BearFan PHX

both smart comments. This is how the NFL works.

agree with all of this, except i cant trust that he will be available. if I knew he would play, it would be a totally different story.

I dont think we will re-sign him. Not unless it's as a pure backup with a contract that cheap. I feel like someone will pay him to start, but as you say, not a fortune. But more than we'd pay for him to be a backup, and he will want to start if he can too.

a freakin men!

yeah that was impressive as hell and meant nothing on the football field. Hester (as a DB or WR), Velus Jones...

THIS is a major move for a plus starter. He's 32, so it wont be forever, but right now, he's a hell of a player. He's played with Brady and Mahomes. He will be good for Caleb. Free agency hasnt even started, and we are already addressing our weakest points with good answers. Feels different now. I think we are already feeling the impact of Ben Johnson and his staff on our roster. Poles will end up looking much better as a result of his collaboration with these real football guys. Imagine the difference compared to Eberflus' opinion on players. Or Nagy.

I agree. I wasnt saying we should draft him, just that he is a first round pick for someone.

so true. we went through a bunch of coaches who thought they could coach up physical potential instead of drafting football players. I say the same thing about Will Campbells arms being too short. Skoronski, for example, had other problems that kept him from being an NFL OT (he was a catcher, not a striker), but Campbell doesnt have the same problems. Remember all the physical beasts we drafted over the years that busted? Ill name a few, and then people can jump in and add to the list. THis might be fun, if not also depressing. I'll start: Alonzo Spellman, David Terrell and Stan Thomas.

Yes I mean Jackson, thank you for catching that. He's new to me today, so i need to get more familiar with his name. What Im saying is that he doesnt have to be a long term starter for this trade to have worked. I agree that they may well draft his eventual replacement, and likely it will take some time for the rookie to be ready to beat him out. But I've been saying there are two other eventualities that are possible here too that amke this trade even smarter. One is that we get to the poace where we expected to draft his replacement and the names we wanted are gone, so we are able to draft a BPA type at another position rather than reaching to the next lower tier because we have a hole that needs filling. And Two is that if we get to that place in the draft, and the rookie we want is there, and he burns up training camp and Jackson becomes a backup. That's also a GREAT outcome. We are paying a lot in cap space this year for this flexibility and insurance, but we arent signing him on a long term deal (yet). We will have a year with him to find out how he fits, and what we want to do about it. So we may have overpaid a bit for one year, if he doesnt come in and set the world on fire, but there are still all kinds of positive outcomes from doing this even if that happens. And if he does set the world on fire, then we can sign him to a long term deal and have an answer going forward. All im saying is its more complicated than just signing a guy and plugging him in as a long term starter. if one of the other scenarios happens, and we end up with a strong OL, but Jackson isnt part of that, it was still a success, even though people will probably say Poles whiffed. But he bought insurance, which is worth something too. The way to evaluate his moves this offseason is to see whether we end up with a great OL, not how each piece necessarily works out. To make an analogy, you may hedge a bet with another bet. Both will not pay off, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt have done it, that you end up winning is all that really matters, not that all the bets you make win? Or again, insurance. I think when we signed Mike Glennon it was the same thing. We didnt know we'd get Trubisky, and then we did. Glennon failed but was a smart bet, not a long term answer as our starter, even though we paid him big. Trubisky, on the other hand, was the real mistake. Had Trubisky worked out, people might have said that we blew it signing Glennon, but we didnt, it gave us insurance, and filled a hole until Trubisky was ready. But Trubisky wasnt insurance, that was a flat out pay big draft capital for a plus starter and THAT was the big mistake. Jackson is a Glennon at worst, and a possible plus starter too. So even better.

Reading more, there are reasons for optimism about Johnson as a good starter too. Plus Ben Johnson knows him, having spent three years with him on the Lions. If Johnson can stay healthy, he is a top tier player, but if not, it's another Jenkins situation. Hopefully Johnson excels and dominates. But if he keeps the spot warm until a 2nd or 3rd rounder can beat him out, that's even better. he has a hefty price tag for this year, but we have the cap sapce to take it, and we have outs after this year, so it's not a long term marriage if it doesnt work. Seems like a good move for Poles, whether he becomes a dominant Pro Bowler, or just fills a hole for this year.

right. this is the best way to use Johnson. If he wins the starting job, great. If a rookie ascends quickly, even better. if the draft falls poorly and you dont get the guard you wanted, you can go BPA. Johnson doesnt have to be a great long term starter for this trade to be a good idea. So youre right, its what else happens that defines this deal, not just what Johnson does for us long term.

yes. his game film is really good, and most draft sites have him as the top rated guard in the draft. Its one of those things where game film and combine performance dont agree. Im not saying we need to draft him - thats a big multidimensional question, but he is a better prospect than the combine, and subsequent narratives would lead us to believe. Hes a little rough in the running game, but he is a beast in pass protection, and he is very strong. It's likely he can get better int he run game since he handles the pass rush so well. He understands leverage, and has real strength, he just needs to learn how to deliver while moving forward and into the second level. He is 6' 5" and 321, and has huge hands. NFL.com Mock has him going 17th to CInci, Sporting News has us taking him at #10 (I disagree with Mel Kiper i think), PFF (yuck) has him going 22nd to San Diego, CBS has him going 13th and 26th in their mocks. None of that means anything other than that it's not insane that he would go in the first round. You know me, I'm a game film guy. Ive seen some on him, looked pretty good in pass pro. He needs better angles in run blocking but he is STRONG on film. I hope there are better options for us at #10, because taking a guard that high, you dont want him to have any asterisks around run blocking! If we got him in the late teens or 20s after a trade down, that'd be a different story. But my main point is just that the combine is just one day.

lol hes a top rated guard in the draft. great physical tools, great pass blocking, needs work on his run blocking, but has a body that says he should be able to master it with good coaching.

exactly, and also to give us some flexibility in the 3rd round etc. Everyone is measuring him like Johnson is a main starting piece, but i really don't think that's the deal here. He will compete for that, but he is also insurance for a rookie to develop. But I keep repeating myself LOL

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.