eSJayDee

Interesting point that we're 27th after picking 30th. I hadn't thought of it that way. Not sure it's correct, but it certainly puts you at a disadvantage. (A top 10 Blue chip is certainly more likely to have a big impact relative to a late 1st rounder.) But I think where we need to be graded on a curve is that we started off w/ an already solid roster, so there's less chance to contribute & make an impact. Our top 2 picks were D-line & w/ our rotational system & w/ the other players, did you really expect much more? Perhaps Groot could've been better. We got a starter in the 3rd round. And although our later picks didn't contribute to our success, other teams thought enough of them to pilfer them. The fact that we didn't need them to contribute is a good thing. Let's see what becomes of them this yr. Potentially Groot & Basham will take over & be the more dominant ends. If Doyle & Stevenson manage to stick around, all the better.

I think relative to his performance, Klein is not overpaid. Relative to how much we use him, he is. Having a $5m guy or whatever sitting on the bench is a luxury & one I don't think we can afford. Star is overpaid. But, w/ all his dead cap, can you really replace his production for ~$1.5 or whatever the savings? Dubious. Assuming we run relatively the same offense as before, IF we resign McKenzie (for a relatively modest amount), I think Beasley's production is overpriced & he's a goner. If we lose McKenzie, maybe try to extend Beasley so his cap hit isn't as much & then likely have some dead hit next yr. (Sort of like what we did w/ Addison.)

As I recall, the early part of his career, he had "decent" speed. Certainly not breakaway, scary speed, but adequate. The latter part of his career he lost that but had a remarkable talent for wiggling for a few extra yards.

You forgot the most important - Leaper of Tacklers!

Thanks. So IMO this gives us 1 yr of service at a bargain rate (not worth sacrificing a 1st rounder for) & gives us an advantage at signing him long term at market rates, which we probably can't afford (we've got Allen & presumably retain Diggs). So for me, it's no thanks. I'd rather have Diggs, a great receiver whose production is known in this system, as opposed to a much more unknown in what Metcalf would do if here.

Depends largely on what his contract status is, which IDK. Are you inheriting a cap friendly contract for a few years, or at the other extreme is this a "one year rental" at market rates? The former - yes; the latter - no.

Boss at my 1st "real" job - Work smarter, not harder.

If this guy is as good as people think he is, I think he'll be gone before the end of the 4th round. Consider yourself lucky if he's still there at the end of the 3rd. Ray Guy (& Erkslaben (sp?)) were both 1st rounders. If this guy is as good as people think he is, I think he'll be gone before the end of the 4th round. Consider yourself lucky if he's still there at the end of the 3rd. Ray Guy (& Erkslaben (sp?)) were both 1st rounders.

👍 I will add that Farwell is a relatively new coach. We've seen breakdowns in ST "intelligence" before. I'm not one to think it prudent to fire someone for punitive purposes, but rather you dismiss them cuz you think it (more) likely they will fail in the future. The question is (beyond who/where the fault lies assuming that as the evidence indicates something in "execution" failed), but what is the best course of action to improve things in the future.

To expound... At the time 49 yds would've tied his career long & would've been the longest kick in Superbowl history (or at least on grass; I don't recall specifics).

This was mentioned in the other thread. When Bass hits his "short" KOs, he takes a very short approach, I think 3 steps. All his kicks were full approaches that game. This would've required it to be a mental lapse (ie wrong approach/technique, which I doubt (& even if so, the coaches had the opportunity to abort w/ a TO before he kicked it) rather than any sort of "half-legged effort".

I think the reason for them is that they believe that given adequate time to devise a strategy, they're going to be smarter than whatever the opponents can come up w/ in that time. Either that, or they don't think they're prepared at all or they're more gassed than the offense & need the rest. The latter is an indictment on our preparedness & based on biased observation, it seems that the former is just plain wrong.

I don't think so. When you can gain 10-15 yds on EACH play, pretty much at will there's no "strategy" that can stop that . It's easy to just march down the field 1 play at a time. 75 yds later - TD.

I tend to think that we have superior talent on defense & it's just that we have (very) poor strategy/playcalling. I think this cuz it seems when we face an inferior team, be it poor line or QB, we abuse them, indicated by our sterling statistical rankings over the season. However, when we face a good offense, whether they're good at throwing or run, it seems that we crap the bed. Related to this, I'll say that I'm surprisingly okay w/ today's outcome - not depressed & just acknowledge that we were beaten by a superior team. But what really galls me is that we let them drive the length of the field in 13 SECONDS for the tying FG! How? Why? Anyway, ignore that 2nd thought, that's just me venting. Whaddaya think of the 1st part?

Let him return kickoffs. He's too scary fielding & returning punts - and NOT in a good way.

You make an important point stating that the most important factor is how good of a chance you have in converting. (To a lesser extent, it's also dependent on what sort of chance you think you have of stopping them, or alternately how much is the 40+ yds a punt should yield to your defense (Good punters probably net close to 50 when they're "kicking away"). But, another thing you have to take into consideration is what if you're successful? Having a 1st & 10 from your own 30 is only going to result in points maybe 50% of the time. It all depends on the utility (economic concept) of the various outcomes & their probability. I think in most situations, even a 50% conversion rate (which still only yields limited utility), would dictate that the prudent course of action would be to surrender the ball 50 yds farther down the field, ie punt.

I was thinking I think at 1/2 time about the 51-3 Raiders playoff game. Don't think this was as dominating of a game, but gosh darn it was AWESOME!!!

It certainly wasn't fulfilling, but it did have merit. I'd say it was "Shakespearian", and appropriate. As for this one... ummm ... just lacking in a few regards.

Okay, w/o giving anything away, I just gotta say that it outdid itself. If this was indeed the end, this ending was WORSE than the original!

I believe compensation is based on how much they sign for & how much they play. Of course, you need to have a net loss, too. I think the latter will be the case. I think we will retain one of Addison or Hughes, presumably for much less than they're currently making based on their performance & age. The other will sign for a "reasonable" contract. I'd like to see us retain Wallace & indications are that his contract, too, will be "reaSONBALE", ie ~$5m/yr. I can see Trubisky potentially signing a "big" contract & starting somewhere, especially if Dabol gets a HC job & takes him w/ him. This could be worth like a 3rd rounder. Boettger, , Phillips & maybe Zimmer might get modest contracts, which might yield like a 7th or so. The rest are basically near minimum wage type guys & won't yield anything (except in making us a net loss player-wise)

Notice how %age is inversely correlated to yds/catch? Beasley & McKenzie catch very short passes so the expectation is that you should complete them a high %age of the time. Kumerow doesn't have enough to mean anything. The other 3 have longer yds. To me, the interesting thing to note is that Davis avges (significantly) more per catch at Sanders AND a higher completion %age. I think Davis' outperforming Diggs can be explained by Diggs being the center of attention of the defense, whereas all others are secondary considerations.

Look at it this way... You've got 7 games that have to fall one way. If there's a 50-50 chance of each outcome that's 1 in 128 or slightly <1%. If you include the Raiders over Colts too, that 1 in 256 or about 0.4%. With the exception of our 2 games, you want the team to win that is presumably weaker & therefore should have < at 50% chance of winning. In this case, 0.2% seems roughly right depending on where you set those probabilities.

LOL. I read "make" as "Mark" & thought holy ... how old is he?

You're confusing cause w/ effect. We're a pass 1st team. I think you'll find most instances of us outrushing our opponents are either due to them being unable to run, us seriously kicking their butts so they choose not to run, &/or we're doing so well we choose to run more.