BearFan PHX

exactly, one of the points Olin made (regarding Davis) was that if you pay a vet big money, you expect more than just production on the field, you gotta sign someone who will be a leader in the locker room too. And of course Davis was neither.

Olin Kreutz was on TTNL tonight, and said some really good things about Roushar, and what it takes to make an OL work in general. In short, Kreutz has some connection to Roushar, I think he played under him somewhere, and he said he was very similar in approach and temperament to Harry Heistand, which I think is a very good thing. Seems like we are going to be looking for players on the OL that have attitude. Finally.

so you dont need to trade for free agents, you just need to (over) pay for them?

hahahaha perfect

I read an article that the director of pro personnel would likely be elevated to asst GM.

Poles definitely signs mid and low level free agents to fill holes that he may well draft as well. Big money free agents not counting in this of course.

well just jump in!

A big money signing may well affect our draft plans, but i can tell you now that every year football teams fill all their holes with decent free agents so that they dont have to reach in the draft, but when good players drop to their pick in higher rounds, they pick them anyway, even if they just signed a free agent for the same position. Obviously this doesnt apply to $20 million dollar a year free agents, just as late round picks can go to any position, but first through 4th or 5th round, we take good players. The reason you fill holes with free agents is so you can go some form of best player available, and if you dont land the players you were targeting, you dont have to reach on that position. But if the player you wanted is available, you draft him even if you just signed a mid tier free agent for the same position. Often the vet wins the job in camp, but the rookie can displace them during the year. All or at least most teams do this. We do this every year.

yup.

Yeah, but the rest of the line was a sieve! Fangio is a hell of a DC. We need a better OL than KC has (Smith excepted)

I think we can all see how important the offensive line is. Even if you have decent line that holds up most of the year, when you get to the big games and face the tough defenses, you have to be able to give your QB time no matter who they are. And conversely, how important a good pass rush is too. Everything happens in the lines, and we suck on both sides.

right. These teams need wins, and they dont care what color someone is if they can help them win games. That goes for players and coaches. Given that there are no real physical requirements to be a coach, it stands to reason that you would have the same percentage of coaches, GMs etc of color that there are in the general population, and we are close to that. As to why there are more black players in the league by percentage than there are black people in the general population, I have no answers. Only that the top athletes seem to be more likely to be black. it should be said that we are speaking of the top athletes, and of any given average white guy or black guy, it will not always be the case at all. Plenty of women can beat plenty of men (like me) in physical competition for example, but when it comes to the best athletes, they never will. But what everyone should want, what MLK spoke eloquently about, is a meritocracy. The best players play, the best coaches coach. And I do not doubt in the NFL that that is the case, given how much each team wants to win. It's more of a cultural or political narrative at this point in the NFL, than an actual issue that I can see. Should the league require 73% of the players be white, 14% be black, asians be 6.4%, and 50.5% be female? What if there arent enough females that want to play in the NFL who are good enough? What do you do then? Force some to play anyway? It's a bad way of thinking. I understand why some people are seduced by the idea of equity, but equality and equity are not the same thing. Equality of opportunity is a no brainer, we should always strive for that. And then results of competition should be meritocritous. Equity on the other hand, the engineering of outcomes despite the facts on the ground, is some collectivist anti American stuff we should all recoil from, once we see it for what it is.

sounds like a great idea. dropping down 2 slots to swap 242 for 76. according to Hill: pick #10 = 369 pts pick # 242 = 1 pt (370 total) pick #12 = 347 pts pick #76 = 61 pts (408 total) 408 - 370 means we got 38 pts better in the deal (equivalent to pick #99) put another way, to make the trade fair under the hill chart, we'd have to give a compensatory 3rd (from losing cunningham for example) to even it up. So yes, if theyd do that, we should jump on it.

yes i agree

The Bears have been constituted as an outside zone blocking line, and we had lighter more agile athletes. Ben Johnson ran all kinds of schemes in Detroit, and outside zone was only one of them. I think he likes bigger bodies. And I agree about the weight room and the strength and conditioning coach. We have been like a resort of a football team. So let me ask a question that will not be popular at this moment. Poles was an OL, but we didnt make them lift, and we didn't demand the "HITS" principles from anyone. If Poles had been a WR, I might understand, but since he played a position where discipline and effort are so central - how did he let the culture get to where it was?! it's not a good sign. Can we win with this staff if Poles serves them and their vision well? Sure. But I dont see Poles providing any leadership back in the other direction to the coaches.

I totally agree about free agents. there are so many misses. I was just thinking more about the last thing you said, that you would prefer not to roll with the guys from last year, and through the draft is better if you pick the right guys. And i guess we only have so many draft picks each year plays into the analysis too. So yeah, now im not surprised

Assuming we can make it work under the cap, which it looks like we should (getting a bargain because CLE paid the guaranteed money) Id be all for it. I also expect IOL players to be signed in free agency, although we should also be drafting some as well.

Im surprised to hear you say this. I would have guessed that you were a "replace everyone" kind of guy as it relates to this position room right now. I dont necessarily disagree about Shelton, but i do think bringing Jenkins back is a mistake. He's just too injured, and i think he gives a false sense of security that the position is addressed. Now if it's a really friendly deal, and youre expecting a rookie to replace him by like week 6 or something, then I understand it. I did just write about filling holes short term pre draft, but i worry about relying on him too much?

What an extraordinary life she had. Of course my thoughts go out to her family and loved ones, as with any passing. That is the private family stuff, because these are real people living actual lives, so all respect to them. Out here, in the sports world, talk will inevitably turn to the effect on the team. I cant pretend that I have liked the McCaskeys as owners. I know it's a matter of "Careful what you wish for" in terms of new ownership. We seem to just now be putting pieces together, and a new owner might want to rip that apart and put his stamp on things. That would be terrible right now. But eventually, with the right owner, things could get even better for our franchise, so I look forward to that.

smart stuff

The Packers center is available too. And we have all been watching this long enough to know that you NEVER go into the draft with "holes" you always bring in free agents so you dont have to reach at a position. When we brought in Glennon for example, everyone thought it was a mistake because he wasnt that good, but the plan was for Trubisky to take the starting position from him. When we brought in Dalton, same thing. Some fans thought they were serious contenders to start, especially because of the money we paid them, but it is often true that you bring in free agents, only to draft their replacements soon after. So yes, I expect lots of free agents before the draft to fill every "need" position. Many will be backup quality, or borderline journeyman starter types, and not big money guys, but we wont go into the draft bare. We never do. So I expect those signings, and I also think we should evaluate those guys (in some cases) as depth and contingency guys, rather than swing and miss guys when they dont work out. It gives you the flexibility to go BPA at least somewhat, so you dont have to reach to fill holes. And doubly so if we are trading down on draft day.

If he only costs a first and a future 2nd, id do that deal easily. We could spend that first on an edge rusher this year anyway.

true, but if someone is offering 3 firsts, they arent going to trade him to us for a single first and a third for example, no matter how much Garrett hates it. If on the other hand, he has a clause, and they NEED to trade or cut him for cap reasons, and he wants to play in Chicago, that would be different. Im not saying any of this will happen, just saying that youre right about CLE not wanting to look bad, but only within reason?

Yes, that's the right way to value a future pick for sure. and the plot thickens! I wonder if Garrett has a clause where he has to approve where he's being traded to. I would imagine that he does. And if your analysis is correct (and it seems right to me) then better for CLE to get something rather than nothing, so who knows what draft picks it might take to get Garrett if he wants to come here. I'm obviously engaging in that wishful fan thinking, but it is the season

re: the Jimmy Johnson chart - use this one instead - it's more modern and made to fit the last 20 years of actual trades. its much closer to how the teams value the picks, because it is mathematically derived from all the trades over that period of time. https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp