YattaOkasan

Known but good info. Where is the SoS in the article?

Great exercise, and is tricky. Some of these things are tough cause they are intertwined or may not the responsibility of the current GM. For example is the Marcel Dareus dead cap a negative on Beane when it was Whaley that signed him (this is less of a problem for Beane cause of the sample size but could be an issue for other GMs that youre comparing Beane too). Pro Bowls are a bit tricky cause they are so perception based. Starts also gets weird cause a GM in a rebuild will get a boost by starting late draft picks that arent really good. I do really like the idea of % non-rookies that see the end of their contract (if signed by current GM). Rather than starts per draft pick you could also do rookies that see end of contract (though you may need to normalize by round somehow). I think team success is pretty good metric. Ultimately, the job is a resource allocation position and you are on the right path in thinking about resources (draft and FA), but the metrics are a bit tricky. I really like this discussion youve started.

Appreciate that number as I was looking for it. That wouldve made him 12th highest paid (AAV) at the position. Therein lies much of the problem. You have to be top 10 at your position for the 5th year to be worth. That seems to be for most positions with QB, Edge, and WR being the only spots you can really get much of a discount. Combined with the hard cap number and it has lost a lot of its appeal.

What does the 5th year option for him cost? Probably a ton for an above average RB.

I think thats the interesting part to this pick. Multiple peeps have said his tape lining up in the box is better (and he lined up there more), but his testing says hes athletic enough to be single high. My question is do you think McD, Babich, and Danna can teach that? Feels like yes and if so then wow this is gonna be a heck of a chess piece. I agree until he learns we live with Edwards doing an ok job when were wanna go single high. Lastly I think of this as a Kelce eraser in some ways. Would love to have that

Lol which games in the playoffs don't matter? Silly take. The game in the playoffs that you lose is always the one that matters the most.

I think the basketball background has to help with body positioning and high pointing through traffic. Wasn’t who I wanted but excited to see what he can do

Im with @TheyCallMeAndy and C. So Ill say Zach Frazier Screams McD (4x wrestling state champ, Dad played in college). iOL could easily be the play if you wanna keep McGovern at LG (though Collins signing makes me skeptical).

Yes it maybe a back up role but back up 3 tech will get a lot of snaps. They will likely play ~50% of the snaps. Do we have another position where a player @ 60 could get that many snaps (let alone impactful snaps)? Safety, WR, iOL are the only ones I can think of. Safety and iOL they would have to beat a vet for the job which shouldnt be an expectation, and I would argue 70% of snaps at WR is less impactful than 50% snaps at DT because every DT snap matters and not every WR snap matters. In terms of Ed's contract, I like the idea of him and a rookie ending their contracts at similar times so we can presumably have his replacement ready to go when his extension is at an end. I dont think that would be a tough pill to stomach. I would be pumped for obvious passing downs to have Rousseau, Fiske, Ed, AJ. Thats a young group that I think could get after it (especially up the middle).

lol it was the fact that we only have 2 smaller in stature RBs in the room after FA that gave the interest away to me. Theyll def take one, but I dont think they are looking for a workhorse. Should be able to find a back that can convert short yardage and provide pass blocking. Everything else is gravy to me. Do you think we should wait until next year for that? Feel like there are a lot of those players available every year.

I agree and would add Baker to the list. Raw for sure but seems to get separation at the catch point because of his physicality.

Would be so happy with legette at 28. Such a good fit for what we need. Love how variable his assessment is

Don't want us spending a pick even. Wow. you know we have 10 picks right? You think there are 10 more pressing needs than a room that ONLY has 2 players in it (both with similar skill sets). Theres snaps to be had at this position. I expect a pick, UDFA, and probably a FA signing as well. Need bodies.

I dont think so. Draft charts I'm looking at have #17 as 950 and our #28 as 660. Our highest fourth this year #128 is worth 44. Rule of thumb is subtract around for future picks so the best next years second could be valued at is 265. Thats just enough to get it done but pick 91 (what wouldve been our third) is only worth 135 which would be well short of whats needed. I suspect Jax would value our 2nd more like pick 91 though maybe vikings 2nd we have now could get it done. https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=buf

Would you be ok with him round 4? I think no. I would be happy with him there but round 3 does feel a bit much.

Yeah realized that a bit late. Point still stands about why not include the 4th round for this discussion. I think its more likely we pick one in the 4th than 6th or 7th.

Agreed they have found talent but those were players were werent really expecting to play. This year feels more like the year we drafted Moss. We needed a RB that year similar to how we need one this year. I'm sorta expecting us (hard to expect anything in the draft) to pick one in the 4th. It feels like a position that has snaps available versus possible upgrades or depth (CB, S, LG, DE, DT). As you mentioned a vet FA could do that but i think a draft pick makes more sense for our cap situation.

Why limit the convo to day 3? Considering we have a huge need at RB (only 2 on the team right now) we will be drafting one. I dont think the value is there in the first two rounds but would definitely be happy to have a reliable short yardage and pass pro RB in the 4th. Do you think all our other needs are greater than RB that we shouldnt consider RB in the 4th?

I guess a min deal for those players would be good but i like the idea of upside that you could get with a rookie. Considering we only have two RBs on the team right now(!) I think its gonna be both draft and a free agent signing. We need bodies for camp and the season. I would hope the rookie would be the plan to play with the vet setting the floor of play for the position (especially around pass pro). If thats the plan I think you dont wait til the 5th for a player that you expect to play (not that you cant find good talent just seems crazy to expect them to play right away).

Surprised at how little talk there has been about RB. There are carries to be had in this offense and snaps to play as a pass blocker. I think we are taking one with a 4th and that player will get a fair bit of run (assuming they are more physical than Cook and Johnson).

So it makes sense to trade someone in the first year of their extension and take a cap hit thats really hard to eat. Im still confused how this happens with the cap. who are we cutting?

Agree on importance of coaching being directly correlated with number of players. But would also posit that coaching importance is also directly correlated with number of stoppages in the sport. Football has a lot which allows lots of opportunity for direction. If you can give better direction you will have an advantage.

I think its 4th or 5th rounds. Trade back to get a 3rd seems more likely than ever. Then bundle picks to maximize number of picks in the top 100. we could get good talent at multiple positions that could use an investment (WR, T, iOL, DT, DE, CB, S). DE is really the tricky one cause it sorta needs a first round pick to have a good shot at providing impact. Commanders 40 and 78 for 28 and 144 seems pretty good for me. Then we could have 40, 60, 78 with 128 and 133 as opportunities to move up if you bundle late picks.

Could be a good way to better understand the system and thus what is asked of Troy Franklin?

I think what youre missing is younger in regards to our big contracts. Yes we still have the same average maybe but the cuts had bigger contracts than the people we replaced them with. Also "hope to get the best out of them" seems like a terrible plan. I (and seemingly McBeane) would rather pay a bit more to get known quantities while were competing for a championship, that little bit of extra money will likely not move the needle for a difference maker. if we were rebuilding then sure throw a UDFA out there (Levi Wallace), but now that were contending you need to not play a UDFA (if we can help it) that can be exposed. Heck our 3rd rd LB got exposed by the giants and patriots and you wanna just hope for the best with a UDFA. We'll see about the draft but I think they will prioritize the trenches.