BullBuchanan

if I watched 909, would it be more relevant than if I watched 0? How he performed is known. top 15 is "top-end"? I'd call that average.

Yup, and a mediocre one. He's not going to be able to effectively be a DC and an HC, when he hasn't even been a competent gameday HC. very few coaches can pull that feat off.

There is a ton of talent in this draft. Trenton Simpson and Jack Campbell could both be available to us and would likely be instant upgrades depending on if they adjust scheme a little. They didn't replace him with anyone though. I fully expect the defense to regress unless they get more talent. Leslie sucks, but he's better than having literally no-one in the job. Same with Edmunds. If they decide to replace him with some scrub, it isn't a defense of his awesomeness.

If you watched him play and didn't come away with the knowledge that he's an average pass blocker and an awful run blocker, you didn't learn anything useful by watching him.

That's a lot of cheddar for a KMart brand guard.

Von miller made as much money per tackle as most people here will make in a lifetime.

Good for him. Coffee is for closers.

Good ones do cost a lot, and stud RBs can be massive difference makers immediately, which is rare with a lot of positions.

I'd be shocked if any team gave up more than a 4th for him. I'd find it extremely unpalatable to give him a 3x raise from last year's salary based on his production.

Of course his stat line is going to drop if he's being asked to do other things. it doesn't mean he was less effective at his new role. We also have no obligation to use him at his most effective role if he would still be the best Tampa 2 MLB in the class. He's still a complete upgrade over Tremaine Edmunds in every respect as a prospect even if he isn't playing a glorified EDGE. Did you see his combine numbers?

That's not really true. Simpson is everything Edmunds was supposed to be + more. Simpson is the perfect fit for Tampa 2. Campbell requires a scheme change because he isn't athletic enough to do what Edmunds did.

Yep - Trenton Simpson or Jack Campbell

A conversation about the SB Winner releasing a player seems pretty related to them being a SB winner to me. 🤷‍♂️

I wouldn't be against that. I think he has the right makeup for it too.

If you're banking on a 2nd year 6th round pick to make a position switch an immediately start at a high level, that's a pretty bold assertion. It would also create a hole in our CB group that would have to be replaced. Personally, I'd rather bring in a starter who is native to the position either via draft or FA while Benford learns the position, if that's indeed the plan.

He's one of the least talented players I've ever seen in the NFL. He has no business even being on a practice squad. I'd sooner sign Paxton Lynch.

You also had Neal, Kumerow, Hines, and Gilliam whose primary contributions were ST. It's a significant makeup of the roster.

Draft: Trenton Simpson - He's everything Tremain Edmunds was supposed to be, and get this - he's only 21 years old 😱. As long as we play Frazier/McDs soft as defense, he's as good as it gets. FA: Josh Jacobs. Allen isn't going to stop firing rockets and Dorsey isn't going to stop dialing them up. As long as that's true, I think it's crucial we get a big back that can take a load off Allen in the running game and make the most of the runs we do call. Jacobs also gives us crucial insurance should Allen miss any time. WR is tempting, but the pass catchers available are underwhelming at their cost.

And still Gabe doubled his output on 11 more receptions. I wouldn't be bragging about that.

Hodgins has probably already played his best ball. I don't even like Davis, but he destroys Hodgins in a landslide. There isn't a thing that Hodgins does that's superior.

I'm not a statistician, but I work a lot with metrics and insights and use them on a daily basis to make very expensive decisions. I think the sports world in general has a problem with "analytics". FAR too often you have analytics geeks point to a metric and think that it equals some universal truth. To your point, understanding how they work and limits of their applicability is critically important. Often, new insights are just combinations of existing metrics with weighting applied. While that may be useful in some cases, we're all assuming that the data points currently being captured are meaningful, sufficient and accurate. Even then, an insight is just one data point and there are invariably situations that will net false positives and negatives if used exclusively.

Yes. lol. Absolutely not. Stafford has always been a great QB in a dysfunctional organization. There's an entire tier of difference between Stafford and Carr. Stafford was always a QB capable of winning a championship with a little help. Carr isn't that guy. If you want to win a championship with him, you better come with the '00 Ravens or '02 Bucs. He routinely falls apart when the lights get brightest and you put the game on his shoulders. He has lower highs and lower lows than Stafford. Not a bad player at all, but if you're hoping to win it all with him everything else has to be perfect. The only team I can think of that fits that mold is San Francisco, and depending on how the offseason goes, maybe the Jets.

He's exactly that though- always has been.

if we're going to keep trying the same things that we've been doing the last 5 years like it's going to be better next year, then sure. No real difference and we all get our Sunday's back.

I'm sure millions of people do. He's the best player on the planet.