Around the NFL III - The NFLiest Yet

[John232]

It would be a HARD pill to swallow to give up that much capital and a player like Bosa, but I'd still do it for a player like Watson. 

Sadly..this could be a null conversation in a timeline where Kyle isn't hell bent on Cousins. 

[Forge]

I remember when we had a guy just like him. 

[GW21]

Honestly, for me, I would use that draft capital to move up and draft a QB. Obviously there is the bust factor with a rookie QB and Watson is a known commodity, but parting with a guy like Bosa or Warner is not something I’m prepared to do. Also, with as much as we as a fan base have complained about bringing on guys with injury history, we’d be doing just that with Watson. I’m not saying I wouldn’t love to have him, but he’s had multiple ACLs himself already. The price would have to be right and I don’t think I’m a fan of shipping out one of our top 3-4 players along with significant draft capital to get Watson. 

[Forge]

Roquan got absolutely hosed. For real. 

[757-NINER]

22 minutes ago, Forge said:

That's definitely a take you would get excoriated for. I just don't see how you put those values anywhere close to one another. Honestly, if you put Bosa on this team this year but still have to deal with CJ and Mullens, I think there's still a good shot we miss the playoffs. You keep Bosa off the team but put Watson on it, I think this team may win the division and be one of the favorites to make it out of the NFC. 

There's a substantial difference in their replacement level value as well which would make the QB position more valuable. 

I understand why most would laugh at the notion. And its always going to be skewed to favor QBs, as they touch the ball more than any player during the game besides the center, thus affecting the outcome more substantially than any other position. But I personally feel those that adversely affect the play of the QB are highly valuable and should be coveted. I don't think they're peices you include to acquire a franchise QB. Not a popular take I know, but mine nonetheless. I'm not giving up Lawrence Taylor for Dan Marino. Not saying Bosa or Watson are destined for the HOF....just speaking hypothetically.

[757-NINER]

3 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

But you would still have Warner, Armstead, Kinlaw, Ward, Greenlaw, Moore, Verrett etc going forward if you trade away Bosa. The defense will still be fine while the offense will be absolutely ELITE. A top 3 offense with a top 10 defense pretty much guatantees us a playoff birth for the foreseeable future. We also become a legitimate contender. Easier to find edge players than elite QBs. 

What I'm saying if I had to choose, I'd rather try to replace the All-Pro mlb than the All-Pro edge rusher.

[Forge]

1 minute ago, 757-NINER said:

I understand why most would laugh at the notion. And its always going to be skewed to favor QBs, as they touch the ball more than any player during the game besides the center, thus affecting the outcome more substantially than any other position. But I personally feel those that adversely affect the play of the QB are highly valuable and should be coveted. I don't think they're peices you include to acquire a franchise QB. Not a popular take I know, but mine nonetheless. I'm not giving up Lawrence Taylor for Dan Marino. Not saying Bosa or Watson are destined for the HOF....just speaking hypothetically.

I wouldn't have done that in the 80's. Now? I don't know. The most valuable thing in football is a great NFL QB on a rookie deal. Watson isn't that, I think I'd put elite QB regardless of cost at the next level. 

But it's just been proven time and again you can scheme around a lack of a dominant pass rusher. We saw it to an extent this year with us. 6th in defensive dvoa and I think there's a good chance that is higher if the offense is competent and not turning the ball over. New England and Baltimore have been doing it for years. I Think its just easier to work around. Plus, you're going to be paying Bosa nearly 25 million a season very soon. There's a good chance his contract is bigger than Jimmy's. I get the reasons for keeping him, I just think that there's too much value in the QB positions

[Forge]

1 minute ago, 757-NINER said:

What I'm saying if I had to choose, I'd rather try to replace the All-Pro mlb than the All-Pro edge rusher.

This I agree with. That's why I offered the Warner deal. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

1 minute ago, 757-NINER said:

What I'm saying if I had to choose, I'd rather try to replace the All-Pro mlb than the All-Pro edge rusher.

Of course, but what I'm saying is we showed without Bosa this is still a top 10 defense. Why? Great coaching and there's still a lot of talent here. That talent is still going to be here. Warner won't garner the same amount of value as Bosa in a trade package.

I will say though, I'm not sure if Bosa means THAT much more than Warner, especially in this scheme. Coverage is so important and teams are spreading it out more, and I can't stress enough the type of luxury we have with Warner being able to cover opposing TEs in single coverage as well as even a lot of WRs. Warner is SOO good in coverage. If Bosa played and Warner was out from week 2? I'm not convinced this defense is much better than what it was this season, if at all.

That's my hot take of the day! 

[757-NINER]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

I wouldn't have done that in the 80's. Now? I don't know. The most valuable thing in football is a great NFL QB on a rookie deal. Watson isn't that, I think I'd put elite QB regardless of cost at the next level. 

But it's just been proven time and again you can scheme around a lack of a dominant pass rusher. We saw it to an extent this year with us. 6th in defensive dvoa and I think there's a good chance that is higher if the offense is competent and not turning the ball over. New England and Baltimore have been doing it for years. I Think its just easier to work around. Plus, you're going to be paying Bosa nearly 25 million a season very soon. There's a good chance his contract is bigger than Jimmy's. I get the reasons for keeping him, I just think that there's too much value in the QB positions

Like I said Bosa's injury makes this one difficult. I'm not even convinced myself if I wouldn't...

Its just that it takes forever to find comptent and reliable pass-rushers. I'm still weary of having to go through that process again. And maybe its because it's Watson who I was never really enamored with as a prospect. I think he has looked great in a vacuum but I still have some questions about his game from the pocket.

[757-NINER]

11 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Of course, but what I'm saying is we showed without Bosa this is still a top 10 defense. Why? Great coaching and there's still a lot of talent here. That talent is still going to be here. Warner won't garner the same amount of value as Bosa in a trade package.

I will say though, I'm not sure if Bosa means THAT much more than Warner, especially in this scheme. Coverage is so important and teams are spreading it out more, and I can't stress enough the type of luxury we have with Warner being able to cover opposing TEs in single coverage as well as even a lot of WRs. Warner is SOO good in coverage. If Bosa played and Warner was out from week 2? I'm not convinced this defense is much better than what it was this season, if at all.

That's my hot take of the day! 

Just playing devil's advocate here but is Warner's play scheme-dependant in a way? Once Saleh leaves and a new scheme is implemented, does he have the same type impact in the pass defense? Is he as dominant if we switch to a 3-4 with different coverage principles??

Pass-rushers translate into ANY scheme. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by 757-NINER

[J-ALL-DAY]

Just now, 757-NINER said:

But isvWarner's play is scheme-dependant in a way? Once Saleh leaves and a new scheme is implemented, does he have the same type impact in the pass defense? Is he as dominant if we switch to a 3-4 with different coverage principles??

Pass-rushers translate into ANY scheme. 

4-3 or 3-4 means little to me when we are in the nickel for majority of the game. And ANY LB that could cover like Warner is going to thrive in any scheme, especially in today's NFL. 

There's not one scheme where I can't see Warner being really good. If you have a LB that can cover slot WRs, TEs, and RBs, why would you not want to utilize his coverage skills? In a 3-4, he actually becomes a better run defender. 

Our pass rush was average so Saleh had to blitz more and that worked partly due to how good Warner was in coverage. 

[757-NINER]

2 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

4-3 or 3-4 means little to me when we are in the nickel for majority of the game. And ANY LB that could cover like Warner is going to thrive in any scheme, especially in today's NFL. 

There's not one scheme where I can't see Warner being really good. If you have a LB that can cover slot WRs, TEs, and RBs, why would you not want to utilize his coverage skills? In a 3-4, he actually becomes a better run defender. 

Our pass rush was average so Saleh had to blitz more and that worked partly due to how good Warner was in coverage. 

I don't know if he's a better run defender in a 3-4. Depends who's playing in front of him. But you're always at the mercy of DCs who try to fit square pegs in round holes. That's my only caveat.

[J-ALL-DAY]

1 minute ago, 757-NINER said:

I don't know if he's a better run defender in a 3-4. Depends who's playing in front of him. But you're always at the mercy of DCs who try to fit square pegs in round holes. That's my only caveat.

If we go in a 3-4, we would have a more traditional run stopping NT and that would certainly help him.

But again, Warner can play in ANY scheme. It would be one thing if he was a great run stopper but a liability in coverage. In that scenario, he would be scheme dependent. But he's NOT that at all. 

In a passing league era that uses more three WRs sets than ever, Warner is the perfect LB. If you were to make prototypical off ball LB, it would be Warner. 

 

[John232]

36 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

If we go in a 3-4, we would have a more traditional run stopping NT and that would certainly help him.

But again, Warner can play in ANY scheme. It would be one thing if he was a great run stopper but a liability in coverage. In that scenario, he would be scheme dependent. But he's NOT that at all. 

In a passing league era that uses more three WRs sets than ever, Warner is the perfect LB. If you were to make prototypical off ball LB, it would be Warner. 

 

My proudest moment as a mock drafter is nailing the Warner pick in the third. 

In general, we should start seeing a lot more "Joker" backer pseudo safeties transition to LB at the NFL. That said, Warner looked like a pretty special talent in college but was hidden because of the position and team he played on.

But he's like a notch below Willis in terms of pacing as an all-time great LBer if he can keep this up.