading the charge.

I was more thinking in terms of positional spending versus post season success. I tried to do it with Spotrac but apparently that's a "premium" feature. What positions SHOULD you spend on to achieve post seaons success, again, QB aside since it's stupidly obvious.

Sure, but set aside QB for a moment. Honestly, QB is so obvious it's not even very interesting. Everyone gets it. I think the interesting data here would be what positions actually increase your chances over the baseline. Is it WR? Is it RB? DE? LT? I'd love to know, I just don't even know where to start to collect all that data.

Bear in mind, the chance for any team to reach the Super Bowl any given year is 6.25%. In this case, it appears that high dollar running backs actually slightly increase your chances from 6.25% to 8%. Not huge, but there it is. As was said, Brady has REALLY skewed stats the last 15-20 years. Six of the years since 2010 (the scope of the discussion) Brady has been in the game, meaning that those high dollar RB's didn't really have much chance. High dollar RB's are one thing, the GOAT QB is a different level entirely. I dunno, we all like to think there's an argument to be made against it, but I'm not so sure. At first glance, it doesn't appear that there is a strong case in either direction.