YattaOkasan

Im totally fine with it. He seems like a big upgrade from Shaq as a pass rusher with only a small decrease in the run game. We need DE juice so him doing well is good. Thought I heard he got around Collins so was having some second team snaps. But havent heard much good about Collins yet Getting a couple feels overall. Offensive skill players humming is great. But causes some concern about secondary. My hope is that the front 7 is the strength of this defense now and a few of these completions would be stopped as sacks or pressures (a lot of the good reports are also during 7 v 7 so no rush). If the DL can keep up the good work when the pads come on, then we may have something cause I still have a lot of confidence in this OL.

Could go the other way too as Joe Marino mentioned after yesterdays practice. 11 personnel with Cook, Kincaid, Hollins, Coleman, MVS. Thats a lot of size that can be difficult to match up against with nickel if they are in a condensed formation. I thought he played better at LT last year? Need to see him do well at RT this preseason before I'll jump to that prediction (I think he Van Demark gave up a sack at RT last year). To your question yes Brown is in a contract year and if he doesnt get extended hell be a FA.

Appreciate the context and Im sure others do too. Felt like he went from posting here to not and wasnt clear why. This context helps me understand that a lot. Its interesting though how we aggregate so much content from all these sources anyway.

Something specific about what he did at Utah that concerns you? Thought i heard they ran a pretty complicated safety system there cause Bishop and Vaki were so good (2nd and 4th round draft picks).

Didnt realize he was trying to make it a side business. His posts didnt feel the same as when eric turner was here. Also interestingly while this may not be a place to advertise side gigs many folks that have left still have their stuff reported here so we still be doing that work for them (reporters, cover 1, and i guess Dean now). Its an interesting community on the web youve built and i have a ton of respect for it. If he was breaking terms i get it, but it didnt seem that way and I dont know why yall wouldnt want to link to Deans work or be generally supportive.

Lots of podcasters promote each others work. Many times because they are also consumers of that material. Do the owners of this site think they should have exclusive control of TC reports? No. They will probably read Astro's posts and so have an interest in getting better reports (also better reports will cause more discussion and thus traffic). Lastly, helping Astro get ability to attend camp could result in TBD getting someone to attend TC eventually. Does that get to your why sufficiently?

DK has competed in track events so Coleman aint that but I get your point. Im thinking Nico Collins as a comparator. Coleman is a bit shorter (1") but has comparable 10 yard split (Coleman faster) and similar 20 yard split (Coleman 0.05 slower). Coleman has a bit more explosiveness (no agilities but shuttle was Nico's worse).

Where do you see it not correlated with winning? A quick google search shows it is. Its less predictive than Turnovers so fair that turnovers are more important, but it definitely seems statistically significant. We could do some simple regressions against record but even the quick eye test from the OP shows the teams with a high winning percent are near the top of 3rd down %. Its def correlated with winning; probably less than turnovers but it is not insignificant like passing yards.

The concern, and its valid imo, is that we dont have a #1. Your list is correct on why to have hope but how likely are a lot of these things. Shakir, Samuel, MVS are the most established and Coleman's investment sorta demands he do a little. Do wanna check your MVS numbers. I dont see him having 500 yards 3 of 6 seasons (though they alternate and last year he did not get 500 so thats good). Then Hollins had to be force fed to get that 690 yards. I also don't count on Claypool for others. McD has shown he can be ahead of the curve (nickel usage, the way they used Josh as a runner was pretty unique, heavier personnel packages) so I hope hes getting ahead of a curve here related to having a defined WR1. I think theres a a good chance they pull it off, but it such a novel approach that I understand the concerns. Can appreciate that take. Im still focused on defense cause of how much we should be able to get out of it, but i understand the concerns about coaching cause the game plans have been pretty atrocious. Though not sure how much game planning could've saved AJ klein anyway and the previous years were potentially more Frazier. But the part that has a bit more excited is that we are starting to shift from a Back 7/coverage focus to a Front 7/pressure focus. That change in focus with a change to Babich gets me a bit excited. As mentioned appreciate you clarifying and hope you understand the hope for defense figures it out side more.

I generally agree with you that the offense has not been the problem in the playoffs, but doesnt that also sorta suggest there is less blood in that stone? This part of the thread started by talking about likelihood of success and dismissed the defense as a place for investment cause of playoff failures. I think its harder to get the offense to be better on average and more consistent than it is just to raise the average of the defense so thats its always acceptable. If we did that, then wont cost games anymore and the offense is already doing enough to win the games. That we havent raised the average play of the defense in the playoff is maddening but still seems like the answer.

Diggs was not about to need a new contract. He was on the team through 2027. But agree this is a different contract than that. I'm really happy with our RB, TE, and OL rooms so my concerns about WR are much less. You cant have everything with the cap. We chose not to invest in WR. Whether that works or not is the question.

There are 545 targets to go around from last year. Tell me your distribution then? I assume its by position X, Y, Z, TE, RB rather than players. Mine analysis was pretty simple but I think works. If you really want details on how it can work (again I really dont know if it will cause this is a pretty novel approach) then we would use condensed sets to that "boundary" WR are pretty close to the formation and can still get the free release. As for Dawson Knox he can easily have some of those 180 targets left over after the first 4 targets. Give Knox 60 targets (up 66% from last year, so a healthy increase), which would make him option 5 in the passing game and getting to 40-50 catches. That is the math working. Again after the first 4 targets in my example there are 160 targets. Doesnt matter who option 5 is. With 180 targets left over do you not think the next option will get enough opportunity to get to 40-50 catches. CBs and DTs have been rotated differently in the past (ones drive per drive the other is more snap to snap). Why did you combine them? Its just a framework to think from. There is some amount of snaps available for WR's. I think itll be more broadly shared (like DT) and theyll all get plenty of opportunity. You said the math doesnt work. I showed you two ways the math DOES work and you ignored. Do you think Kincaid gets more than 120, does shakir and samuel get more than 90? Does cook get more than 60? Does Josh pass less than 540 times (last years number)? Do all the other well say 6 options all get 30 targets? How do you not see the math working (and please use numbers cause its math).

It could totally not work. if we do the Beane question of "how does it fail?", I think we have identified the answer. Not enough talent. But I dont think you need to have a 1000 yard receiver to have a top 10 passing game. GB didnt have anyone above 800 yards and Love was still 7th in yards (some caveats with that analysis).

agree someone will come off the field. Disagree that the math doesnt work. You make it sound like theyll be on for a drive and then off a drive. I dont treat this like we did CBs a few years ago . I would expect a rotation more like DT (just realized how good of analogy this is). On for a few snaps then rest for a few. That way everyone will be fresh and running hard every route. Also not sure why youre talkin about WR4-6, when the discussion is target #5. Cook was a top 5 target in the passing game last year. Kincaid is obviously as well. If there are 2 WR on the field at all times then the top 3 WR can be on for 66% of the time. That should be enough snaps to get to 50 catches. More maths. Target #1 (Kincaid getting 120 targets) Target 2/3 (Samuel/Shakir getting 90 targets), Target 4 (Cook getting 60 which should be 40+) leaves 180 targets for the rest! Thats with Kincaid getting 30 more targets, Samuel/Cook staying the same, and Shakir doubling his targets. You dont think target 5 will get enough opportunity to reach 40-50 catches with that many targets left? How do you spread it around? Do you think WR4-6 are each getting 20 targets (there were only 5 WR last year and the last two shared 40 targets)? Does Ray davis steal a ton (he would have to take a lot more than murray's 20 to really impact the distribution. The Math absolutely works with out injury. It doesnt without injury if the top target gets 160 targets.

Not really how that works. We can't rework his deal until hes on the team. If youre not cap compliant they just stop processing things until you are (i.e. you cut players); I'm pretty sure its set up for this specific type of situation. So LV would have to rework his deal then trade. Reworking in LV is harder than it probably seems. Particularly cause his current contract pays him a base salary of 35 million the next two years. If you wanna rework his deal you probably have to extend him past age 35.