BearFan PHX

Guys, every year before the draft we do this. We sign free agents or trade low picks for players. Im not talking about the big signings, Im talking about the lesser ones like this. And every year we judge them based on whether the player becomes a plus starter. But thats not what this move is about. Its about making sure you dont have glaring holes going into the draft. We've done this every year for decades through all kinds of GMs. And I think we mistakenly judge them all as if they were major acquisitions, and misunderstand the value of this isnt necessarily int he player they will be, but in not having to spend high draft picks on reach players in order to fill holes. So this deal doesnt just cost us a 6th rounder, it protects our first 3 rounds. If the right guard is there, we will still draft him, but if they get snatched up before we get to our pick, we wont have to take a lesser guy with a pick thats more valuable. Instead we maximize our draft picks with BPA. So this is about protecting draft capital as much as anything. Think of it as draft insurance, adding depth, and creating competition which may or may not result in Johnson actually being an impact starter, but still gets us to a place where we draft value across our roster.

Gabriel and PFF are my favorite two village idiots

Seems right to me. And just to be clear, my problem is never with someones opinion, because obviously no one knows anything as a fact right now of course! It's just the idea that because so and so said it it must be true. Thats what im arguing against, not the opinion itself. And if someone asserts they know something factual from inside info, thats cool, its just when it comes to pure opinions that i dont care who said it, I just evaluate the opinion on its own merits.

So I think theres an aspect to this that we may be overlooking in understanding this trade. Certainly, he is a player, and he will compete for a position on our team, and will either start or be a backup. That's obvious. But in trying to imagine Poles' projection of where he will end up, we should consider something I brought up a few weeks ago. Every year before the draft, we sign free agents (and make trades) to fill holes. It's necessary at this time of year to have someone, even if they're not going to be the eventual starter, plugged into every roster hole before the draft or else you can get stuck reaching for players to fill holes. Having these kind of players, with grades that are decent but not slam dunk starters not only builds depth, but allows you to go BPA in the draft and avoid reaching for lesser players too high when big names go earlier than you planned. We are surely going to continue to address the interior of the OL, both in free agency and the draft, and unless things go poorly, Jackson will likely have to compete for his position at least. But if we didnt have him, and the draft falls in bad ways for us, we'd be forced to take someone who wasnt that good too early just so that we didnt have a glaring hole on the OL going into the season. Now, with this trade, that particular scenario is avoided. Dont get me wrong, Jackson may well start for us, but this is the time of year where we sign guys who may end up to be backups for us too. And of course the plan isnt to start by building depth. Starters are the more pressing need, but the guys we get right now like this are insurance before the draft that keeps us flexible. I hope Jackson shows up and plays lights out and takes a starting spot, but thats no guarantee, and it's not the only or main intention behind this move. So every year when this happens, we think about them in terms of starters, and how the roster looks, when instead they really are insurance moves. Once theyre on the roster, they can compete of course, but if they dont succeed it doesnt mean Poles whiffed. It means we are freer in the draft.

#10 does seem early for Booker for sure, and I am definitely looking forward to seeing Membou and the others too. I dont doubt anything said about them, especially since I am pretty much ignorant about them right now. My only point was from what Ive already seen on Booker, i dont think a 2nd round grade is realistic at all? Not to mislead. A contrarian is someone who deliberately takes the opposite side of common wisdom. The reason they do it is because when something unexpected happens, they get to say "see? im the only one that predicted Booker would go in the second, and i was right! So you should listen to me more" Contrarians are found in every business, and they are valuable because their opinions run contrary to what everyone else is saying, so you can use them to "check your math" and make sure everyone isnt just blindly following everyone else, which also happens a lot, especially among sportswriters. Im just saying no matter what someones pedigree is, or however lacking mine is (which it IS, ive never worked a day in the NFL!) I can still see it's pretty clear that Booker is a first round talent. To me it's self evident, and arguing from authority is a logical fallacy. Being right, whether youre a pro or not is what its about, but being a pro doesnt make someone right of course, and in this case, Booker is too good to be a 2nd round guy.

Oh and one more thing. These scouts make a living saying controversial things, so if any of their guesses turn up right, they were the one guy saying it, and they can trade on that. No one remembers all the times they guessed wrong. It's the contrarian play, well known in all kinds of businesses. It's valuable and gives people something to balance common wisdom against, but it's not something you can make a living betting on over and over. The vast majority of pundits, and writers etc all agree that Booker is a first round talent, and i admit, that doesnt make it so either. But I just watch the tape, and develop my own opinion. Then right or wrong, at least it's mine.

I'm not saying you should listen to me. You can hold whatever opinion you want to. That goes without saying, for everything any of us write on this board. MY opinion is that blindly following things you read makes people subject to narratives. It's not rocket science, I can watch film on a player, especially on the OL, and see how they do against quality opponents, and get an idea of how they perform. I watch football because I like to watch it and learn about it. Otherwise, why wouldnt I just read about the games too? Anyway this all comes down to the idea that I have a different opinion than you do, and thats OK, for both of us. There's no need for there to be only one truth, and for what it's worth, it seems like I'm not disagreeing with you anyway, just with someone you read. I stand by what I've said, even after not enough research yet. Booker is a first round talent. If any writer or scout says otherwise, i think it makes everything else they say questionable too. Now im not saying he is perfect. He is a hell of a pass protector, and he has all the physical tools to dominate, but he does have some work to do as a run blocker. He's not a top 5 guy, I can see that. Most years no guard goes that high. But every rookie has work work to do, and someone is gonna take Booker in the first round. Probably somewhere before pick 25. If someone wants to put a 2nd round grade on him and create controversy for clicks, so be it. But it isn't a golden fact from the heavens. And for what it's worth, neither is anything i say.

To the age old discussion - I prefer game film to combine stats. Booker is a heck of a player, no matter what his combine numbers or some pundits may say.

I havent watched too much tape yet, but i did watch some on Campbell. More than just highlight reels, i watched a couple of games against quality opponents on the end zone cam. I know that his arms are shorter than ideal, but im not sure that 's enough to make him only an NFL guard. If he's even there at #10, I think he can play LT for us. There are other guys, like Booker, to look at. I havent done anywhere near enough work to suggest one over the other, or anyone else, so Im not saying Campbell should be the pick (yet?), but I do think he can play LT at a high level in the NFL, even with shorter arms. Some guys need longer arms, and some guys manage to get it done on the field with less than ideal measurables. My opinion at the moment is that Campbell is one of those guys. But hey, he may be gone by pick #10, we might prefer a guy like Booker if he isnt, or an edge rush who's name i dont even know yet LOL

theres always that coach that thinks they can do it. Thank goodness that doesnt seem to be us anymore.

But it also means teams retaining their own good players. Like Smith.

Generically, I agree. Im just leaving the door open in case Johnson covets Jeanty. Im not predicting it, or even endorsing it.

unless we are going DL or RB with our first pick, or our scouts find something that we arent all seeing, I think we would like to trade down.

especially after what happened to KC in the Superbowl

we absolutely need to build the line, but we dont need to spend insane amounts of money on one player. Trey Smith isnt a god. He'd be nice to have, but we do have other options for sure.

seems like it yes. if we want a first round IOL, a trade down is probably the best way to do it.

that is logically sound. Ill say it even more vaguely (lol): Unless they think a true blue chipper is available at an impact position, with the way the talent is allotted in this draft, a trade down makes the most sense to get a similar level of talent and pick up more picks at the same time. And pick 10 is generically too rich to pick an interior offensive lineman. What's kind of fun is that we have no idea what kind of guy Ben Johnson is when it comes to draft philosophy. Some may say that Poles is the one picking, but you can bet this coaching staff is going to have a lot to say about it.

Im starting to get a sense of some stuff, but i havent really looked at the DL yet. I currently think Unless Will Campbell is there AND they think he can play LT (and not guard) OR They like another LT (to stay at LT) OR Ashton Jeanty is there and they think he is a real difference maker Then I agree we will look at OL and a trade down would be the best option. I don't imagine taking an IOL at #10, but with a trade down it could make all kinds of sense. This draft is deep for IOL and DL, so more picks is a good thing this year. Ive heard some say that there is no difference in talent between pick #10 thru the end of the 2nd round. That's probably an overstatement if you take it literally, but it's a good year to trade back if you dont think a major impact player is available at #10.

no need to be snarky - I literally said "LOL Im kidding"

Looks like the Chiefs are going to franchise tag Trey Smith.

Look at how teams do after cutting or trading Swift: The Eagles won the Superbowl. The Lions won the division, had their best offensive season ever and were in the discussion for the Superbowl. Therefore, logically, the sooner we cut or trade Swift, the sooner we will win a Superbowl! LOL yes Im kidding, but Im not kidding that Swift isnt good enough. Id even rather have Montgomery than Swift. Having a home run hitter is great, but having someone who routinely threatens to get 4+ yards a carry even if they never break big gains will bring those safeties down into the box, and open up play action and the deep passing game. I wonder if Roschon Johnson will have a resurgence. I thought he was a tough runner.

but Johnson was all in on drafting Gibbs, and signing Montgomery. That means he didnt have faith in Swift for his offense. Im not saying we will cut or trade Swift this year, but I am saying I dont think he is our long term solution, so it will happen this year or next year.

oh for SURE, far from a lock. I think he will be our swing tackle at best. If Kiran isnt our starter (and I dont see that from where he was last year, but who knows this year) then he will have to battle Kiran for the swing tackle spot. This is nothing against Braxton Jones, we got a LOT of value out of him for a 5th round pick, but we need to start winning games, not giving ourselves pats on the back for how cheaply we lost. The whole league knows that when you need a sack, you bull rush Braxton. So he has to be replaced one way or another.

I'm not taking any positions on this yet. What Ive seen tells me he's a stud. But I haven't done enough homework yet to know if Id take him at #10 over, say, Will Campbell. Or trade down. But if Jeanty is as Ive read him to be, and 5 good minutes of YouTube film tell me he is (lol) then I think he's in the conversation at #10.

I read that to mean that they didnt think Swift was the long term answer, and they signed Montgomery as a stop gap measure until they could find the guy they really wanted to feature, which they eventually did. So will Johnson think Swift is the long term answer? I doubt it, but i wouldnt be shocked if he kept him this year and replaced him next year? or replaced him this year is an option too, but it doesnt need to be for him to know Swift isnt the long term answer he's looking for? For sure! The scheme and coaching is a big part of is and so is... Absolutely. Dont tell me Emmitt Smith was a better back than Payton. He just had that line. The RB position as a marquis player is an antiquated idea. Then again, everything old is new again, as evidenced by defenses keeping a second safety back more to counter the passing game, and then the Lions and Eagles showing the league how to defeat that with a strong running game again. But 4-5 years, sounds about right, and of course that's on a rookie contract so you arent overpaying him with cap room, just draft capital if you draft him early-ish. But yeah, the days of backs usually getting that big second contract are probably over. There may be a few exceptions, but in general I agree with all of this.