thebandit27

I think all 3 are gone by 17.

Because that’s what many fans say about every player that leaves the organization. It’s seldom true though

Right now I have Philly going to 16 for Ruggs...that makes it more likely (though not quite probable IMO) that JJ makes it to 22.

Unless Philly moves up for a WR I think Jefferson is their pick at 21.

His combine numbers were excellent...he reminds me a bit of NRC, in that he’s at his best in man, but also has closing skills and ball awareness that can cover up some of his lack of size/speed.

I’m not suggesting that the compensation will be the same; I’m saying that since Clowney won’t re-sign until he sees what he’s worth on the open market, they may as well see if they can once again pilfer a tagged DE for below market value because he doesn’t want to sign long-term (and thereby get a year out of him by assuring him of no tag in 2021).

It says that the team made an agreement upon trading for Clowney not to tag him in 2020 because he wants his shot at the open market. If you’re Seattle, and you were able to get a tagged DE for 2 backup LBs once, why not try to do it again in the hopes that 2nd time will be the charm?

Nope. He got paid RT money. They moved him to LT and he wanted a new contract. He reported and played in every game save for the first, which the team chose to hold him out of. He then said he’d hold out again without a new deal. They traded him. All of the above is well-documented.

He didn’t want out. He wanted to get paid.

Ah, so it’s not so much Ford being untouchable as it is reservations about Dillard. I agree with that; just couldn’t understand why Ford would be untouchable

Why not?

Oh he’s definitely been nicked up a whole bunch. For context, for 2013-2019 his snap count % has been: 92, 97, 66, 97, 37, 80, 75. I have a feeling that a WR that isn’t talked about in trade rumors (like, say, Allen Robinson, Marvin Jones, or Golden Tate) will end up moving unexpectedly.

And Zay Jones

Not for nothing, but since his lost season in 2012, he’s started 16, 16, 14, 16, 7, 16, and 13 games. Always injured is an overstatement.

No way; they traded up for Dillard less than a year ago. That would be ridiculous to trade him so that they can keep a 39-year old, 340-lb tackle.

I’ve also heard nothing about Addison and Emmanuel Sanders for the record

Friendly reminder that this is the time of year when all tends to go quiet regarding the Bills. If things are strangely quiet surrounding a big name FA, and you hear nothing connecting said player to the Bills, then he could very well be a target.

Agreed. He basically runs the show on the field in NE, and everything they do centers around the way he likes to have things go. I don’t see any other organization being able to cater to that as finely as NE does. He’ll go back.

There’s a lot here, and in order to not go too far into the weeds I’ll keep this succinct. If we simply narrow the scope for the purpose of affixing a percentage of “immediate contributions” to a sample space of LBs, we can at least have a measuring stick. Suppose we use the 2019 draft, round 5. 12 LBs selected. You can easily argue that 7 of those guys did nothing (for various reasons). You can also very reasonably argue that 4 became starters early on as rookies (if not immediately) and played well. Up for debate is how Van Ginkel would’ve fared had he not started the season on IR, but he sure looked the part of an NFL ‘backer in spot duty down the stretch and in his 1 start. So in that small sample space, we see just over 40% rate of contribution. Now we could easily be convinced that such a success rate is an aberration, so let’s take it back a year and look at the 2018 5th round to expand the sample set. Well, there’s some subjectivity to the analysis, but I’ll claim that 2/6 were immediate contributors, so 33%. Go back to 2017, and you’re looking at 3/6 LBs. Again, all subjective, but the idea that you’re batting in the teens percentage wise is mistaken IMO. And again, none of this is to say that Milano shouldn’t be re-signed. It’s that $12.5M for a position where help can be found more reliably than many others seems very high. I’m sure folks will disagree; that’s fine. I’ve stated my case and will let it stand.

That’s probably the best way to say it; it’s a factor in determining his value, which Beane will not go above. I figure to have offended fewer fellow fans if I phrased it in fairer fashion. #alliterationforthewin

Then he’d almost certainly want Brady to go to SF; he gets the commission on the Brady deal, and then gets to negotiate a new deal for Jimmy and commission that as well.

It wasn’t an exhaustive list, and the point wasn’t that a team should restrict themselves to the 5th round for a Will. If it was a difficult position to fill, you probably wouldn’t see a guy like (just as an example) Cole Holcomb come in as a 5th round rookie and have nearly identical stats to Milano. Same goes with Dre Greenlaw. You also wouldn’t see a middling FA like Tahir Whitehead pop into a new scheme and put up similar numbers than Milano. The Redskins plucked Jon Bostic off the street in April after he was released from Pittsburgh, and he had a very similar year to Milano. It’s a relatively easy position to fill

That was already the case, and is the case for all assistant coaches.

How many straw men can you stack? First the absurd Brady comment, now a ridiculous Kyle Williams reference? And to top it off a nebulous “those guys aren’t as good” generalization! Why don’t you compare the tackle stats, passer rating in coverage and get back to me on that. While you’re at it, maybe you can accurately summarize my opinion on re-signing Milano? Because you seem confused about it. You know what? Don’t bother, as I really should just leave this alone.

That’s only one avenue of filling a need, and yes, you obviously need to be able to identify those players in the scouting process. If you look to FA, teams consistently find producers like Jon Bostic, Anthony Hitchens, etc. without paying huge money. The overarching point here is that paying Milano the suggested sum would be folly since equal production is often found fairly easily. I think I’ll let that be my final thought in this particular issue since I appear to be ruffling some feathers (not yours per se). Wow.