BearFan PHX

And after all this, he may not even be there at #10... Picking a RB at 10 is a hard call, trading up for one from 10 borders on the ridiculous. But here we are. Things are so different now with ben Johnson, I truly dont know what to think.

We also re-signed OL Bill Murray, which is a really good depth signing. I liked the way he played. He has desire and intensity that was lacking from most of the rest last year. We also placed an exclusive rights free agent tender on special teamer and DL Daniel Hardy. Which basically means we signed him to a one year deal too.

it depends how people play, not just their measurables. Campbell handled top competition in college. Its just too easy to say "shorter arms = OG" - nothing is that direct. For Skoronski, he was a catcher, not a striker. Campbell has different traits. When you make everything about measurables, you end up drafting numbers and not players. We've seen that movie many times before. Also, these are all NARRATIVES. They are shorthand for putting everything in a little box. It's not reality. Barry Sanders is too short to be a running back in the NFL. Doug Flutie is too short to play QB. Tom Brady doesnt have the physique or arm to be an NFL QB. Hall of Fame OT Joe Thomas has short arms too. etc etc Sportswriters love these measured facts. They can look them up and then tell themselves that it tells the story. But smart scouts and GMs watch FILM, and look at how players play. It's ALL that matters. Have you seen film of Campbell failing to protect his QB because his arms were too short? Or did you just read that from some writer who also didnt watch the film, and just regurgitates the same old generalities based on numbers? If you watch Campbell and you see it differently, then so be it - I respect that. We may disagree, but at least you have an opinion. But if you read some pundit and then make these rules based dictates of who we can afford, who can and cant play - its just all too rigid and based on nothing but narratives. In that case you dont have an opinion, you just have a narrative. Because you didnt formulate it, you just regurgitated it. It's cool to disagree, but you gotta actually have an opinion. This isnt even about how he plays, its just about a few inches on his arms. Its ALL based on that one factoid.

It depends on how Johnson and the scouts value him. Swift is not good enough, but maybe an edge rusher or OT is though.

I really need to watch more film so I can argue about how we need him or should avoid him, or should take someone else!

I dont think they are going to let short term dollars affect their long term plans. I think when you bring in a new staff, you take some losses in order to accommodate the new way of doing things. Like when we switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and back etc. Now Im not saying we will be drafting Jeanty, thats many leaps from what Im saying, but if Johnson says he needs him, and Poles thinks he can make it happen, then Swift's money isn't going to be the reason why it doesnt happen.

good point. our arrow is definitely pointing up.

people rate players differently. I think he might be the 2nd best tackle in the draft. I need to watch more film.

oh man, we have never agreed more than right now!

Dont sleep on Kelvin Banks Jr either. He's a hell of a player, and maybe our LT of the future? If we go that way in the draft.

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.