fergie's ire

I don't know the drill...and don't really watch combine stuff. However, I think I understand what the poster's concern is about not jogging and running out of bounds. It would be the equivalent to timing baseball players to see how fast they could steal second. They would be clocked from 1st to 2nd. Most would slide or slow up before getting to second so they don't go past the bag. If one player just ran full out and blew by the bag, he would have the fastest time, but he did the drill wrong. It's supposed to simulate stealing a base and if you just run past it, you'd be out in a game. The poster is saying that in the drill Coleman ran the point is to not go out of bounds (so players slow up to prevent from doing so) but by Coleman blowing past the sidelines he gets a faster time but does not accomplish the goal of the drill.

Ah, that is different. Might be too steep a price.

Until recently, I had been in the "take who's there or even move back and increase chances of a hit by picking multiple receivers." However, I am starting to come around on the swing for the fences idea. Next year's first and second sounds like a lot, but here's what is making it an easier pill for me to swallow. If you think, as I do, that Minnesota is gonna stink this year, you can hang on to their second and give away ours. That means that if you factor in what we got for Diggs, we are only moving back a few spots. Also, because we have taken on Diggs' cap hit this year, it should free up some money to use to fill a hole or two next year (like signing a center or safety). I think we'd be okay giving up those high picks. Number 60 is tough though, particularly considering we got hosed by the NFL on what we thought was going to be a third round comp pick.

Yeah, he clearly seemed off. His will to grab contested balls just wasn't there in the second half of the season. I had thought there was something physically wrong with him but maybe it was mentally checked out. I'm actually one who really liked Diggs...and makes me wonder exactly what went wrong between him and the team.

And actually, in the long term I think it makes it easier for GMs because they will have more tape on players. Fewer underclassmen coming out this year means more seniors coming out next, and they should be easier to evaluate. The real reason the NBA put in the one and done rule, requiring players to play at least one year in college, was to save GMs jobs. It wasn't to help the high school/college kids. GMs kept drafting guys like Kwame Brown and getting fired and they wanted to make sure they could have tape of them playing against better competition.

I heard a great story about a high school DB who was highly recruited. He shows up on campus and in practice they having covering this white guy with average speed...and the guy torched him. It shook his confidence so much that he couldn't even cover that guy that he ended up quitting the team and football. The guy he was trying to cover? Steve Largent.

I think Belichick will be a disaster at his next stop. For one thing, I am not sure he will let go of GM responsibility. However, the bigger issue is that I think he needed Tom Brady. Not for Tom's talent (thought that helped), but because he had a QB who was okay being screamed at, belittled, and told "no days off." Because Tom bought in (until it got old and he didn't), others bought in. When Belichick disciples have tried to institute the "Patriot way" other places, it's been a disaster. I see the same thing happening when Bill goes elsewhere.

I agree. My belief with the draft has always been that you don't get better players earlier in the draft. What you get is better odds that a player will be good. Harrison Jr. looks like a generational talent. But the last receiver I can think of who seemed to be that kind of talent, with physical tools and ability, was Sammy Watkins. He seemed like a sure thing. At that cost, and with a deep class, I think they're better off picking multiple receivers and increasing their odds that way.

Exactly. Watkins was seen as a once in a decade kind of prospect but didn't pan out. On the other hand, people point out that we might have been better off if we had picked Justin Jefferson instead of trading with the Vikes. However, there's no guarantee that that is who we would have picked and little guarantee that he would turn out the way he has. Jefferson was the fifth receiver taken in that draft (behind Ruggs, Jeudy, Lamb, and Reagor). Just looked back at nfl.com's assessment of Jefferson coming out and he was seen as someone would "become a good starter within 2 years," but with "separation talent just above average." When you draft the top players you aren't necessarily getting better players. What you are getting is players with better odds of being better...but the early ones might be busts and the late ones might be hall of famers. Getting those better odds, particularly with a class so deep at wide receiver, just isn't worth it.

Particularly at a position like safety, I don't think an old name player is the way to go. Ideally can find someone the way they found Poyer and Hyde. Find players who have flashed talent but haven't had an opportunity for whatever reason.

I believe I heard that it's more than double the previous record.

I feel the Bates the way I feel about Dane Jackson on defense. I love having them on the team. They are great backups, very versatile and play well in spot duty...but if you need them to take over as a starter, they become a problem. I think in 22 they were hoping that Bates would develop as a starter but his failure to do so is one reason they went out and signed a couple of guards last year in FA and then drafted one early. Yes, that was as guard and maybe he is better as a center, but I think that the Bills brass has seen enough of him to doubt he can be a starter and he is too expensive as a backup. Anderson can fill that role and maybe develop into a starter.

Okay, but just for simple math, let's say that there are 100 eligible underclassmen who come out every year. If this year they all decide to stay in college, THIS draft pool will be reduced by 100. If, next year, NIL is abolished and all 100 classmen go pro, then the talent pool is increased by 100 (this year's underclassmen who are then seniors). However, if all underclassmen stay in college in perpetuity, as you suggest then, yes, there will be 100 fewer underclassmen. However, there will 100 extra seniors next year (the 100 who stayed back this year)...and then the 100 underclassmen from next year will add to the 2026 draft pool, etc. etc. You'll have the same number in the pool only they will be seniors instead of underclassmen...so more experience and more tape on them.

At worst, it would only be hurting the talent pool for one year. Say, for example, all the eligible Jr.'s stay in school this year. That would hurt the talent pool this year, but next year they would all be coming out, PLUS they would have one more year of experience. There would be fewer one year wonders to tempt GMs and then crash and burn. Seems that long term it would really help the talent pool....now, as for the quality of their poo, I really couldn't say.

Back in the day, the Patriots used to do what you are suggesting. I think they did it to Troy Brown, if I remember. If they had a player who was not performing up to his contract, they would cut him...effectively tearing up the old contract...and then re-sign him. It's also what teams like the Bills do at cut-down day at the start of the season. There are a few problems, however. A) The player needs to agree to a pay cut (which is not usually the case with the cut-down day players) B) You need to be confident that they won't jump to another team and C) You have to pay them any guaranteed money owed on the original deal. NFL contracts have never been guaranteed (which is why the Patriots could just cut Troy Brown and not owe him anything), but in recent years players have been insisting on including more and more guaranteed money in their contracts. Often, it's done through signing bonuses that get paid out right away but are spread out over the length of the contract for cap purposes. You still have to count that money against the cap if you cut him. The worst example of the guaranteed money problem is Deshaun Watson. He's almost half way through his contract which is fully guaranteed and has barely played and hasn't played well. Sure, they can cut him but they still have to pay the rest of the 230 million because it's guaranteed.