AU-panther

Your methodology is flawed, you have to account for the cap savings. What's the chance of getting a pro bowler with $25-#30m? 80%? 90%? The picks are almost just bonus.

hence, Donta Jackson size

Russell is bigger, especially weight wise. Young might be closer to Donte Jackson in size than Russell Wilson.

People need to be careful, I wouldn't call them the gold standard, more of an exception. I give the organization credit for how they run their team but to think every "toolsy" prospect will turn into Josh Allen is going to leave mots teams disappointed.

you are right. The really good organizations, with the really good QBs, are the ones looking for head coaches usually.......

Here again everyone is talking about the rare exception. For every McDaniel there are 10 guys out there that would take the job. If we don't find a good coach its not going to be because we have no good candidates, its going to be because we picked the wrong one.

Also most open jobs have bad roasters, that is usually the main reason they have an opening to start with. Does the occasional guy turn down a HC gig for various reasons, yes, but this idea that our roster situation will prevent us from finding a good candidate is laughable. We might pick he wrong guy, but it won't be because we don't' have enough choices.

who? and how many? What happens is every off season fans get caught up in a handful of names and think that is the only canidates out there.

carefull with using facts around here. It is pretty clear that most fit whatever narrative they spin to the agenda they are pushing.

People are overthinking it. NFL head coach is one of the most exclusive jobs in the entire world (only 32), any given year there might only be 6-10 openings. How many offensive coordinators are there? how many defensive? how many unemployed former coaches? Will a lack of an established QB hurts us? In a few small cases, someone like Sean Payton probably would want to go a team with a better QB. Maybe the hottest coaching candidate this offseason picks a better situation, but overall, there will be no shortage. Most HC jobs are filled to teams without a good QB. If the team had a good QB they wouldn't be so bad and there is a chance the HC wouldn't have got fired to start with. If we don't pick a good coach, it won't be because none will be willing, it will be because we picked the wrong one.

There is no concrete path and that is the problem, If there were every team would have a good QB. The most common path is you draft a guy early, and you give him time to develop, and you hope. Shortcuts are rare.

Based on what? Where do you rank Burns against the run vs all other edges? How does he compare against Reddick? Against the pass? Against the rush?

Here again fans are looking at this in a vacuum. Reddick doesn't have to be as good for the trade to be worthwhile. Maybe Reddick is 90% the player, you still have $15m to improve another position. Maybe you greatly improve another position. Maybe one of those 2 picks greatly improves another position. Look at it this way, imagine all players on a scale of 1-10. Let's say an average player is a 5 and Burns is a 10. Keep Burns who you consider a 10 and that forces you to keep a WR who is a 5 and a LB who is a 5. Trade Burns and sign someone like Reddick who might be an 8, use the cap savings to improve the WR to an 8, and maybe just one of those 2 1st rounders improves that LB position to an 8. All the numbers are arbitrary, but my point stands, the decision to keep or trade Burns isn't as simple as one position getting better or worse.

I get that some teams value future first less, general rule of thumb is one round later, but in this situation i really didn't mind it. First of all, if we go the rookie QB route next year changes are we aren't going to be that good anyway in 2023. If anything, the later year picks will help us more when we are more likely to be good. A Also, with a team like the Rams and the way they have gone "all in" so to speak the past few years those later year picks might be a lot better. Who is to say they don't have a "reset year" and end up with a top-10 pick. You can't trade all of your good players, and I really like Burns but if it was truly two first it should have been very tempting.

^This, I'm not sure why its so hard for people to understand. When you trade a player like Burns you don't have to replace him with the draft picks. You replace him with the $25-30m you save. Most years you can find a decent edge for that amount. You don't even have to fully replace him, maybe you find a player that is 90% as good for $15m and then use the other $15m to improve another position greatly. Or maybe you use those draft picks to find an edge, who might not be as good but decent, then spend the $25m on a totally different position. Fans always look at these moves in a vacuum, the goal is to improve the team not just one position. Somebody said Reddick is about as good for $15m, so hypothetically what improves our team the most? Burns or Reddick, two 1st round picks, and $15m a year to spend on a free agent?

Young defensive lineman has his best year in year 3....... That is probably closer to the norm than the guy who is elite his rookie year.

That video is a good example of where fans confuse stats and athletic ability with being able to play QB at the next level. The video clearly shows he has some tools, as in arm strength and some athletic ability as far as running but a lot of throws were pretty basic that other college Qbs can make. Although he did have several nice deep balls but even those just show good arm strength and some accuracy. What you aren't seeing is a lot of throws with anticipation or going throw a lot of progressions. You aren't seeing those deep outs or dropping the ball in the soft spot of a cover 2. Those are the next level throws that NFL QBs are asked to make. I'm not saying he can't do those things, but the offense he is in isn't really asking him to do those things. This is why every year there are QBs that fans like because they see completions and TDs and stats, but scouts aren't as crazy as because they don't see the types of throws or abilities that are needed at the next level. The question becomes is he not doing it because he can't or because he isn't asked to, that is why its so hard to scout QBS.

Thats an incomplete way to look at those stats. You have to compare them to all of the QBs picked between 6-32. On your list there are 22 QBs, of which lets say 8 are above average or good chance of being above average (Ryan, Stafford, Newton, Luck, Murray, Burrow, Lawrance?, Tua?, Wilson?). So 8/22 turned out good, which is around 36%. 36% seems low and supports your argument of not drafting one in the top 5, but that doesn't' tell the full picture. Now go and make a list of all the QBs drafted 6-32 during those same years. Maybe you could up with 60 qbs. Of those maybe 8 turn out above average. That works out to 8/60 which is 13%. At that points you are almost 3 times as likely (36% to 13%) to find a good QB in the top 5. Three times as likely is a substantial amount. Is 13% an accurate number, probably not, I'm too lazy to go back and look but if you want to make the argument that drafting in the top-5 is stupid you need to do the legwork and figure out the other stats.

The idea of a hometown discount is largely overstated by fans. If Burns is truly elite, he will get paid like an elite one, very similar to any free agent out there. Did Reddick cost that much last year? His production was pretty similar. People keep looking at these decisions in a vacuum, that is how team building works. Maybe you trade him and of the $20m you save you spend $15m on an edge that is 85% as good, then with the other $5m you improve another position slightly. Then of the 2 draft picks one of them turns into a good player and that improves another position substantially. Which combination gives you the best team? I'm not saying give Burns away for nothing, I'm actually a big fan of his, I'm just staying the decisions aren't as simple as Burns vs potential edge drafted with gained pick.

So if you can replace him in free agency for the same amount it would take to resign him why wouldn't' you take the free picks. Everyone keep trying to make the argument that you might not be able to replace him with the draft picks, you don't have to, you replace him with the $20m a year you save.

I never said we couldn’t make the cap work, but fans look at keeping/releasing players in avacuum and that isn’t how it works. What helps the team win more? Brian Burns or a 1st round pick and $4 to spend in free agency? You could make a very good argument for Burns. What helps the team win more? Brian Burns or a 1st round pick and $30m to spend in free agency? At that point you don’t even have to hit on the draft pick because you replace a lot of his production with the $30m.

I agree that both Johnson and Dorsey have more overall coaching experience but Moore has more OC experience. Whats a better predictor for success? More overall coaching experience or more years being a coordinator and being ultimately responsible? I’m not saying one is right or wrong but there is an argument both ways.

I agree thatt you can't always be getting rid of all of your players but you have to factor in the cap. The players you get in the draft don't have to be as good, you are forgetting about the cap savings. Lets say player A is a really good player about to off of his rookie contract. 2 options here, pay player A $20m a year, or trade player a for a 2nd round pick and use the $20m to sign a player in free agency that is almost just as good. The pick is almost just bonus. Brian Burns with a $8m cap hit doesn't have the same value as a $32m cap hit. This is the problem with being this bad, we are missing on taking advantage of some good players on cheap contracts. Lets say we go the rookie QB route next year, even if you select the right one, realistically you are really looking at 2-3 years before being really competitive.

People love to point that out but it’s an incomplete statement. You are correct that a top-10 QB doesn’t guarantee they will be good but the chance of an early QB being better is higher than the later ones. Maybe the top-10 ones only work out 20% but if they later ones only work out 5% that is 4 times more likely.

Couple of things I gathered from those excerpts: People want to pain Tepper as a Jerry Jones or Snyder (very controlling) kind of owner, but that really isn't the case. If anything he is a bit too patient and lets people do their Job. Sounds like he was actually right about the Bridgewater deal, if anything he should have pulled rank and acted more like Jones or Snyder. Looking back was Rhule a mistake, of course. Was Rhule a first choice for most of us here on the board? No, but regardless of what people think around here, Rhule was actually on the radar of NFL people. Even the author states the decision made sense on some levels. Fact is hiring a coach is hard, more times than not they don't work. I'll be curious how the next search goes. Was passing on Stafford wise? He won a super bowl so in hindsight it looks like it wasn't but even the author said a lot of owners would have been cautious in that regard. Just like every other bad franchise in the league we need a good coach and a good QB.