Bears go Brrrrr: Pre-Free Agency Mock Draft!
NFL Draft - In this pre-free agency, tampering-tastic first-round NFL mock draft…
- The Panthers and Texans do what you expect them to do with C.J. Stroud and Bryce Young. Then things get weird.
- Bears general manager Ryan Poles reveals that he's not done wheeling and dealing.
- Texas running back Bijan Robinson lands with a team he can help win the Super Bowl.
- The Cowboys go hog-wild and make a bold trade.
- The Packers and Jets bathe in the afterglow of the Aaron Rodgers trade. Or do they?
- Cornerbacks! Cornerbacks! Cornerbacks!
And much more.
Pre-free agency mock drafts are the silliest mock drafts as team needs are likely to change radically in the next 96 hours. Furthermore, this particular mock was written by someone gulping down Mucinex the way a fraternity pledge pounds a bong. So things might get a little wibbly-wobbly and timey-wimey. But this mock also had the Panthers trading up with the Bears in its Thursday morning rough draft, so doubt my prescience at your peril.
1. Carolina Panthers: C.J. Stroud, QB, Ohio State
This mock initially began with a long paragraph explaining a then-hypothetical Panthers-Bears trade, praising Ryan Poles' as-yet-unforeseen salesmanship and pointing out that the Panthers , of all teams, had no choice but to climb to the top of the draft board if they hoped to ensure their escape from the Sam Darnold/Baker Mayfield/Bad Idea treadmill.
Then the trade happened, so now I don't have to convince you of all of that stuff!
The Bears got the ninth and 61st picks; wide receiver DJ Moore; a first-rounder next year; and a second-rounder in 2025. (Most stories about the trade list Moore last, as if he is some sort of throw-in, which can skew our perception of how big this haul is.) The Panthers get a gifted Ohio State quarterback, but they gut their skill-position corps and lose valuable assets needed to upgrade that corps in the future, leaving them with some exciting defensive playmakers and a former Colts guy as their head coach.
So essentially, the Panthers are now the Bears. This trade has them taking a step back from last year's late-season mini-surge to move forward. But perhaps being the only team in the NFC South that's serious about rebuilding will work to their advantage.
2. Houston Texans: Bryce Young, QB, Alabama
The Texans love Young, everyone knows it, and they should now be very confident that they can sit tight with the second overall pick and claim him.
Young is a fine selection for the Texans, so long as they provide some heavy-duty scaffolding on their interior offensive line in later rounds. (Let's pencil in North Dakota State guard Cody Mauch with the 33rd pick and Michigan center Olu Oluwatimi with the 65th pick.) Young is also polished enough to be a Day 1 starter for a rebuilding team. He's also a worthy face-of-the-franchise, so long as the public relations department can find an old phonebook for him to stand on for his media guide photo.
What, you were expecting us to get through a Young blurb without a short joke?
3. Arizona Cardinals: Will Anderson, ER, Alabama
County sheriffs like to tell tales of what they find when they confiscate the property of teenage drug dealers: apartments filled with multiple game consoles and unworn sneakers still in their boxes, but no cooking utensils, bed sheets, or shower curtains, the messy trappings of overcompensated-but-unsupervised adolescent decision-making.
Those tales are an apt metaphor for the state of the Cardinals roster right now.
New Cardinals general manager Monti Ossenfort and head coach Jonathan Gannon will spend lots of long days over the next few weeks staring at one another across a conference table, sighing heavily and saying things like, "We are so totally boned." Their entire offensive line is up for free agency, and also stinks. Their defense and receiving corps are all honey mustard dressing, no turkey or ham (except for DeAndre Hopkins, currently digging a tunnel to freedom). Even the specialists are old free agents. It's going to take a year just to create a roster that looks like it was assembled by adults.
Anyway, J.J Watt led the Cardinals in sacks with 12.5 last year; no one else on the team recorded more than 5.5. Watt has retired to a comfortable career as an over-opinionated ex-player. (You probably still find him charming now. Wait two years.) Anderson is the Best Available Athlete and fills a need. Don't overthink it, fellas: you have a LOT of work to do in the months to come.
4. Indianapolis Colts: Will Levis, QB, Kentucky
You may be shocked to discover this, but Chris Ballard has no idea how to evaluate a quarterback.
That's right: the general manager who did not realize that Carson Wentz was an uncoachable toddler-man and that Matt Ryan graduated from high school three years before Liam Neeson just might struggle with the big-picture thinking required to select a franchise quarterback. That makes Levis pure Ballard catnip: he's a scouted-by-groupthink, looks-the-part prospect that the Colts can trumpet as a "safe" selection who did not require some sort of risky trade-up.
You can read my thoughts on Levis in the FO 100 if you are an FO+ subscriber, as you should be. The short version: I think we're all being gaslit by some "source" who picked a tall major-program quarterback who looked pretty good in 2021 out of a hat and whispered his name into the ears of the top media draftniks. If you start with the assumption that Levis is a top-10 pick because that's where he's listed on most public draft boards, and you really cherry-pick his film/metrics/accomplishments, you can just barely find a quarterback worthy of that position, just as you can see the face of the Madonna in a bowl of pastina if you squint hard enough. If you watch Levis with a completely open mind, however, he's a tiny notch above Davis Mills.
Levis is the quarterback a team ends up with when they have made so many shortsighted decisions over multiple years that they are left with no choice but to draft any quarterback who passes the sniff test. And here we are.
5. Seattle Seahawks: Christian Gonzalez, CB, Oregon
A colleague who writes lots of local-team mock drafts complained to me over cocktails in Indy: "I mock a cornerback for our team in the first round. Then everyone screams at me in the comment thread. That's so stupid. Don't you know we already have a really good cornerback? And I am like, yeah, and are you aware that we really need three of them?"
You aren't like those local-site homer fans, dear reader. You know that the Seahawks have Tariq Woolen, but he cannot be in three places at once. Coby Bryant and Michael Jackson showed some promise last year, but Gonzalez is the type of tall, speedy, big-play-oriented defender you build a secondary around. Especially if you happen to be Pete Carroll.
6. Detroit Lions: Jalen Carter, DT, Georgia
Over the next six weeks, we will learn that Carter has taken ownership of his actions on the night of that fatal Georgia drag race, that he's deeply remorseful about what happened and that reckless driving and lying to authorities were out of character for him and that he won't let those mistakes define him. Unless new details emerge, Carter's draft stock will therefore only fall because of a quarterback rush, not because of character concerns. And Dan Campbell just wants to inject more pure testosterone (and talent) into the Lions defensive line. Carter's about to get a little tough love, and it could be a win for all parties.
7. Las Vegas Raiders: Peter Skoronski, OL, Northwestern
Josh McDaniels would love Will Levis. He knows a Mac Jones Lite that he can mold into a screen-passing automaton when he sees one. But Levis is gone.
Anthony Richardson? Drafting a workout warrior from Florida who needs passing-game remediation would be soooo 2010 for McDaniels. And why start the quarterback development clock now when you can procrastinate for another year on Mark Davis' dime in the name of rebuilding the team culture?
Skoronski can start right away at guard for the Raiders and be the kind of nasty tone-setter the team needs in the middle to keep defenders away from, um, Jimmy Garoppolo. Or Jarret Stidham and/or Stetson Bennett.
8. Atlanta Falcons: Tyree Wilson, ER, Texas Tech
The Falcons finished last in the NFL in adjusted sack rate in 2022, last in 2021, and no higher than 23rd in any season since 2017.
I plan to lead every paragraph I write about the Falcons this offseason with that sentence. Heck, I plan to lead every paragraph I speak in casual conversation on any topic with that sentence:
WIFE: Honey, did you remember to pick your mother's medications, pay the car insurance, and clean off the dryer lint screen that caught fire yesterday?
ME: The Falcons finished last in the NFL in adjusted sack rate in 2022, last in 2021, and no higher than 23rd in any season since 2017.
WIFE: (stares back blankly)
Anyway, the Falcons love their toolsy-but-raw edge rushers, and Wilson is toolsy. When he stretched his arms out at the combine it looked like could wrap them around the entire press pool and give us a much-needed 8 a.m. hug. His college production was good-not-great, but since when have the Falcons cared about that?
As for the quarterback situation: Anthony Richardson is certainly a possibility, but I am guessing Arthur Smith has talked himself (and Arthur Blank) into the idea of slow-cooking Desmond Ridder. Procrastination is a job preservation skill for head coaches!
9. Trade! Washington Commanders: Anthony Richardson, QB, Florida
Trader Poles does it again! Having already rooked the Panthers (it's a trade that benefits both sides, just one more than the other) out of some picks and a Pro Bowl-caliber receiver, he convinces Dan Snyder (fresh from ripping out the showers at team headquarters and replacing them with some leaky garden hoses he found in a YMCA dumpster) that the Titans and Buccaneers are possible threats to trade up for a developmental quarterback. So the Commanders fork over the 16th and 47th picks, Snyder gets some positive headlines, Ron Rivera shrugs and figures he can frame 2023 as a rebuilding year (procrastination is a job preservation … oh I just said that), and Richardson gets to compete with Sam Howell (a.k.a. Diet Richardson) for the right to run zone-reads for a team that has a solid playmaker corps and a passable offensive line.
Wait, this sounds like too good a scenario for the Commanders, who could build a young wild-card team around Richardson rather quickly. Fortunately, they'll keep Taylor Heinicke on a one-year deal, he'll come off the bench for some semi-heroics when Richardson struggles, the organization and fanbase will endure another schism, and nothing will matter once the franchise is sold to the Yakuza.
10. Trade! Dallas Cowboys: Drew Sanders, LB, Arkansas
Somewhere in the Gulf Coast aboard a superyacht…
JERRAH: SOOOOOO-WHEEEEEEEE! Boy, have you done made sure we can draft that White Micah fella yet?
STEPHEN: Daddy, I told you that Drew Parsons shot up the draft boards not long after Football Outsiders ranked him as the ninth overall prospect in this class. We may have to make a very risky trade to draft him.
JERRAH: Do whatever it takes, boy.
STEPHEN: (under his breath while dialing phone) Got-dangit I told Mildred to make sure to water down the Cutty Sark this time of year…
HOWIE: (On phone) Howie Wowie's Faustian Bargains! Oops, I mean House of Bargains. What can I do ya for?
STEPHEN: Howie, Big Daddy wants Drew Sanders and he ain't taking no for an answer. Promise you ain't gonna fleece us.
HOWIE: Fleece you? Perish the thought. Just send over the 26th and 90th overall pick, and a second-rounder in 2024, and you can draft all the linebackers from your alma mater that you want. Muahahahahahaha.
STEPHEN: That ain't so bad: we get an impact defender out of the deal, after all. (Hangs up) Daddy! We got Sanders!
JERRAH: What about Bijan! I wanna see Zeke, Tony Pollard, and Bijan in the same backfield when Mike McCarthy is running curl-flats!
STEPHEN: I'm gonna put a padlock on that liquor cabinet…
11. Tennessee Titans: Bijan Robinson, RB, Texas
Yuck. That's too click-baity even for me. Let's try again.
(Record scratch noise)
11. Tennessee Titans: Broderick Jones, OT, Georgia
Gosh, the Titans are really screwed. Left tackle Taylor Lewan is moving on after an injury-derailed 2022 season. Bud Dupree got released in a cap-saving sunk-cost-fallacy-averting move. Ryan Tannehill is fading fast, and Malik Willis doesn't exactly appear to be on the fast track to replacing him. Even Derrick Henry is on the trade block. The Titans went from contenders to a directionless franchise in the last four months.
Wide receivers (and Bijan) will be popular mock choices for the Titans, and heaven knows they need a fresh batch of playmakers. But someone like local-favorite Jalin Hyatt would be a reach here.
Jones is also a bit of a reach, but he's a potential long-term left tackle solution with tip-top upside. And forget what happened the last time the Titans went to Athens in search of a left tackle solution: Jones is a project, but he's NOT that sort of mistake.
12. Houston Texans: Joey Porter, CB, Penn State
Florida guard O'Cyrus Torrence would be an option here as the Texans strive to cut down everything in Bryce Young's sightline. But we mocked a pair of Day 2 interior linemen to the Texans earlier, so let's grant them the Best Available Athlete.
Porter ranks below other cornerbacks on the FO 100, but he's nearly 6-foot-3, has arms to clean the gutters flat-footed, and plays VERY hard. DeMeco Ryans and his staff can clean up Porter's game, line him up across from an older/healthier/wiser Derek Stingley, and develop one of the league's most gifted cornerback tandems.
13. New York Jets (no Aaron Rodgers trade): Devon Witherspoon, CB, Illinois
I wrote "one of the league's most gifted cornerback tandems" about the Texans a moment ago. This Sauce 'n' Spoon pair would be THE league's most gifted tandem. Witherspoon could end up with eight interceptions as teams avoid Sauce Gardner. Perfect for winning games with Marcus Mariota or Jimmy Garoppolo under center.
13. Green Bay Packers (Aaron Rodgers trade): Jordan Addison, WR, USC
"F*ck you, Aaron. Seriously: f*ck you. Drafting a first-round wide receiver was literally the first thing we did after we finally got rid of you. And we don't even need one all that badly anymore. This is sheer spite! Oh, and he's a Donald Driver type who can slurp up short-to-intermediate passes while Christian Watson and Romeo Doubs work deep. Would you have liked that receiver trio? Too bad. Oh don't worry, we gave Randall Cobb bus fare. You're gonna love the Port Authority Bus Terminal when you pick him up. You'll be bathing in mineral water or bandersnatch tears or some other bullsh*t for weeks afterward, but you still won't feel clean! Oh, who are we kidding: just look at yourself; you haven't showered since 2019. OK, TTFN, buddy. And also: f*ck you!"
—verbatim quote from Brian Gutekunst's post-draft press conference.
14. New England Patriots: Keion White, DL, Georgia Tech
Patriots fans: you do NOT want one of the 2023 crop of wide receivers in the first round. They're all variations on the kind of spindly-speedy boundary target that rarely develops in Foxborough. Also, all the deep threats in the world won't help, because Mac Jones cannot reach them. Bill Belichick himself said so. But don't despair! The Patriots will find some slotty Tank Dell/Jayden Reed/Tre Tucker types in the middle rounds and be just fine by their 2020-to-2022 offensive standards.
No, long-suffering (gag reflex suppressed) Patriots faithful, the time has come once again to stock up on defense and strive to build a playoff portfolio out of 13-10 victories over pathetic opponents. White is a fine fit for the Bill Belichick defense: he's a burly two-gap end who can rush like a stand-up edge, and he's a cerebral dude with the maturity to handle tough coaching.
15. Green Bay Packers (Aaron Rodgers trade): O'Cyrus Torrence, G, Florida
"Oh yeah, Aaron, we also beefed up the interior offensive line for Jordan Love. Elgton Jenkins can now finally settle down at right tackle, Zach Tom can keep being groomed to replace David Bakhtiari, and we'll be set for the next few years. No more reshuffling the line. But hey: enjoy the Jets line for the dozen snaps that Mekhi Becton is healthy, a**hole!"
—more verbatim Gutekunst quotes from the future.
15. Green Bay Packers (no Aaron Rodgers trade): Devon Witherspoon, CB, Illinois
When writing a time travel sci-fi story, it's important to not create paradoxes which confuse the reader/viewer/author. In the same way, it's important to not create too many branching scenarios in a mock draft, lest you create plotholes.
So just as the Avengers had to trim every branching timestream at the end of Endgame, we must make sure to not create a thicket of scenarios in which someone like Witherspoon could end up with 12 different teams. So we tie his story off here. The Packers could use another quality cornerback, so here's one, and this whole Aaron Rodgers Schroedinger's Weirdo scenario will be sewn up once we find homes for O'Cyrus Torrence and Jordan Addison in the alternate timelines.
Don't worry, I'm a professional mock drafter, and I have this.
(Also … did Captain America do nothing but boink Agent Carter through the entire Civil Rights Movement, Cuban Missile Crisis, 1960s assassinations, and so on? Best not to think about it.)
16. Chicago Bears: Jaxon Smith-Njigba, WR, Ohio State
We made it, Bears fans! Ryan Poles did such a masterful job of wheeling and dealing that he has essentially fixed the Bears' biggest problem! Smith-Njigba is a receiver Justin Fields is somewhat familiar with—they played together for the 2020 Buckeyes—and he has a knack for getting open when his quarterback is on the run. He arrives as the Bears' WR2 behind D.J. Moore. Darnell Mooney and Velus Jones/Chase Claypool round out the depth chart just fine. Fields has the firepower he needs to develop. And if he does not develop, it won't be for lack of firepower.
But wait, there's more! The Bears also nabbed the 47th overall pick in our mock draft scenario. Let's anchor their offensive line with Wisconsin center Joe Tippman. Let's also grant them LSU edge B.J. Ojulari with the pick they received from the Panthers. Heck, how about we also add monstrous Michigan nose tackle Mazi Smith with the Bears' own 53rd pick. The defense isn't exactly repaired, but it's a start.
It's starting to come together, Bears fans. The future may be soon if Fields' arm catches up to its legs.
17. Pittsburgh Steelers: Siaki Ika, DT, Baylor
Ika provides 335 pounds of combative human for the Steelers interior defense: perfect for the team that saw Montravius Adams decline as the 2022 season wore on and probably shouldn't try to bring Tyson Alualu back for his 97th NFL season.
18. Detroit Lions: Trenton Cannon, LB, Clemson
Why yes, we did just add Jalen Carter AND a linebacker with Fred Warner-level potential to the Lions defense. Maybe Aaron Rodgers won't hate the Port Authority Bus Terminal so badly after all.
19. Trade! Kansas City Chiefs: Paris Johnson Jr., OT, Ohio State
Andy Reid sees Johnson slipping and realizes he can instantly solve the Orlando Brown problem just by sacrificing the 32nd and 63rd overall picks. (Brown, in this scenario, was last seen in Duval County shaking Trent Baalke upside down until all the change fell out of his pockets.)
Buccaneers general manager Jason Licht, meanwhile, who has been wearing the same pair of sweatpants for six weeks, finally checks his phone messages and realizes that he can save a little cap space by trading down. It's a win-win! And Super Bowl LV feels like it was 70 years ago.
20. Seattle Seahawks: Calijah Kancey, DT, Pittsburgh
The Seahawks come away from our mock with a cornerback and a 3-technique who each would have fit squarely into the lineups of their early-2010s teams. Remember when the joke was to mock nothing but running backs, punters, and power forwards (or as Tom Cable called them, developmental left tackles) to the Seahawks? Times have changed back for the better.
21. Los Angeles Chargers: Josh Downs, WR, North Carolina
Internet law requires me to mock a wide receiver to the Chargers, state that said receiver will help Justin Herbert ascend to the peak of human perfection, and mention that Kellen Moore will do a better job using said receiver than former coordinator Joe Lombardi, who now gets to be the olive loaf in a Sean Payton/Russell Wilson sandwich. This mock draft capsule is in full compliance with Internet law. Thank you for your time and attention. (And yes, Downs will indeed help Herbert and the Chargers rediscover the joys of passing vertically.)
22. Baltimore Ravens: Jalin Hyatt, WR, Tennessee
None of these 175-pounds-after-Cracker-Barrel wide receivers really do it for me as first-rounders, which is why they are all getting crammed into the 20s and mocked to teams with obvious needs at the position.
Hyatt can replace Marquise Brown as the exceptionally speedy, dynamic playmaker who goes HAM one week and then silent for the next two or three. He is an upgrade over Demarcus Robinson, DeSean Jackson's ghost, Sammy Watkins' astral projection, and Brandon Stokley's chiropractor, all of whom played snaps at wide receiver for the Ravens last year. Lamar Jackson will be able to play out the first of two franchise tag years in relative style.
23. Minnesota Vikings: Myles Murphy, ER, Clemson
The Vikings are in the midst of a veteran purge, and good for them! Credit to Kwesi Adofo-Mensah: it takes real leadership to look at a 13-win season and say, yeah, that was some unsustainable nonsense, we need to start over. A lesser general manager would try to extend the Vikings' (lol) "Super Bowl window," giving us the spectacle of a 38-year-old Erik Kendricks trying to cover tight ends in a golf cart while carrying a $22-million cap number. KAM talks the analytics talk and walks the walk!
Anyway, here's your reward, Vikings fans: a Best Available Athlete who slipped in our mock for #reasons. Murphy can provide a dignified Za'Darius Smith exit strategy and, with the help of some 2022 picks who were hurt last year, potentially spark a youth movement on defense.
24. Jacksonville Jaguars: Kelee Ringo, CB, Georgia
Trevor Lawrence won't win any shootouts with the current Jacksonville secondary.
Gosh, this is really a strange year for mock drafting. By the time you reach the late teens, it's like:
- Wide receivers? Lots of scrawny sprinters who got open in college thanks to stack formations.
- Offensive tackles? Nothing but developmental projects who list "holding" and "lunging" as their hobbies.
- Edge rushers? They're fine, but there are no Bosa or Watt types lurking about.
- Cornerbacks? OMG THERE ARE STILL FOUR DUDES WHO LOOK LIKE RICHARD SHERMAN'S ASGARDIAN COUSIN AND ALLOWED AN OPPOSING QB RATING OF NEGATIVE-THREE BILLION IN A POWER CONFERENCE ON THE BOARD.
25. New York Giants: DJ Turner II, CB, Michigan
See the previous comment. Turner isn't as much of an action figure as some of the other corners in this mock, but he can start right away without committing six penalties per month, and he's built to cover A.J. Brown one week and CeeDee Lamb the next without bursting into flames. That's right: it takes a DJ to cover an A.J. and a CeeDee!
26. Philadelphia Eagles: Brian Bresee, DT, Clemson
A Best Available Athlete who has slid a smidge in this mock, Bresee is a quality 3-technique who can line up next to Jordan Davis, giving the Eagles a highly affordable defensive tackle tandem of the future to replace departing Fletcher Cox and Javon Hargrave.
With the 90th pick they acquired from the Cowboys in our little fantasy, the Eagles take Oregon State cornerback Rejzohn Wright, who can offset the likely loss of James Bradberry.
As for the possible loss of Darius Slay: the Eagles will get some compensation for that, there are STILL good cornerbacks sitting all over the draft board, and this wasn't even the team's given first-round pick!
27. Buffalo Bills: Brian Branch, S, Alabama
I was gonna get sexy here and mock Boston College wide receiver Zay Flowers to the Bills. Just what Josh Allen needs: a slot receiver who can take screen passes and end-arounds to the house!
Then I remembered that Ken Dorsey is still calling the plays, and he thinks wide receiver screens cause cooties. The Bills ran just seven screens to players lined up at wide receiver in 2022, despite the presence of Isaiah McKenzie and Gabe Davis for much of the year. For comparison's sake, DeVonta Smith of the Eagles alone was targeted for screens 19 times.
So Flowers would just tempt ol' Bombs Away Dorsey to call even more bombs on fourth-and-inches while leading by two scores midway through the fourth quarter, and mocking him to the Bills would just be cruel.
Branch is a ready-to-play safety/corner/slot guy who can offset the loss of Jordan Poyer. Yeah, that's safer.
28. Cincinnati Bengals: Bijan Robinson, RB, Texas
Add Robinson to Joe Burrow, Ja'Marr Chase, Tee Higgins, Tyler Boyd, and the rebuilt offensive line. Win Super Bowl. Sign ownership of the team over to Burrow during the parade and disappear to the Cayman Islands. It's a win-win for Mike Brown and Bengals fans.
29. New Orleans Saints: O'Cyrus Torrence, G, Florida (Aaron Rodgers trade)
or
29. Jordan Addison, WR, USC (no Aaron Rodgers trade)
Who better to close our Mock Draft Temporal Anomaly than the team that is trying to destroy the space/time/money continuum and acquired their first-round pick in exchange for a head coach who now babbles about The Office during press conferences? If modern sci-fi has taught us anything it's that all problems can be solved by tossing one weird CGI MacGuffin into the other weird CGI MacGuffin.
The Saints have issues at guard, where Andrus Peat is fading fast, so Torrence would be a fine fit for the new Derek Carr offense. They also have issues behind Chris Olave at wide receiver, where speedy Rashid Shaheed will look much better as a WR3 or WR4 than a starter and Jarvis Landry is … seriously, what the heck were the Saints thinking when they signed Landry? Oh yeah: Mickey Loomis just likes creating cap puzzles for himself as a sort of kink these days. Addison would be a fine possession-oriented complement to Olave.
(Yes, there is talk about Michael Thomas remaining with the Saints, but Michael Thomas is a tax shelter, not a real person. Don't believe the lies.)
Both of these picks would be great. Just remember, Saints fans: the team cannot actually make both of them!
30. Philadelphia Eagles: Darnell Washington, TE, Georgia
OK, so the Eagles are in 12 personnel with A.J. Brown, DeVonta Smith, Dallas Goedert, insert-your-favorite-cheap-running-back, and this all-new Dungeons & Dragons character class. If Washington lines up next to Lane Johnson, beware the zone-read game and the max-protect-and-bomb game. If he lines up bunched with the receivers, beware the boundary screen game. If he motions, well, beware of everything. And if you try to cover him with a linebacker, just get the kickoff return team ready.
A true square peg, Washington doesn't fit many offenses snuggly, but he'll be devastating for the Eagles, who need blockers on the hoof more than they need additional weapons.
31. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Darnell Wright, OT, Tennessee
I am tired after 4,200 words and many revisions. Jason Licht is also tuckered out and ready for a year-long cap nap. So here's a worthy successor to Donovan Smith. With the extra pick they earned by trading down, the Bucs can add USC edge rusher Tuli Tuipulotu to provide a jolt of size, energy, and athleticism to a defense in transition. Thank heavens the Dolphins vacated their pick, making this year's mock drafts slightly shorter!
Oh bother, we aren't done yet: we should cover the teams without first-round picks.
36. Los Angeles Rams: Nolan Smith, LB, Georgia
Is Smith a linebacker? An edge rusher? The world's largest and most aggro wide receiver? Another Travon Walker who looked so-so at Georgia despite all-galaxy athleticism because it's hard to stand out when the opponent throws in the towel late in the first quarter?
Whatever Smith may be, he'll be a steal in the early second round if he lasts, and the Rams need to add players with the potential to be special while they nurse their lingering All-In hangover.
42. Cleveland Browns: Keondre Coburn, DT, Texas
A slot receiver would be a sexier pick. Defensive tackle is an even more critical need. Coburn is 332 pounds of ascending talent. He'll start his career eating space so the Browns don't finish 28th in run defense again. But he can develop into a more dynamic defender.
51. Miami Dolphins: Dawand Jones, OT, Ohio State
Jones moves like a left tackle and is built like a right tackle and a tight end sharing one pair of trousers: perfect for protecting Tua Tagovailoa's blind side if he is still on the board.
67. Denver Broncos: JL Skinner, S, Boise State
68. Denver Broncos: Hendon Hooker, QB, Tennessee
The Broncos have back-to-back picks, so we might as well mock them both. Skinner is a big-hitting safety/linebacker tweener who could offset the free-agent loss of Kareem Jackson.
Hooker? You can fill that part in yourself.
99. San Francisco 49ers: Riley Moss, CB, Iowa
101. San Francisco 49ers: Brett Laing, C/G, Minnesota Duluth
102. San Francisco 49ers: Kenny McIntosh, RB, Georgia
Day 2 of the NFL draft will end with an hour-long 49ers compensatory pick drum solo. And this mock ends with a speedy cornerback who will remind John Lynch of his young self (second white-guy joke; your Walkthrough bingo card is full), a Shrine Bowl standout with the potential to develop into a starting center, and the kind of explosive rusher Kyle Shanahan gets a few dazzling seasons from as part of his backfield committee or forgets about in early August.
And that's a wrap. Happy free agency everyone!
Comments
120 comments, Last at 17 Mar 2023, 2:14pm
#1 by Travis // Mar 13, 2023 - 9:22am
we must make sure to not create a thicket of scenarios in which someone like Witherspoon could end up with 12 different teams. So we tie his story off here.
The mock has Devon Witherspoon drafted by both the Jets and Packers if Aaron Rodgers isn't traded, and by neither if Rodgers is. Which might be the point.
#2 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 13, 2023 - 9:28am
fraternity pledge pounds a borg.
Same as it ever was.
\I'm kind of curious what they did before 1927's invention of Kool-Aid.
\\Or 1922's Poly Pop
\\Granted, the mojito goes back to the 1600s. So covering a dead liver's worth of alcohol in sugar and electrolytes is really old
#4 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 13, 2023 - 9:37am
Coby Bryant and Michael Jackson showed some promise last year
Just for chuckles, they should take Jason Taylor, to complete their collection of DBs who aren't as talented as their namesakes.
\Jay Ward and Cameron Mitchell are also available, but only Mike will get those references.
#7 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 13, 2023 - 9:48am
did Captain America do nothing but boink Agent Carter through the entire Civil Rights Movement, Cuban Missile Crisis, 1960s assassinations, and so on?
Why not? He knew it would more or less work out, and he'd already saved the world three times. (Plus one free universe)
Not bad for a meat popsicle.
#9 by Pat // Mar 13, 2023 - 10:46am
A DT and a TE for the Eagles? Who the heck's going to play in the secondary for Philly?
At least you got the technique right for the DT, as opposed to the "one player each team must sign" which had the Eagles somehow breaking physics and lining up two guys at nose in a weird quantum superposition strange thing.
I don't disagree that they could use another TE (Calcaterra didn't show that he's worth more than a sixth-rounder), they just can't afford it at the moment. Secondary's just a glaring need, DBs are too expensive in free agency, and they might not even be able to gain the extra cash from a restructure/extension on Slay, which basically caps their total offseason cash at under $25M (yikes).
HOWIE: Fleece you? Perish the thought. Just send over the 26th and 90th overall pick, and a second-rounder in 2024, and you can draft all the linebackers from your alma mater that you want. Muahahahahahaha.
That's... not that much of a fleece? It's in Philly's favor for the pure data-driven pick charts (so no opportunity/roster cost concerns - as in, 6x Mr. Irrelevants don't almost equal the #32 pick) and in the Cowboys favor for the more traditional charts. Which would count as "pretty balanced" in most books.
I hate the idea of Philly trading for future picks this year, though. The draft is the best way they have to actually fill the team.
#18 by Pat // Mar 13, 2023 - 12:40pm
I think the Eagles are more likely to trade future picks away than acquire more. They're already slightly pick flush next year (with an extra second) and with the free agent departure they're likely to pick up a lot more in comp picks.
I mean, specifically with Dallas, I could see something like giving up 10 + next year's Philly second for 26 + 58 + 90 + Dallas's second in '25, and then possibly packaging both 58 and 61 to move up to near the top of the second (leaving them with, say, 3 picks between 26 and 40). But that'd be a darn fair trade, not a fleece.
#25 by Harris // Mar 13, 2023 - 2:40pm
A better #3 WR would do more for the offense than a #2 TE, but either would be the fourth pass catching option and nobody drafts a fourth pass catching option at #30. I'd rather they take Jamyr Gibbs at that spot over Washington, unless they plan to have Washington gain 50 pounds and take over at RT in a year or two.
#31 by Pat // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:01pm
I just... I'm seriously missing something.
They can't go into this season with the secondary they currently have. I don't even know what that would look like. Slay, Maddox, Scott, Blankenship, and... K'Von Wallace? With... Zech McPhearson or Josh Jobe at dime? And random UDFAs as backups?
This draft is loaded with corners. I know Philly hasn't taken a 1st round corner in 21 years. But, first, man if there's a draft to do it, this is the one, and second, corners are expensive. How does it make sense to draft a RB (cheap) in the first round versus a corner (expensive)?
#32 by Harris // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:25pm
No, I agree with you. They should either stay at #10 and take Gonzalez or Witherspoon (he plays with malice aforethought and I like him) or trade back a few picks and take Porter. But we know Howie tends to plug holes before the draft so I don't imagine McPhereson will still be listed as the #2 CB by April.
#36 by Pat // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:41pm
But we know Howie tends to plug holes before the draft
I'll take that bet. They just don't have the cap space to go after a CB in free agency that's playmaking enough to be a sure-fire starter, not with the needs they have. They've got more draft resources than cap resources, so they're more likely to not be active... pretty much at all over the next few days. My best guess in the secondary is you might get CJ. Which, OK, technically pushes McPhearson off in the worst case scenario (starting Slay/Maddox/CJ at CB and Blankenship/Wallace) but... that's still not good. It'll likely be similar to last year where Philly's more active late in the offseason, because they need to bargain hunt.
But overall for the draft they need to let the offense coast for a year. Because they still have an offense.
#43 by scraps // Mar 13, 2023 - 4:41pm
Yep. Carroll never drafts cornerbacks high up. For one thing, he believes he can teach cornerbacks (and there is evidence that he can). And yes, the Seahawks have needs, and cornerbacks aren't among them. Not going to spend a #5 pick on them.
#12 by Steve in WI // Mar 13, 2023 - 11:43am
I would not be angry if the Bears traded back to 16 for an extra 2nd rounder and took Smith-Njigba (they would go from the worst WR corps in the league in 2022 to presumably a pretty solid one), but if Paris Johnson is still there I would argue that they probably need O-line help more urgently than WR now so I'd lean toward taking him.
Really, after the trade on Friday I'm fine with any way the Bears use their 1st round pick unless they do something really inexplicable.
#39 by Roch Bear // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:56pm
For me, a trade down from 9 for the Bears would be most interesting as a signal that Poles doesn't think he's the 'smartest man in the room' (able to identify all pros in the draft) which might just make him the wisest man in the room.
#13 by Egtuna // Mar 13, 2023 - 11:44am
Once again the completely false narrative that Jerry Jones loves Arkansas players. He's drafted just 2 in his tenure. TWO. That's 1 less than Philly's drafted over that same time period.
There are SOOOO many reasons to dig at Jerry, but his false infatuation with Hogs is not one of them. And no one is trading up for a LB. Not even the moronic Jones family.
#16 by Pat // Mar 13, 2023 - 12:01pm
I think part of it is that I think that Dallas does draft from the Power 5 a little more than you'd expect, so you see a few more players from certain schools than you might blindly expect. It's not like Arkansas is an SEC power or anything, though, so obviously there's not many players there.
Note that that's not a criticism, though. I think most teams have drafting preferences of one sort or another.
#15 by mehllageman56 // Mar 13, 2023 - 11:55am
The Jets drafting a CB in the first round when they have Sauce, D.J. Reed (who they just restructured), and Michael Carter II at the slot. Reed is going nowhere, and honestly, he may be a better corner than Sauce right now. Carter is really good in the slot. You don't draft somebody in the first round to be your 4th CB.
#19 by theslothook // Mar 13, 2023 - 12:46pm
I don't think Tanier's point about Levi's is invalid, but I've heard similar criticisms of toolsy QBs in the past who look the part but don't have the film backing. Many times it fails as expected, but lots of times it works out as well. I heard similar toolsy descriptions for Big Ben, Jay Cutler, Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, and even Joe Flacco.
At this point, I tend to trust the wisdom of the crowds effect and base the probabilities of panning out conditional on the pick location. Even if you think Levis is being overdrafted, that's been true of guys like him in the past and so it's baked into that probability.
Cute as it is to say the Colts should draft best player available and prepare to stink badly next year, they can't plan on landing a top 2 pick and having a better prospect waiting for them.
#24 by Eddo // Mar 13, 2023 - 2:24pm
That's an interesting grouping of QBs in your first paragraph, and I'm not sure how many fit what I read about Levis.
Roethlisberger was a non-power-5 guy and had very productive college career. My memory is that he was discussed as a first round QB throughout his final year of college.
Allen was talked about as a first rounder prior to his final year of college and was seen as having amazing physical skills. The knock on him was that he put up mediocre college numbers in a non-power-5 conference.
Cutler was seen as toolsy, and is possibly the most similar to Levis in that he put up good, not great, college numbers at a poor power 5 program.
Flacco was non-FBS and is hard to draw comparisons to. Maybe Carson Wentz, but without the domination in college?
Mahomes was considered as raw and skilled as Allen, but played at a QB-friendly college program that had yet to produce a good pro QB.
The descriptions I read about Levis is that he looks the part (think Cutler and Flacco), not that he's an athletic marvel (think Mahomes and Allen). He feels like Daniel Jones or Zach Wilson to me, guys who look like traditional "pro style" passers from non-elite FBS schools.
#26 by theslothook // Mar 13, 2023 - 2:44pm
Without running some text similarity model on all these predraft articles, I agree - he seems comparatively like Flacco or Cutler. Despite the ignomity that has followed both players; they were both good QBs. And as Flacco showed, you can win with them.
The problem is; put them on bad teams and they look like Daniel Jones. Tier 3 Qbs are the ultimate quagmire of sorts in that they don't give clarity. If they stink like Trubsiky - easy and move on. If they soar like Allen; simple there too. But as the Raiders have shown over the last decade with Carr, you can easily spin your wheels for a decade and go nowhere.
#28 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 13, 2023 - 2:49pm
But as the Raiders have shown over the last decade with Carr, you can easily spin your wheels for a decade and go nowhere.
97% of NFL seasons fail.
Even if you do everything right, on average 24 teams are disappointed after a decade.
#38 by RevBackjoy // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:54pm
I think realistic fans (sometimes an oxymoron) of non-perennial-contender teams are at least reasonably satisfied with just getting to a SB, or even a Championship Game or Divisional Round appearance in some cases. As a Vikings fan, over the past decade-ish, I'd say the 2009 and 2017 NFCCG loss seasons were pretty solid, and even 2012 and 2019 weren't half bad, even though they all ultimately ended in playoff failures. Heck, even this last year was a hell of a ride, and the slight sting of the WC loss was mitigated by the fact that, well, any team that gets manhandled by Daniel Jones at home wasn't that good in the first place. Given their ongoing 46 year SB-appearance-less streak, I'd kill for something like a 35-38 February loss to the Chiefs.
As for the Raiders, two Wild Cards (both losses) over the past two decades is pretty unsatisfying no matter how low your expectations are. Even your sad Lions managed to surpass that.
#40 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 13, 2023 - 4:19pm
two Wild Cards (both losses) over the past two decades
True, but a very cherry-picked endpoint.
The three years prior involved more than the Lions have achieved since 1958.
Really, I'm just pushing back at the notion that if a guy doesn't drag his team to at least a title game you were wasting your time. You may have wasted his time.
Even Manning, who was as automatic and self-sustaining as it got, and who was surrounded by competence for almost his entire career, only made CG or better 5x in 17 seasons. A 1st ballot Hall guy, with a bunch of help, is only good for three decent chances per decade. Not getting there doesn't tell you all that much.
\stepping down a level, Marino made 3 in 17 years.
#41 by theslothook // Mar 13, 2023 - 4:24pm
I still think the sum of Carr's career in Oakland/Vegas is still underwhelming. 2 playoff appearances and a sub 500 record over that period is something you can probably achieve without a qb as good as Carr. The Redskins/Football Team/Commanders have done that with a total revolving door at QB.
#20 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 13, 2023 - 1:00pm
27. Buffalo Bills: Brian Branch, S, Alabama
There's an increasing chance Tremaine Edmunds leaves and Poyer returns TBH. Poyer is likely to be outshined in FA but Edmunds is probably the best off-ball linebacker available.
EDIT: Edmunds already gone.
EDIT2: And Poyer's back.
#29 by theslothook // Mar 13, 2023 - 2:50pm
I am hearing over and over that the Bears completely suck, therefore drafting a QB when you are so bereft of talent is a mistake.
Maybe I am wrong, but this appears to be purely a hindsight comment. If Fields was not on the roster, the above statement would be no less true; but then everyone would be calling the Bears idiots for trading out of the first overall pick.
Bad teams with low talent get the top overall pick. And those bad teams draft QBs first overall. That's been the way it is since the pyramids. And consider; lots and lots of teams have drafted a QB first overall and it's changed their fortunes.
To me, you like this trade IF you believe either Fields could be really good still(maybe) or you think this crop of QBs suck(and that seems unlikely. This isn't last year's draft).
#33 by Elephant1980 // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:33pm
Trading down for multiple first/second round picks is almost always the analytics-supported move, at least in terms of pick EV. So from that point of view, it makes sense. Almost every year you have commentators suggesting (not without reason) that the #1 pickholder should trade down and stock up on picks, much as Chicago did here, rather than fill a single hole (usually QB) at #1.
That said, I agree that there is/was a weird reluctance on the part of some to acknowledge that Fields has, to date, been a very bad passer and that he, too, may be one of the reasons why Chicago was awful last year. In a sense it is not dissimilar to a lot of support for Will Levis, which boils down to "the numbers might be garbage, but trust me I know he can be a good QB in the right situation."
On that note, it is deeply ironic that the author felt the need to put in a joke about Bryce Young's height and then two sections later complain that people are being gaslit on Levis due to his height.
#35 by theslothook // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:39pm
Trading down for multiple first/second round picks is almost always the analytics-supported move, at least in terms of pick EV. So from that point of view, it makes sense.
So I agree with this statement in theory, but it never works that way in practice. The Browns effectively did that when they traded out of the 2nd overall pick during the Wentz draft and went with Myles Garrett instead of Watson in the next draft. But then Haslem immediately fired everyone anyways; so the front office that embarked on the EV strategy never got to see the fruits of their labor. Basically exactly what happened with Hinkie in Philly. Someone else got to enjoy all of those assets.
#44 by Pat // Mar 13, 2023 - 5:03pm
That said, I agree that there is/was a weird reluctance on the part of some to acknowledge that Fields has, to date, been a very bad passer and that he, too, may be one of the reasons why Chicago was awful last year
I don't think I appreciated exactly how much Chicago wasn't trying to win last year. You don't end up with nearly $100M in cap space by trying to field a competitive team. It's not just the players they traded away, either - it's also just lack of retaining players.
I think Chicago knows perfectly well why Fields struggled last year.
#89 by JoelBarlow // Mar 14, 2023 - 3:38pm
the bears trade up for fields was widely loved when it happened, in part because fields was the QB-falling-in-the-draft-who-NFL-twitter-loves at the same time
and since then there's been a tremendous effort to lay Fields's horrible passing numbers at the feet of various coaches, GMs etc
the bears roster is talked about like its the worst of all time
clearly the bears trading up for fields was a horrible move - the team was in no position to benefit from him for half his rookie contract, even if he was good. again, this has all been memory holed because 10 million people tweeted The Bears have their QB. I'm so happy!
#34 by Steve in WI // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:34pm
I like it because I believe that Fields could still be really good, and specifically I believe that Fields plus Moore and the potential offensive help they can get with 4 top 64 picks in this draft are more likely to succeed than any of the rookies plus only 1 other top 64 pick in the draft. I don't believe that the QBs in this draft have to suck for that to be true.
I also think that given that they have chosen to stick with Fields for at least one more season, they're going about it intelligently. The nice thing about giving Fields weapons to see if he can improve is that a potential 2024 rookie will benefit from those weapons, too. If they draft a QB in 2024, they won't be giving him a WR corps with only a bunch of WR3/4/5s. I assume they'll address offensive line in FA/draft now and again, whoever the QB is in 2024 he'll benefit from that.
#48 by theslothook // Mar 13, 2023 - 6:15pm
Related to Pat's comment above, I find it odd that they knowingly decided this year not to give Fields a chance and then proceeded to watch him struggle and then give him the benefit of the doubt anyways.
Its also interesting to consider a similar situation that Arizona was facing during the Kyler Murray draft. At that time, Arizona could have credibly said they gave Rosen literally one year on an awful team where even the other Qbs were horrible. And yet, they pulled the plug anyways which with hindsight looks correct.
#60 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 10:33am
and then proceeded to watch him struggle
Just because we think he struggled doesn't mean they think he struggled. They know what he was asked to do and the decisions he was supposed to make.
I don't think sticking with Fields with basically no information (since he had no chance to succeed) is any different than going with a new QB in the draft. You're taking a risk either way, and it's basically the same risk.
#68 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 12:42pm
I don't think sticking with Fields with basically no information (since he had no chance to succeed) is any different than going with a new QB in the draft. You're taking a risk either way, and it's basically the same risk.
I am genuinely curious if others feel this way. Fields playing on a terrible roster for two years in a row gives us no information versus tells us something? And if that's true, we really should be holding this same standard to other QBs. Who exactly is good on the Texans such that Davis Mills shouldn't get the same benefit of the doubt?
#70 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 12:55pm
Fields playing on a terrible roster for two years in a row gives us
That's not what I said. There's a difference between playing with a terrible roster and what the Bears did for the past two years. In '21, Fields wasn't even supposed to start, but was shoved into the game way early, and absolutely wasn't ready. That has nothing to do with what he can do, it has everything to do with the dysfunction that was present in the Bears at the time.
In '22, the Bears flat out chose to not be a competitive team to free up resources for '23. Again, that's not "a terrible roster." It's a choice that the Bears made.
Note what I highlighted. I wasn't talking about what information it gives us. I'm talking about what information it gives the Bears.
Who exactly is good on the Texans such that Davis Mills shouldn't get the same benefit of the doubt?
It's the same deal - the Texans knew exactly what they were doing when they started Davis Mills last year. They couldn't sign a real head coach because of the Flores mess, so they punted the entire year. Mills was part of that punt. New head coach comes in, and so now it's a question of what does he want to do. He's not impressed with Mills, so out he goes.
#72 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 1:06pm
If Caserio and their FO was at all excited about Mills, you'd be hearing a ton more positive comments about him, both now and all through last year. You aren't. That tells you all you need to know about how he was doing off the field as well. That's why the optics would be bad - because it'd be out of the blue.
You heard buckets of positive comments regarding Fields beforehand. They're totally happy with what happened last year. That's why the optics aren't terrible on Fields. They've been prepping for this for a while.
#74 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 1:20pm
There is some information: He was not good at the beginning of career. Cause? Who knows? No outsider out of Bears QB coaches can know.
I would say there is too much noise in such data. Outside of R. Wilson and Prescott, all young QBs are bad. If teams know the cause of problems, maybe they should give them 3-4 years. Usually a performance leap happens in year3, right? Anyway, the variance for this data is too high. I don't think it can be modeled. Young player in year 1 and year 3 are like different players. Just my guess. If there is a coaching change somewhere in those years, you have to throw out some data. Look at M. Jones in 2021 and 2022.
#75 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 1:34pm
No outsider out of Bears QB coaches can know.
It's a good thing that the Bears are the ones making the decision, then...?
The fact that the Bears are putting out such positive information about him is a strong indicator that they perfectly well understand the reason why he didn't do well.
The counterpoint to that argument, by the way, is that they are the Bears. (However, as stated elsewhere, that just makes all their decisions pointless, regardless).
#84 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 2:31pm
i agree with your comment.
I don't go into such speculation what is the cause, it is kind of pointless. I just wrote my comment because of question of modeling such data that has so much variance, noise, deviation. So young players change from month to month adapting to pro game, your own scheme, opponents. It applies to most positions, WRs, CBs, TEs... not so much to physical positions RBs, pass rush.
#88 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 3:33pm
I just wrote my comment because of question of modeling such data that has so much variance, noise, deviation.
That's why I put heavy weight on what the teams do and say, because they have much, much, much more data, with much less noise. When you repeat the exact same throw over and over in practice for weeks, it's a heckuva lot easier to mark someone's performance.
Again, the only problem with this is that this is the Bears, who historically have no idea what they're doing on offense.
#91 by JoelBarlow // Mar 14, 2023 - 3:46pm
the one thing that just jumps out to me is that it is extremely difficult to not have even mediocre passing numbers while being a major run threat
it goes against everything we know about offensive football, the effectiveness of RPOs, play action, etc to be a deadly QB running and still have horrible passing numbers, advanced and otherwise
matt nagy must have been really evil
#97 by Jimmy // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:04pm
I had to sit through four years of Matt Nagy and it was truly unpleasant experience. I still don’t think I would call him evil though. What I would say is that it would take me hours and need diagrams and videos to show you exactly how bad a coach he was, how utterly self defeating his play design and play calling were, and that as it spiralled out of control how mean spirited and poisonous he was in terms of deflecting blame onto others.
#120 by apocalipstick // Mar 17, 2023 - 2:14pm
Mahomes did start the last game of his rookie year, but even in that small sample size he displayed a lot of his special qualities, enough that when KC moved on from Alex Smith I thought they had done the right thing.
#62 by Steve in WI // Mar 14, 2023 - 10:39am
And yet, they pulled the plug anyways which with hindsight looks correct.
I think this speaks to the hardest thing for us as outside observers to understand, which is a player's makeup/personality/mental capability for the game. Given how fast Rosen went from a first round pick to competing for a job to bouncing around practice squads, it would seem there is something he lacks for an NFL QB that goes beyond a bad statistical season. And if a team feels like they have a guy who for whatever reason just lacks the capacity for meaningful improvement, then moving on quickly is justified (especially if, as the Cardinals did, they could easily move on to someone they believed to have a much higher ceiling).
If, however, a team believes in a player's makeup and ability to improve, not just physically but mentally and as a leader, then I think giving them more time to make it work is justified. I don't know if they're correct but I do think the Bears believe in all of that with Fields.
#65 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 12:06pm
it would seem there is something he lacks for an NFL QB that goes beyond a bad statistical season.
Rosen didn't just have a "bad" statistical season. It's obscenely bad. Rosen in 2018 racked up more negative DYAR than Fields has in multiple years. Including a year when he wasn't supposed to start.
There was nothing redeeming about Rosen that year.
#67 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 12:40pm
TBh and going off memory, I think Rosen got kicked to the curb because they hired a new coach who probably didn't want to tie himself to someone else's choice at QB. Or he really liked Murray. I think if Wilks had remained the coach, its likely Rosen would have gotten another year.
Its important to note the thinking at the time. While Rosen was startlingly horrible, Sam Bradford was equally terrible and Bradford seemed at least to be a known quantity. At the time, one could have been forgiven for assuming most of the blame fell at the feet of the Arizona supporting cast/coaching.
Responding to Pat's comment below:
While Rosen's DVOA was plenty horrible, Alex Smith in 05 just barely missed FO's 200 pass cut off for starting QBs, but posted by far the worst dvoa in the league that year. And if I remember correctly, it stands as the worst dvoa figure for any QB in history. And Josh Allen was nearly as bad as Rosen during their rookie season.
You are correct tho; we are at an information deficit. And so I am openly acknowledging that my opinion is coming entirely from without that inside information. In fact, its likely that's the reason the Jets have decided enough is enough with Zach Wilson.
#77 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 1:41pm
While Rosen's DVOA was plenty horrible, Alex Smith in 05 just barely missed FO's 200 pass cut off for starting QBs,
The last part is the key. Smith had injury issues in '05 and was in and out of the roster all year. By the end of the year he actually settled into like, normal terrible. Rosen started from the 3rd game on. Missed no time whatsoever. His final 3 game stretch might've been his worst three games of the year.
Can't just look at season long stats.
#37 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 13, 2023 - 3:53pm
Perpetually trading down runs the dual risk of becoming the OKC Thunder.
Which sounds okay -- they were legit good for a period, but...
- They bet wrong about which stars to keep (keeping Westbrook and/or Ibaka vs Harden)
- They've wandered in the desert since making the wrong choice in #1 and Durant eventually punching eject
They got lucky once, but made the wrong hard choice and walked away with nothing to show for it. They then tanked again, but it can be hard to stop tanking. You need at least a few guys who know what winning is supposed to look like.
\Only Harden was actually an OKC pick. Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, and Collison were drafted the Sonics.
#47 by OmahaChiefs13 // Mar 13, 2023 - 6:09pm
Bad teams with low talent get the top overall pick. And those bad teams draft QBs first overall. That's been the way it is since the pyramids. And consider; lots and lots of teams have drafted a QB first overall and it's changed their fortunes.
This line of thinking says that the Jags were wrong not to draft a QB to replace Lawrence in 2022. After all, they had the 1st overall pick (again), so they must have all still been bad, including the QB?
Bad teams with low talent spend high 1st round picks on QBs (it's not necessary to spend the 1st overall pick to change one's fortune entirely)....but unless they've recently gone through a change of life and hired Kingsbury, they generally don't do so more than once every 3-4 years.
#53 by theslothook // Mar 13, 2023 - 7:51pm
Your example with Trevor Lawrence brings us back to the salient question of how much of a sample size do we need to be convinced?
Lots of quarterbacks have had terrible first seasons and gone on to bounce back. Some have even become Hall of famers and super Bowl winners.
The record for quarterbacks who have put together two seasons of absolutely terrible play and managed to turn it around is far fewer.
Just to be clear, I 100% concede Fields was surrounded by dreck. The question becomes if you don't surround him with that, just how much better is he? For some quarterbacks you can give them all the talent in the world and their improvement is fairly marginal.
#55 by OmahaChiefs13 // Mar 13, 2023 - 8:49pm
Your example with Trevor Lawrence brings us back to the salient question of how much of a sample size do we need to be convinced?
It's variable, of course (especially given that we haven't defined what constitutes "success").
Rather than the obvious counter-examples (Josh Allen was clearly a huge outlier), let's go the other direction with it, and talk about Mitch Trubisky. Clearly, a track record of "success" after a season or two isn't necessarily indicative of long-term success either.
So since we can find at least a few examples any direction we look, maybe there isn't a hard and fast "two year rule" (or one, or three) we can point to, and each individual QB/coach/surrounding roster scenario simply needs evaluated independently?
#56 by theslothook // Mar 13, 2023 - 10:42pm
So since we can find at least a few examples any direction we look, maybe there isn't a hard and fast "two year rule" (or one, or three) we can point to, and each individual QB/coach/surrounding roster scenario simply needs evaluated independently?
Maybe, if the results were close to evenly distributed or even uniform, this would make sense. Unfortunately, the results are skewed pretty heavily in one direction.
#61 by OmahaChiefs13 // Mar 14, 2023 - 10:36am
Are they really? Or just anecdotally?
I'm not challenging you, so.much as stating that I've never seen it presented as anything but a collection of examples and anecdotes....if someone really has looked at it and determined that there really is a skew toward a 2-year breakpoint (beyond "most QBs never develop into what we thought they would"), I'd appreciate the direction to where that happened.
#66 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 12:31pm
So if I am being honest, its mostly anecdotal although I do remember FO articles covering certain QBs and how they appear historically after 2 disaster seasons. And the results are pretty grim. But that's not a rigorous study.
If one where to model this, I'd probably lean to some kind of survival model; something akin to a side project I am currently playing around with when it comes to running backs.
#57 by ImNewAroundThe… // Mar 13, 2023 - 11:43pm
Also a big part: the NFL isn't the only sample size we have.
An UDFA not succeeding right away makes sense and probably doesn't need much further investigating. A 1st rounder probably does need ~3 years to evaluate and build around.
And Allen isn't the only one to improve. Less than a year ago people were wanting to replace Hurts. Some with Minshew.
#63 by Steve in WI // Mar 14, 2023 - 10:49am
Trubisky is such an interesting comparison. Like Fields, his rookie season was basically squandered with a coach who first didn't want to play him and then didn't seem interested in maximizing his strengths. Unlike Fields, the team was successful in his 2nd season even though Trubisky was not good, which probably masked his deficiencies and allowed the front office to remain in denial longer. Another departure seems to be that Fields has a coaching staff willing to adjust around his strengths rather than forcing him into a particular system.
The one thing I remember with Trubisky starting in year 3 was an increasing chorus of experts saying that he just seemed to lack the inherent ability to improve past a certain point, which seems to have borne out as his ceiling now seems to be as a backup. I haven't yet seen those specific criticisms about Fields; the criticisms seem to be focused more on how most QBs whose first two years are so poor statistically do not turn out to be good, or that the Bears should target quarterback X because of upside and/or rookie contracts, not necessarily because Fields has a low ceiling.
#69 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 12:54pm
Do you have an idea why do Bears have so many problems with QBs? Do they change QB coaches or is it just one coach for years-decades?
These problems that they have somehow keep repeating... with various QB players and various head coaches. Not just young QBs, Foles, late-stage Cutler etc. Somehow the players don't fit the scheme they envision or what is this?
#76 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 1:35pm
You are to smart a person to be writing such generalizing comments. I know you as a Lions fan have to glow a bit over divisional rival problems.
I am just curious. What could be the problem? It has to be something organizational. It just keeps repeating.It is like they choose offense players and coaches at random and what happens, happens.
Fields obviously has the physical talent, but doesn't know what to do? Noone tells him in detail? He improvizes too much? Is O-line the worst in the league? Broncos are signing O-line players now, Bears not so much.
Watching his highlights, he could be like L. Jackson, runs and throws. But on most plays nothing happens, as no aspect of offense works. Sad.
Maybe they should try Greg Roman. He worked for Ravens' Jackson offense.
#83 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 2:27pm
I am just curious. What could be the problem? It has to be something organizational.
The organization hasn't changed. In like, forever. Same team president who keeps hiring the same kinds of people. Front office turnover isn't even that large, even when they claim it is. They just fire the top guys as scapegoats and promote guys below.
#78 by Steve in WI // Mar 14, 2023 - 1:54pm
I think the simplest explanation is that overall the owners/team president have not done a good job of hiring GMs and coaches, and the coaches who have had success were defensive specialists. Plus they're an organization that has not been successful by objective metrics like playoff appearances/wins, but has had some really good defenses that have camouflaged how unsuccessful they've been so I think it's natural that extra focus gets placed on the QB.
#79 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 2:04pm
Here's my two cents on this topic.
I generally think, in 90% of cases, team quality is a direct result of the talent on hand and the talent on hand mostly comes from the draft. Having done work on the NFL draft, my conclusion along with others, suggests that it's mostly explained by draft position. And that it's mostly luck that plays out in that way. This is akin to active managers in finance.
However, for me to believe otherwise, I need to see the same pattern repeated over a very long period of time, with different personnel, but also it has to be repeated in the same fashion.
That's why I believe in the Ravens organization ( at least when Ozzie was there). I also believe in Belichick and Andy Reid.
Now to the Bears. I would be more sympathetic if the Bears offensive problems always played out in exactly the same way. But they haven't. They've had busts but busts that have busted in different ways. Some have been bad from jump like Cade McNown. Some have been just bad like Grossman. And then there's Mitch, who was actually just a mild bust by comparison.
It would also help if the Bears were stuck onto one kind of style. But they haven't been. They've cycled through the quiet venerable Lovie to the offensive Maverick in Trestman to the proven winner in Fox to Andy Reid wunderkind in Nagy to now back to hot shot coordinator candidate in Eberflus.
Across all of that time, they've managed to mostly be bad. But not always, as a brief period with Cutler and McCown. So clearly, the curse seems to be uneven in it's degree of wickedness.
Frankly, unless someone details how the McCaskeys are undermining the offense (are they ripping up gameplans or intentionally being cheap with equipment?), I think a more likely explanation is bad luck. Drafting a QB is inherently like a lottery. And sometimes, you roll through so many non winners before you finally hit on that lottery pick.
#85 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 2:57pm
I don't question your statistical acumen.
I generally think, in 90% of cases, team quality is a direct result of the talent on hand and the talent on hand mostly comes from the draft. Having done work on the NFL draft, my conclusion along with others, suggests that it's mostly explained by draft position. And that it's mostly luck that plays out in that way.
That's why I believe in the Ravens organization ( at least when Ozzie was there). I also believe in Belichick and Andy Reid.
Could you please expand a little on the first paragraph. If i understand correctly, over long enough time draft position of all draft picks will determine the team quality. Aren't some teams bad for a long time (Cardinals, Jaguars, Browns, Lions) and have top draft position often and stay bad? And teams that have been good over long time have relatively worse draft position (Steelers, Ravens, Patriots, Packers)? It is possible that second group trades down and acquires a surplus of picks and thus quality... Were explanations for my question found in the research?
How long are these time spans? If 2 decades or longer, then almost no coaching staff stays that long on the same team. Positional coaching matters a lot, too. Not just HC.
Also, if coaching brings only 10%, why would it matter much if Bears are changing coaches often? How about if there were no coaches, just players and front office? Would such a team be only 10% worse?
I am just curious about this research.
#86 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 3:14pm
As you mentioned in a comment above, there is so much variation in the data and the samples are so tiny that its not easy to draw definitive/testable conclusions to these questions. And therefore, how you determine if its luck vs skill requires extreme deftness.
Fortunately for me, I just stole Eugene Fama/Ken French's methods when they did this for mututal fund returns. I got basically the same results they did. Which, from a tldr perspective says - the results we observe are consistent with results that you would find if the results were left to chance. Ie - even in a world where everything was entirely based on luck, we would find extremes in both directions just by chance.
As to your broader point. As an economist by training; its important to recognize when your points of view become part of a philosophy/world view and not some hardened convention. So with full disclosure, what I wrote above is my world view of how the NFL works. It doesn't make it right, just an opinion.
And really, that opinion was formed after considering lots of data points. But here are a few that really drive home the point. Someone like George Siefert has really lived two completely different extremes. You could even argue someone like John Fox has as well. And one wonders, if coaching were so vital - how is it that someone like Seifert could win SBs in one point of time and then literally coach a team to the worst record in football and one lousy win? Imagine a world where Patrick Mahomes throws 50 tds in one season and then ends up with a negative 50% dvoa the next year without injuries being the explanation? It would never happen because Mahomes' is far more in control of his observable production.
How long are these time spans?
The easiest way to build a long term contender is to have the Qb. That right off the bat eliminates a lot of the organizational gravitas in my book. Favre then Rodgers. Manning then Luck(briefly).
For me to believe something exists beyond luck, I need to see it repeated in the same way over and over. So the Ravens vs the Steelers is a nice counter example. The Steelers went from defense led to all passing and now are back to defense with their passing game sucking. That to me is explained entirely by how their drafts went. The Ravens, by contrast, have maintained this same type of team for decades despite changes at the head coach, quarterback, and coordinator level. Year after year they maintain this same profile(at least until recently). That's a rather defining feature.
But beyond that, its important to remember. Drafting maybe a crapshoot, but being smart about how you accumulate and draft is skill. IE - don't spend top picks on running backs. Don't trade away an entire draft board for one player. Don't draft a 30+year old QB. These are smart decisions independent of whether the pick happens to work out.
#93 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 14, 2023 - 3:58pm
Which, from a tldr perspective says - the results we observe are consistent with results that you would find if the results were left to chance. Ie - even in a world where everything was entirely based on luck, we would find extremes in both directions just by chance.
The assumption of normality is so strong that it's actually difficult to prove an outcome is biased.
It takes something like 120 tosses for even a 3/4 coin to be detected to significant probability. You need like 500 for a 3/5 coin.
#102 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:35pm
I don't unterstand what you are trying to say in the first half of comment (the last paragraph i understand and agree). That the quality of any team at any point in time or throughout their existence is just luck of the draft?
Did you find this mathematically or is it your view?
So with full disclosure, what I wrote above is my world view of how the NFL works. It doesn't make it right, just an opinion.
If you found it mathematically, then it must be true. I wasn't implying anything, i am just curious. I was a scientist, but no statistician or economist.
You are saying Ravens (and Patriots? and Reid?) are outliers, and the for the rest of teams your model fits well? My question was why do some teams stay worse. Over 30 or 50 years Cardinals and Lions are bad. They must have had better draft picks. Did they trade them away?
Also, methodology in your research. Did you look at some player as a single data point or each of his years as separate data points? Players change with years, RBs for example. And how do you determine the quality of each defensive player? Also snaps played for each player. To dissentangle the quality of each player must be hard!!!
I asked about time spans, you wrote about QBs?!
As far as coach vs. QB goes
Mahomes' is far more in control of his observable production.
i agree with this too. A player, a QB gives you observable numbers. A coach does not. A coach does majority of his work Monday to Saturday.
As far as individual sports and simpler team sports with more data points, games (NBA, MLB), there the talent must be dominant.
#104 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:45pm
The part that I wrote about with respect to modeling is that the draft results we observe are not statistically different from results that could have happened by random chance.
I have to very carefully word it that way because I don't want to overreach in what the model is able to tell you. I cannot say definitively it is luck, but I can say that the results look similar to what would happen I a world of luck.
As for the rest. The draft may be luck but how one navigates the draft and free agency and handles contracts etc etc, that's all skill.
#107 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 5:05pm
These were tagged by the long tenured member between head coach and GM. So if Ozzie has many head coaches, he gets tagged as one regime. If Belichick has many GMs, he gets tagged as one regime.
The sample goes back to the very first super Bowl.
As for your question about credit for someone like Frank Gore or some other journeyman who goes to many teams, Only the original regime that drafted the player gets the credit. So if someone like James farrior gets drafted by the Jets and ends up a bust but goes to the Steelers and has a good career, the Jets regime gets the credit.
We can quibble with these decisions, but whenever you're trying to tackle a very complicated question, you have to make methodological decisions like this
#108 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 6:13pm
Ok, i get the point. You wrote it in an article as a guest here on this site, right?
If i may say so, there are very many assumptions in your model.
- i think we can all see what is the problem with a player like Gore who played for many teams and you put him only on S.F. There are many players that go around teams.
- Moreover, their level of play varies significantly over the course not only of a career, but over the course of a season (consider September 2022 G. Smith 20-30% DVOA and December 2022 G. Smith -17% DVOA) For players with less plays, it varies more!
- you should use very smooth data to describe a quality of a player, like DVOA game to game, not grainy data such as Pro Bowl selection in a year. For many positions there are no such data! (linemen etc.)
- to define a regime is difficult. Veeery difficult. For Cowboys it is J. Jones. For an average team, who knows (owner, GM, his draft assistants...)
It would be a Herculean effort to compose a model which would better ascribe to the real world, without the assumptions above! However, the noise in the data must be significant because of all these false assumptions. Nevertheless, they are false.
Your model is basically trying to determine who is better at drafting and at the end it comes out noone is the best over long period of time. drafting quality might be explained by random events, that you wrote about in comment above, like in some economy trading model.
I absolutely agree with this.
I disagree then with your viewpoint that drafting stands above all else as a determinant of team quality. This is just a viewpoint. A player that is drafted is not a constant, he varies year to year, game to game significantly. First year almost all QBs are very bad. etc. Why? Why does a young player develop as you wrote. This is not his intrinsic growth, like growing a shoe size. The cause of growth is something else. I think development is in human interaction with teammates, coaches.
To me this development is much more important than drafting. We may disagree on this. I am more interested in quality of a team over short time period, 3-4 years and cause of quality of such a team.
sidenote: a great player can become bad, see Manning 2015. Than he is benched or forced out. So there is survival bias in such data. A bad player is usually not allowed to play. A good coach might become outdated or just old but still be allowed to do bad coaching for a few years...
I think you should try your model on MLB or NBA. For NFL there is not enough good data for what you are trying to achieve. When DVOA for some QB is given it really means that is the DVOA of that team pass offense when that player is QB. For so many players there are no mathematical data.
#109 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 6:21pm
You've touched on this above, but I'll state it up front. When I was younger, I used to believe it was possible to accurately grade individual players. I have since given up that belief and regard the whole thing as completely hopeless.
#110 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 6:34pm
You can do it baseball, in swimming, in running, etc.
But this is a team sport. They are NOT 11 independent variables. Maybe units could be separated: pass catchers, linemaen, runners, 3 levels of defense.
I didn't want to hurt your feelings. But the model has flaws because you want this individual data.
Do you know anything about chemistry? A molecule consists of atoms. Properties of atoms and molecules are totally different. Why? Because of interactions of atoms inside the molecule. There are only about 100 different atoms and billions of molecules.
And NFL are people playing sports. They cannot even move in space indepedently. a RB cannot go where there is no space, or there will be buttfumbles! Interactions are crucial.
#111 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 6:54pm
A professor of mine used to say, models are not meant to be 100 reflections of reality but quantitative parables.
You can say the model is flawed, but I don't think the results tell us nothing. To me, that's a pretty extreme statement and essentially suggesting that any current measurement systems are completely divorced from reality. That effectively, who is a probowler, all pro, and hall of famer Is just as likely to be a terrible player as they are to be an amazing player. That's not exactly The point you're making but that becomes the implication.
My bottom line. I don't think there's a GM out there who can consistently beat the expected value of a draft pick over time in any massively significant way. The best Ozzie types can do is get small incremental wins over time.
#115 by guest from Europe // Mar 15, 2023 - 7:42am
My bottom line. I don't think there's a GM out there who can consistently beat the expected value of a draft pick over time in any massively significant way. The best Ozzie types can do is get small incremental wins over time.
But i completely agree with you on this. I agree that we can't know in advance nor GMs can know how good some player will become.
And your model gives that result out. i was pointing out the flaws because they really distort the input data that you want.
I agree that QB is the most important position. I agree that it is very important to have as good as possible level of play at that position. So are other positions important.
I am talking about shorter spans, because average player or a peak of great player lasts 3-4 years and so do the good teams nowadays.
As far as quality of individual players maybe we are talking past each other. You might be stuck on a few of the best and are disregarding the majority of others. You like QBs, so i will continue with that: you think only your Tier 1 and Tier 2 guys are really good, talented, how ever you define it. Is that correct? And there are 4-6 players at any particular year? At this position there are about 100-120 players: starters, back-ups, practice squad. Are you disregarding the majority in the middle, average starters, back-ups like Henne etc. not horrible players? Or is this majority low on talent? Just statistical noise?
Those are the players i am writing about. To me they all have talent, intrinsic quality. They are better than out of NFL players or general population. And to get from 50-th best to 20-th best it is "development", "coaching", "scheme adjustments" how ever you want to call it. I am not saying it is random. Just look at what Belichick does with linebackers. No great stars there. He takes a player who doesn't work on another team such as van Noy and uses him to the best of player's abbilities and it works. A player who wants to freelance on pure talent (Collins), he trades away to Browns.
A player's performance is not a constant value, it is a dynamic variable year to year. (famous example: J. Allen's DVOA fluctuates wildly year- to- year. Favre was MVP in 90's, then worse in 00's. Why? He had lot of talent. K. Warner... )
Is it possible that you are looking at very long time scales and then only players that stand out are statistical outliers (Manning, J. Rice, Megatron...)? and then you think only such HOFers really matter? There are so few such players.
And even they are not the same throughout their career. Vikings Peterson and Peterson on other teams. 2001 Brady, 2011 Brady and 2021 Brady are not the same player. Their abilities change over time.
#116 by guest from Europe // Mar 15, 2023 - 8:03am
And coaches change too. "coach of a team" is not a single person, but coaching staff. Some leave the team and are replaced by worse staff (Patriots problem now). Some grow outdated, don't adjust to developing game.
Some are high energy guys such as Jim Harbaugh and after 3 years stop "getting through to the players". etc.
#105 by guest from Europe // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:58pm
Maybe you can explain the methodology on an example of someone like Frank Gore. He played for many teams, was a various quality player various seasons. How did you estimate how much did he contribute to each of his teams?
The same for some linebacker or safety or DT or center (who have no observable numbers) and played for various teams.
#94 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:01pm
If i understand correctly, over long enough time draft position of all draft picks will determine the team quality. Aren't some teams bad for a long time (Cardinals, Jaguars, Browns, Lions) and have top draft position often and stay bad?
Prior to the end of 2010, there was no rookie wage scale. So prior to 2011, high draft picks were something of a trap because their salaries were so high.
#87 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 3:31pm
They've had busts but busts that have busted in different ways. Some have been bad from jump like Cade McNown. Some have been just bad like Grossman
Why are you just looking at the QBs? They can't draft WRs, either, and the extremely few WRs they draft who aren't awful, they don't keep (sorry, Darnell Mooney).
Which is somewhat unique to the Bears, mind you. Even the Browns had Braylon Edwards and Josh Gordon, and the Lions had Calvin Johnson (and Roy Williams wasn't actually that bad). They've drafted 2 first-round WRs in the past 23 years. Both of whom were epic busts. They've got the worst WR drafting record in the league in terms of productive volume over the past 20 years.
It's not just QB luck.
#92 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 3:57pm
That's this part.
and the extremely few WRs they draft who aren't awful, they don't keep
They drafted him, franchised him, and... let him walk. Best WR drafted over the past 20 years. Second best? Bernard Berrian.
Who they let walk.
edit: To be clear, the fact that they let him walk is important because it's literally impossible to acquire high-end WRs in free agency. You have to get them via the draft or trade. They literally had a borderline high-end WR and they... let him walk. He might actually be one of the best WRs to ever hit true free agency. Certainly one of them.
#98 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:05pm
But that is a different criticism than saying they can't draft and develop players.
And do we know what went into those decisions? How do we know It was the owners and not the GM who made that decision? How do we know those wide receivers didn't want to get out of Chicago at all costs?
After all, this is a team that traded for Brandon Marshall and paid musin Muhammad in free agency.
#99 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:12pm
But that is a different criticism than saying they can't draft and develop players.
No, it isn't. It's resource allocation and young player valuation.
How do we know It was the owners and not the GM who made that decision?
You're looking for overt or explicit blame, and not systemic blame. It's a systemic issue.
After all, this is a team that traded for Brandon Marshall and paid musin Muhammad in free agency.
Yes. They also traded for Jay Cutler, too - and gave away their own draft pick QB who went on to accrue basically the same DYAR in the remainder of his career as Cutler, and probably would've outdone him if not for the Tim Tebow Experience (and, well, Peyton Manning).
It's not that they don't want to have an offense. It's that they don't know how.
#100 by theslothook // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:19pm
It's not that they don't want to have an offense. It's that they don't know how.
We have debated This topic and this team specifically before and I don't think we're going to get to any kind of resolution.
To me, when I see contradicting data points and no coherent theory or specific causal mechanism other than the words "systemic", I tend to be very skeptical. That's how Galen and the theory of the humours can go on for centuries as an explanation for germs and cancer.
#101 by Pat // Mar 14, 2023 - 4:33pm
and no coherent theory or specific causal mechanism
No, I gave you a coherent theory and a causal mechanism. You just disagree with it. Which is fine. You're welcome to disagree with it. But this is not me just saying "systemic." It's me pointing to the fact that the team has had the same president for 24 years and every single GM changeover results in only a small number of people actually changing. All of those facts are completely in line with the behavior I'm describing. Which is what the word "coherent" means.
Neither you nor I actually have inside information as to what's going on. You could be right. Or I could be right. But the explanation I'm giving is completely coherent and absolutely causal.
#50 by BigCheese // Mar 13, 2023 - 6:32pm
So, is the fact that Devon Anderson gets drafted twice in the No A-Rod trade timeline and not at all in the no trade timeline part of the joke? Because I definitely thought so until I got to the 29th pick, where it seems like you were actually trying to have it be internally consistent...
#59 by ScottD // Mar 14, 2023 - 9:56am
Only one TE in the first round and it's Washington. I agree with this and enjoy the confirmation bias!
TE is so deep this year, I don't see teams trying to get more than 1-2 in the first round. And if they do, picking the outlier Washington rather than the other 3 who're getting steamed up.