AU-panther

I swear some people don't even read the articles then they comment on said articles. The focus isn't about which players help a team more from a production standpoint, that would be more based on something like WAR (wins above replacement), they are looking at cap value. Since everyone is trying to turn this into a Darnold vs Fields vs Horn type of argument lets take the QB out of the example. Lets use LT and RB. LTs are the second most valuable position based on the metric they use. They basically looked at the median price of non rookie contracts since 2014. The yearly cost of the #8 pick is around $5.3m. The yearly cost of the median contract of LTs is $14.7m. The yearly cost of the median contract of RBs is $3.08m. If you draft a LT and he turns out average its still a decent pick in some ways. If you draft a RB and he turns out average you are wasting money. I'm not saying the article is the be all strategy for drafting but some of the logic is sound. I said it before the draft, one reason I like drafting tackles early is they are so expensive in free agency. Would you prefer to flip a coin for $3 or $15? With a QB the difference is even higher. If anything the article presents a very good case for us drafting a OT instead of Horn, which a lot of people around here wanted. If you want to talk about which players contribute more to winning, then that would be a different article probably based on something like WAR but this was most cost based.

Just based on scheme (a lot of quick passes) we might feel less inclined to spend considerable resources on the O-line. I'm not saying it is the correct call, but fact is both last year with our first pick, and several times in this years draft there have been OTs availed that probably were rated fairly high at given draft spots. Fans have this idea that LTs help your team exponentially more that any other non-QB position, I just don't think a lot of teams think the same way.

I agree with you that I'm not a fan of chasing exceptions. Its a dangerous slope that usually ends up being a losing gamble. My only point was I don't think his draft position was the reach that alot of fans thought. In regards to the rest of the draft class I agree with your POV. Rookie DBs struggle, look at Okuda and Henderson last year. OTs often struggle, let alone one from the 3rd round, who might end up being a guard anyway. How many good LTs are there in the league? 10-12. Some of which are in their late 30s. So in the last 15 years the league has only found 10-12 but we found one in the 3rd round? I hope so but we have to be realistic. I actually feel the best about Marshall, for whatever reason WRs seem to transition a little better recently. Also he is going to be asked to be the 2nd or 3rd option. Darnold I'm rooting for, but honestly players are usually what they are by this time in this career. He definitely has tools, and I think he will be set up better for success here. My big fear is he improves just enough for us to pay him a big contract but not really be elite.

I’m not saying he is going to work out but I’m not sure if you can consider him an outlier if he got drafted close to where some teams had him ranked.

I’m not convinced our staff views the idea of a “franchise” left tackle in the same regard as the fan base, and to be honest a lot of organizations don’t. There have been several points in the last 2 drafts we could have drafted OTs in appropriate spots and decided not to.

It is pretty clear that a lot of the people criticizing the article either didn’t read it or don’t understand it.

Think about how many LTs are in the league that fans would actually consider good, 8-12? Think about how old some of them are, mid to late 30s. Think about all of them that have been drafted in the past 12 to 14 years. My guess is we will have a middle of road O-line, fans will think it is the worst, our offensive system will help some.

People severely underestimate how much an elite QB can do for a team. I know he is getting older but you are still talking 4-5 years of being a legit super bowl contender every year, something this organization has never really been.

I've come to expect very absolute statements from you on very broad topics.

here again, you are thinking too black and white. We aren't talking about the owner doing player evaluation, but if an owner comes in and gives the coach a 6 year deal and says build the team for long term success that is ok. Our moves last year were not long term anything.

football knowledge isn't the same as setting the direction for a organization.

This ^ Owners set direction, and honestly most owners are heavily involved in huge trades and top picks, especially if QBs are involved. What you don't want is some owner who doesn't know anything about player evaluation treating it as his fantasy team and making all of the draft picks, but there is no indication that Tepper is that.

lol You are so literal about everything. If some GM that you aren't sure about, for example Hurney, is about to go off and sell the farm for somebody. You stop it. You might fire him later, but there is nothing wrong with pulling rank.

If we miss on Teddy and Sam, somebody is going to be upset. Also it isn't always about evaluating players. It can be setting a direction. You can have an owner who forces a front office to think short term or in some cases long term. Would we have been better not signing Teddy last year? Did we make moves indictive last year of a team on a long term plan? no There is nothing wrong with a owner stepping in and preventing a GM or coach from thinking too short term and sabotaging the future. If you are a GM that might be on the hot seat what incentive do have to think long term. You try to win now to save your job, if that doesn't work then you leave your replacement with less resources so it is harder for him to do a better job than you.

If Darnold doesn't work out we might want the owner to start meddling a little bit.

O-line philosophy: If you find a good tackle pay him, just pay him. In the meantime every other year or so draft a good tackle prospect in an early round. This way you are only paying big money to one at a time. Your interior spots keep filled with mid to late round draft picks, or vets who are cap casualties. Every year there seems to be some good, vet guards who get cut by their current teams. Fact is you can't afford to pay all 5 spots.

I'm not convinced though that we really only liked Trevor as far as the QBs go. Why would we inquire about moving to 3? I think there is a small chance we might have liked Lance, we just hid it very well. At the very least I think we would have heavily considered Wilson if he was there.

also when the "reports" came out that we were talking to 5 teams if I remember correctly about trading down, that told me we weren't interested in Fields. It was pretty clear we were hoping someone would trade up in front of us for Fields, which would greatly increase our chance for Sewell. There was a very good chance Trevor, Wilson, and Lance ware going top 3. Pitts to Atlanta, and not crazy to think Bengals would take Chase and Miami go Waddle. That leaves Detroit. We were probably hoping someone would trade with Detroit to grab Fields.

I've heard since that they liked Lance all along, the media created the Jones angle. Also I think other teams had a pretty good idea also.

How about this? Whoever had the final call liked Sam more than Fields. I'm not saying it was the right or wrong decision, but the fact we didn't draft Fields tells us whoever made the final decision wanted to go with Sam.

Maybe. I'm not convinced of that. Even if the Jets were not sure, other teams had to operate on the premise they would. You wouldn't trade to 3 hoping that the Jets would pass on Wilson. What if the Dolphins would have had a decent asking price, would we have just said "just kidding"? Their top two realistic choices were Sewell and Horn, there is a difference. If Trevor would have fell do you honestly think they would have passed?

too bad the Niner's felt like they had to get to 3. I think Lance was probably rated higher among teams than fans and/or the media, and for whatever reason Fields was rated lower among teams than fans and/or media.

"We" is whoever made the decision.

Why Wilson? Everyone knew Jets were going QB at 2. Trading with Miami would have been for QB3. There was little chance of us taking a QB that we really liked at #8, I would agree with that. Not only did we make it look like we might, we also tried to sell the idea that other teams were looking to trade up with us. I think were trying to get Sewell to fall to us to be honest, but that is just a guess.

I think Sewell would have been in play. We put out a lot of information right before draft night about all the teams we were talking to about trading down with. Felt like we were trying to give the impression that someone was trying to move up for a QB, hoping that one team would, which would help our chances of getting Sewell. We needed 4 QBs to go before us to have a good chance for him. Horn was probably going to be there either way.