Lions fire HC Matt Patricia & GM Bob Quinn; Darrell Bevell to be interim HC

[BayRaider]

6 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Yeah, but since they just had one former Patriots coordinator flame out, would they want to go back for another one?  After the issues they had with Patricia's personality, and considering the way McDaniels flaked out on the Colts, I wouldn't want him if I were the Lions.

They'd be morons to hire another Patriot Coordinator. Patriot Coordinators are simply not good hires. The only hire I ever liked was Flories, and I'm not saying that out of hindsight, was on record. I absolutely love Flores leadership.

Judge is another guy I said from the get-go that I think will fail.

[ET80]

37 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

3rd overall and you have a crystal ball.  You can pick a Hall of Fame receiver or a HOF QB.

Don’t be stupid.  

 

That's assuming you don't already have a HoF WR or a HoF QB. 

If I already have a HoF QB, is there any benefit to that positional value? Not even a HoF QB - let's say you have a very good QB? Right now, I can't call Josh Allen or Kyler Murray as HoF QBs, but we're trending in a good direction with both. If Arizona or Buffalo end up with a top 20 pick and a top 10 QB drops - does it benefit to take them with positional value in mind?

No... the answer is a hard NO. Don't try to argue otherwise.

37 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You’re forgetting that Jamal Lewis, Torry Holt... These are the exceptions that prove the rule.

But using Corey Simon - who was relatively average over his career - over Jamal Lewis, who is one of a handful of guys in NFL History to rush for 2,000 yards and was a big piece of a Ravens offense led by Trent Dilfer of all people - is just a bad example.

42 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

What do you think you would find if you looked at teams who drafted QB, OT, EDGE, DL, DB in the top 20 as opposed to WR, TE, IOL...?

I'd think I would find a skew in numbers due to sustained successful teams who drafted guys like Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes, Roethlensberger, etc.

Circumstances of each team far outweighs trends in who picks what. Your premise would hold water if each team selected in the same spot every year, but that's not how the draft works.

34 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

As if Reggie Bush was the reason behind that Saints win.

No, and Ferguson isn't the reason the Jets went to the AFCCG. It's a team sport.

39 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

It’s not a bad argument.

No, it's a horrible argument.

39 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

 It’s no different than fantasy football as far as broad strokes.  Do you use your first pick on a kicker?  What if that kicker is a Hall of Fame kicker?  If my argument is so bad, you’d be okay with drafting a kicker in the first round if they were a can’t miss prospect.

Are NFL teams drafting from scratch, like most Fantasy teams do? Are all 53 players on NFL rosters not considered when selections are made? 

If I had a team of 22 All Pro calibur starters, along with backups who are all top level and the ONLY position I need to fill is K, and there is a K who is worth picking in the first... should I pick another QB because of position value?

The Colts drafted Quentin Nelson very early and he's completely transformed that OL - this was the same OL that forced Andrew Luck into an early retirement, and now it's widely considered one of the best OLs in football. That's largely due to Nelson and C Ryan Kelly (18th overall - another good example of non-critical position leading a great unit). 

Neither are sexy positions, both are top 20, and both have positioned the Colts to leading the AFCS. I'm sure if we took a comprehensive dive, we'd uncover more examples.

46 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Is it?  No.  It’s not different.

Find me a single instance where a team is trying to fill 53 roster spots, much like a fantasy team has to fill all starting spots, all backup spots in a single draft.

That's why this is a very bad argument, you're basing it from a very poor example that would never be the case - even an expansion team has an expansion draft and FA signings before they get involved with the actual draft.

[bigbadbuff]

16 hours ago, minutemancl said:

Unfortunately, that Lions opening has got to be the least desirable spot this offseason. No young cornerstones, aging QB, and it is Detroit. 

Doesn’t mean anything. Buffalo wasn’t desirable in anyway shape or form and they, IMO hit home runs with both McDermott and Beane.

[FrantikRam]

12 hours ago, ET80 said:

I feel like this is a oversimplification of the situation in Houston.

- The Texans have talent. Their entire OL is full of 1/2 round picks who has improved significantly since the Bill O'Brien firing (10 sacks in the four BoB games, 6 sacks in the seven games post BoB). Both Will Fuller and Brandin Cooks are on pace for 1,000 yards; They would be the first Texans WR tandem to both eclipse the 1,000 yard mark in a single season (and this team once had Andre Johnson playing across DeAndre Hopkins). Defensively is where the focus needs to be, but there's a few guys that are looking foundational - Justin Reid and Lonnie Johnson are starting to show up at S (Johnson recently moved from CB to full time S and it's showing to be a smart move). Zach Cunningham is a Pro Bowl calibur ILB, Jacob Martin and Jon Greenard are reasonable situational edge rushers, PJ Hall, Charles Omenihu and Ross Blacklock are reasonable interior DL. The issue with the Texans D is the loss of DJ Reader, who left to Cincinnati; Losing a block eating, penetrating NT is killing everyone else around that hole.

Is it the BEST talent in the world? No, but it's a team you can win with, a team you can build around.

- The Texans have eight draft picks this upcoming draft; They don't have a single pick in the top 64, but they have picks. This is where the new GM has to put in work, making those picks count. Now, the biggest need on the team is CB, which you're probably not going to find in rounds 3-7. But, other needs (RB, NT, ILB, situational edge rusher) can be found later on in the draft.

It won't be easy, yes. But a GM can cement themselves into a legend by making something out of this draft, and if they don't... You'll get a mulligan for the 2021 draft and a full compliment of picks in 2022.

 

Texans have changed my mind about them since firing O'Brien. They are a prime candidate for a fast turn around with a good coach.

First round picks are overrated - if I had more time, I'd go through and drudge up all the posts by people slamming the Rams for not having a first round pick. We had one bad draft class, but the other three with McVay have been (or look like they will be) fantastic.

[MacReady]

7 hours ago, ET80 said:

That's assuming you don't already have a HoF WR or a HoF QB. 

If I already have a HoF QB, is there any benefit to that positional value? Not even a HoF QB - let's say you have a very good QB? Right now, I can't call Josh Allen or Kyler Murray as HoF QBs, but we're trending in a good direction with both. If Arizona or Buffalo end up with a top 20 pick and a top 10 QB drops - does it benefit to take them with positional value in mind?No... the answer is a hard NO. Don't try to argue otherwise.

Lol.  Did the Cardinals have a HOF QB?  Lol.  You've effectively eliminated one position.  So yeah, if you have an above average QB, two good EDGE rushers, two good tackles, two good DL, four good defensive backs... Sure, you take a receiver then. 

Quote

But using Corey Simon - who was relatively average over his career - over Jamal Lewis, who is one of a handful of guys in NFL History to rush for 2,000 yards and was a big piece of a Ravens offense led by Trent Dilfer of all people - is just a bad example.

No it's not.  The Ravens had Priest Holmes on their roster.  He went on to do a few things with a different team the very next year and you're out of your mind if you think he wouldn't have that year.  They already had a running back and they got another one. 

With receivers as with running backs, it's not 1999 anymore. 

76th overall
27th overall (which I've granted is the area where positional value isn't as important)
146th overall
21st overall
64th overall
4th overall
22nd overall
53rd overall
76th overall
undrafted
61st overall
165th overall
24th overall
69th overall

Those are the top 15 receiving leaders in the NFL right now. 
Not a single one of the teams who used a 1st round pick on a receiver is in playoff contention.

And running backs? 

45th
41st
Undrafted
24th
38
4
32
105
66
86
73
10
53
35
182

You're talking about the WR and the RB positions here in the year 2020.  When it's twice as easy to play offense and four times as difficult to defend. 
 

Quote

I'd think I would find a skew in numbers due to sustained successful teams who drafted guys like Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes, Roethlensberger, etc.

Don't you find it odd that those teams have drafted receivers in the first round at a slower rate than any other teams? 

Patriots, in spite of constantly picking low in the draft or not having first round picks, have taken three non-premium positions in the first round three times since 2007.  Only one of them, Jared Mayo, was inside the top 24.

The Steelers are actually an embarrassment to me because of how often they do it.  Guards, inside linebackers, centers... It's embarrassing.  Whoever took control of that once proud franchise ought to be ashamed of their draft habits.  They haven't been to the playoffs in like three years I think in spite of having Roethlisberger?  Isn't that right?  And they're pretenders this year, too.  Haven't won a Super Bowl in over a decade in spite of having a franchise QB for that whole decade.

The Packers, though, in spite of everyone and their QB screaming at them to go WR (which would have been alright at 26) took a QB.

QB, EDGE, DB, DB (33RD OVERALL), DL, DB, DB, EDGE/DL, EDGE, OT, OT, DL, EDGE, DL.

Not a single non-premium position since 2007.  If you think that's just coincidence you're wrong.  Packers GMs have talked at length about value (positional value) in the draft.  It's not just the musings of me on an internet forum, you bet your butt GMs know about it and the good ones don't ignore it. 

Quote

If I had a team of 22 All Pro calibur starters, along with backups who are all top level and the ONLY position I need to fill is K, and there is a K who is worth picking in the first... should I pick another QB because of position value?

No, you trade out of that spot and continue your dominance of having good players on your roster.  That, or you draft a QB and hold them as trade bait. 

If you draft a kicker in the first round under any circumstances you're dumb. 

Quote

The Colts drafted Quentin Nelson very early and he's completely transformed that OL - this was the same OL that forced Andrew Luck into an early retirement, and now it's widely considered one of the best OLs in football. That's largely due to Nelson and C Ryan Kelly (18th overall - another good example of non-critical position leading a great unit). 

Colts would have been a lot better off if they drafted Josh Allen.  Luck had just missed the season.  But sure keep telling yourself Nelson was the best pick.

He's a ****ing guard. 

And Ryan Kelly? 

Kelly is an average center taken 18th overall. 

Everybody wants to bring up Nelson.  Nelson is not some elite, HOF guard.  He's not.  He is Richie Incognito.  A good guard with a mean streak and a lot of dog in him.  That's his career.  His career is Richie Incognito. 

The Colts drafted Braden Smith in the second round of that same draft.  He's as good if not better than Nelson and he plays not only guard, but tackle as well.  He is increasingly more valuable in today's NFL than someone who can play guard and that's it. 

Literally every single year you see an IOL drafted in the first round you can find a better one in the second round.  The Packers make jokes out of teams who draft IOL in the first round.  They've had a top 5 offensive line in this league in each of the past 15 seasons with maybe one exception, and you know how they get their IOL?  They draft college tackles who project to play guard in the NFL.  They do this and they try them first at tackle (because it's more valuable) and then if they don't work there they move them to guard. 

Chris Lindstrom?  Garret Bradbury?  No, Elgton Jenkins. 

Take a guess at how many good IOL teams find in later picks.
Take a guess at how many good TE teams find in later picks.
Take a guess at how many good WRs teams find with later picks.
Take a guess at how many good ILB teams find with later picks.

Why does that happen?  Because in today's NFL, those positions are easier than any other positions.

And because those positions rely on other positions more than any other positions.  You can literally make those positions easier.  Find me an elite ILB with a terrible defensive line.  You won't.  Ray Lewis literally whined about this.  The Ravens draft Ngata, boom, Super Bowl win. 

Best tight ends in the NFL:
63RD
146th
204th
20th
86th
8th
49th
35th
157th
42nd

So with the three measurable traits at the skill positions:

WR: 77th overall
RB: 71st overall average
TE: 81st overall average

Let's look at sacks now.  Specifically at EDGE first.

EDGE Sack leaders draft position:
103
1
30
22
32
122
15
13
9
5

IDL sack leaders draft position:
13
46
37
6
163
120
12
50
2
54

Averages for sacks:

EDGE: 35th
IDL: 50th

And guess what... If you were to do this for the highest-rated IOL, ILB, QB, OT... Every position group?  You'd find the same thing.

It would rank nearly perfectly in line with what actual Super Bowl winning teams have. 

You'd have EDGE, OT, QB in the first tier.

It is nearly impossible to find good EDGE talent later in the draft.  Nearly impossible.  There are maybe two or three outliers at EDGE each year.  This is not limited to 2020, it's been this way going on ten years now.  You can literally track it.  Going back to say 2000, ALL of the leading receivers were first round draft picks. 

Go back to 1999 and the top ten receivers in the league had an average draft position of 44th overall.

You can literally track this fall starting in 2005 or 2006, whichever year Bill Polian complained about the Patriots defensive backs.

Since that illegal contact rule was added, receivers have lost a TON of value, defensive backs and pass rushers have gained a ton of value.

Even QB to a lesser extent.  You've got guys like Gardner Minshew, who aren't altogether good, playing like they're good. 

The bust rate for quarterbacks is significantly lower now than in the 80's-late 90's. 

Yes, I take a hardline stance on this.  I take a 24th overall hardline stance on positional value. 

Will you doom your team if you break that 24th overall barrier?  Probably not.  But at the same time I can almost guarantee there'll be more importance and value at a different position if you do. 

 

 

 

[ET80]

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Lol.  Did the Cardinals have a HOF QB?  Lol.  You've effectively eliminated one position.  So yeah, if you have an above average QB, two good EDGE rushers, two good tackles, two good DL, four good defensive backs... Sure, you take a receiver then. 

Kurt Warner IS a HOFer. Carson Palmer might be a HOFer, depends on that class. So yeah, they did..

What if there are no good edge rushers in that draft class? Or no good OL? The very next pick after Fitzgerald was OT Robert Gallery, who was a bust for the most part - are you suggesting the Cardinals would have been better suited by drafting a bust over a sure fire HOFer?

Edit - Gallery was 2, Fitz was 3. Are the Raiders smarter for picking the bust OT over the HoF WR? 

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

No it's not.  The Ravens had Priest Holmes on their roster.  He went on to do a few things with a different team the very next year and you're out of your mind if you think he wouldn't have that year.  They already had a running back and they got another one. 

It was a completely different system in KC, with completely different requirements for the position - Ravens were a power run game, so a power RB such as Lewis was more necessary than a pass catching RB such as Holmes (who found success in a spread offense that didn't use much power concepts).

Positional deployment is a thing, you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with Holmes, and a round peg in a square hole with Lewis.

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Those are the top 15 receiving leaders in the NFL right now. 
Not a single one of the teams who used a 1st round pick on a receiver is in playoff contention

Once again, you're looking at things in a vacuum - no context. I cannot take your position seriously until you do, this isn't baseball where you can make a conclusion in a vacuum. This is a very basic premise of this sport as a whole, you can't judge the value of one players until you've measured out the value of the 10 players he's with. 

Keep doing it at your own peril, you're making these horrible arguments the whole time.

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Colts would have been a lot better off if they drafted Josh Allen.  Luck had just missed the season.  But sure keep telling yourself Nelson was the best pick.

He's a ****ing guard. 

Yeah, and the Colts are playing ball control offense with three backup RBs, they have a statue of a QB able to sit in the pocket and go through progressions. 

I don't give two damns what position he plays, that OL made a big shift and it's not because of freaking Anthony Castazano or Braden Smith. You're really not thinking clearly if you think they're the catalyst of that turnaround.

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The Colts drafted Braden Smith in the second round of that same draft.  He's as good if not better than Nelson and he plays not only guard, but tackle as well.  He is increasingly more valuable in today's NFL than someone who can play guard and that's it. 

Oh, wow. You've never actually seen the Colts play... have you? I watch the Colts 2x a year, and this is just patently false. Braden Smith is barely starter material, people forget JJ Watt had an injury when he lines up against Smith.

Get your Excel spreadsheet analysis out of here and watch football... I don't give two damns on what PFF will have to say on this one. Braden Smith has moments, but he's not very good overall. Nelson is good - he's great actually.

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The Steelers are actually an embarrassment to me because of how often they do it.  Guards, inside linebackers, centers... It's embarrassing.  Whoever took control of that once proud franchise ought to be ashamed of their draft habits.  They haven't been to the playoffs in like three years I think in spite of having Roethlisberger?  Isn't that right?  And they're pretenders this year, too.  Haven't won a Super Bowl in over a decade in spite of having a franchise QB for that whole decade.

Ok, wait. Let's ask this question - what's the Packers excuse? You rant about this, then say this:

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Literally every single year you see an IOL drafted in the first round you can find a better one in the second round.  The Packers make jokes out of teams who draft IOL in the first round. 

What is the Packers excuse for winning one title with a superior QB, then? Their killing this draft thing while Pitt is messing it up, but they both have the same number of SBs in the Ben/A-Rod era. (Rodgers is actually one back, if my math is correct) But, the Steelers are "an embarrassment" while the Packers "make jokes" about it.

Only embarrassment in this discussion is your take, only joke is your belief in it - if we're being blunt. 

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Best tight ends in the NFL:

No context.

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

So with the three measurable traits at the skill positions:

No context.

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Let's look at sacks now.  Specifically at EDGE first.

EDGE Sack leaders draft position

No context.

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

IDL sack leaders draft position:

No context.

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Yes, I take a hardline stance on this.  I take a 24th overall hardline stance on positional value. 

With no context. You're wrong, but you don't seem to be bothered by that. So... Do you, boo.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

46 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Not a single one of the teams who used a 1st round pick on a receiver is in playoff contention.

See, with all of those words, this is where you lost me.

I decided to look up a few teams that have a winning record so far in 2020, and see how many of those teams drafted a "non-premium position" in the first round. There are absolutely some teams/names missing from this list... I just went with some teams/names that I could recall. (Italics represents a player that was drafted 24th or later.)

Steelers - Maurkice Pouncey - 1.18; David DeCastro - 1.24

Saints - Cesar Ruiz - 1.24; Andrus Peat - 1.13

Browns - David Njoku - 1.29; Odell Beckham - 1.12 (didn't draft him, but traded a 1st round pick, 2nd round pick and Peppers, who they drafted 25th overall)

Buccaneers - Mike Evans - 1.7

Colts - Ryan Kelly - 1.18; Quenton Nelson - 1.6

Cardinals - Larry Fitzgerald - 1.3

Raiders - Josh Jacobs - 1.24; Henry Ruggs - 1.12

Each of those teams is in playoff contention, and four of them either spent a high 1st round pick on a WR or, in the Browns' case, traded 1st round+ value for one.

Edited November 29, 2020 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[MacReady]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

See, with all of those words, this is where you lost me.

I decided to look up a few teams that have a winning record so far in 2020, and see how many of those teams drafted a "non-premium position" in the first round. There are absolutely some teams/names missing from this list... I just went with some teams/names that I could recall. (Italics represents a player that was drafted 24th or later.)

Steelers - Maurkice Pouncey - 1.18; David DeCastro - 1.24

Saints - Cesar Ruiz - 1.24; Andrus Peat - 1.13

Browns - David Njoku - 1.29; Odell Beckham - 1.12 (didn't draft him, but traded a 1st round pick, 2nd round pick and Peppers, who they drafted 25th overall)

Buccaneers - Mike Evans - 1.7

Colts - Ryan Kelly - 1.18; Quenton Nelson - 1.6

Cardinals - Larry Fitzgerald - 1.3

Raiders - Josh Jacobs - 1.24; Henry Ruggs - 1.12

Each of those teams is in playoff contention, and four of them either spent a high 1st round pick on a WR or, in the Browns' case, traded 1st round+ value for one.

Yep, I've granted the Steelers do this quite a bit lately and I'm not a fan of it.  They're an exception, you're right. 

They also went 2/3 on Super Bowls in a 6 year span.

Want to go over the top 23 positions they drafted to get there? 

From 2001 through 2006 these are their first round picks above 24th overall: 
DL (Hampton)
DB (Polomalu)
QB (Roethlisberger)

That right there is the foundation upon which they won two Super Bowls and went to another. 

Since 2010 they've drafted a center (18th), a guard (24th), an inside linebacker (15th) and another inside linbacker (10th). 

Since they started doing this they have won 3 total postseason games.

But you won't acknowledge that. 

The Saints? 

Sorry, but Andrus Peat was drafted as a tackle.  Didn't work as a tackle, moved to guard.  Doesn't fit your argument.
Ruiz?  24th overall, which is exactly the point I accept non premium positions, and have said that since the start of this argument.  It doesn't apply. 

You're using moves the Browns are making?  You sure that's a good idea?  The Browns got better after Beckham got hurt and Njoku has 8 receptions on the year.  He's also 29th overall.  Which... How many times do I have to say post 23rd overall it becomes acceptable? 

The Colts have 7 postseason wins this decade and two of them came with Peyton Manning. 

Larry Fitzgerald is a top 10 at his position all-time.  Would you disagree?  He has been in this league since 2004.  He has been to the playoffs 4 times and he has won 5 playoff games. 

Henry Ruggs was the first receiver taken and the worst receiver taken in the first round this year. 
The Raiders are not a team to be citing for smart decisions in the draft.

Would it make you feel better if I told you that the more complete a team is, the more acceptable it becomes?  Because I can grant that.  But if you're the Lions?  If you're the Lions or a team that's rebuilding, or trying to build a foundation, make yourself not a joke to the rest of the NFL?  You better start drafting premium positions with those high picks. 

If you're the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs, Ravens... If you're a team with a successful system, a team that has been to the playoffs more often than not over the past 10 years, you sometimes have to take risks and go for need stuff like that.

But the very logic behind being a top 10 drafting team suggests your team isn't talented and you've got a foundation issue. 

 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

19 hours ago, August4th said:

matt teaming up with shanny in SF could work our great for niner nation

I'd rather keep Saleh, and I'm guessing he doesn't get a head coaching job this offseason. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

17 hours ago, 49ersfan said:

My main fear is that firing a HC mid-season can lead to an Interim doing well, getting hired, and then stinking up the franchise for a couple more years. It happened with the Niners when they fired Mike Nolan, Singletary did well that half season and it cost them 2 years of wasted football until they hired Harbaugh. It also happened with your Browns, they fired Hue during the year and it helped propel Kitchens into the job. That was a wasted year until they hired Stefanski.

The only Interim HC i can think of that was successful was Jeff Fisher.

I am usually against in-season firings unless there's going to be a full out mutiny among your best players.

For most of these guys if they were just 2-3 bad games away from being fired, why not just do it in the offseason prior? Or, bite the bullet and fire them the following offseason?

As for the Jets, it seems like Joe Douglas has gotten assurances his job is safe. In that case, the best long-term to happen for that team is to get the #1 pick and take Lawrence. Jets fans should hope that Gase keeps his job the rest of the season. They take no long term benefit from installing Gregg Williams as Interim and winning 3 games.

I believe Marty Schottenheimer was an interm coach for the Browns when Sam Rutigliano was fired midseason. But you're right, these type of hires usually end up as a disaster. Teams need to just need to either ride out the storm until Black Monday, or you run the risk of getting romanticized by a few late season wins from an interm head coach. 

[MacReady]

Just now, ET80 said:

Kurt Warner IS a HOFer. Carson Palmer might be a HOFer, depends on that class. So yeah, they did..

What?  No, they didn't.  They had Shaun King, Josh McCown and John Navarre in 2004. 
In 2005 they lost Shaun King and added Rohan Davey.

Quote

What if there are no good edge rushers in that draft class? Or no good OL? The very next pick after Fitzgerald was OT Robert Gallery, who was a bust for the most part - are you suggesting the Cardinals would have been better suited by drafting a bust over a sure fire HOFer?

Edit - Gallery was 2, Fitz was 3. Are the Raiders smarter for picking the bust OT over the HoF WR? 

The Raiders in theory made the right decision.  Larry Fitzgerald had a better career.  See that?  That's me acknowledging a point.  Try it some time. 

The Cardinals, in theory, made the wrong decision.  In practice, too.  Philip Rivers means no Matt Leinart and a different history for the Arizona Cardinals.  Might have ended up the same.  Rivers might have changed things.  If you're giving me the choice between Rivers or Fitzgerald, I always take the QB first. 

Quote

It was a completely different system in KC, with completely different requirements for the position - Ravens were a power run game, so a power RB such as Lewis was more necessary than a pass catching RB such as Holmes (who found success in a spread offense that didn't use much power concepts).

He already had a 1,000 yard rushing season with the Ravens. 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HolmPr00.htm

Quote

Get your Excel spreadsheet analysis out of here and watch football... I don't give two damns on what PFF will have to say on this one. Braden Smith has moments, but he's not very good overall. Nelson is good - he's great actually.

You don't give a damn what the only aggregate scoring site says, you trust your two games per year. 

The one thing PFF gets right is OL play.  You're acting as absurd as you're saying I am.

Quote

What is the Packers excuse for winning one title with a superior QB, then? Their killing this draft thing while Pitt is messing it up, but they both have the same number of SBs in the Ben/A-Rod era. (Rodgers is actually one back, if my math is correct) But, the Steelers are "an embarrassment" while the Packers "make jokes" about it.

The Packers excuse is very easily twofold:

1. Poor defensive coordinators
2. Not implementing every avenue of player acquisition

The Packers are currently top 5 in the NFL in defensive spending and have used 4 first round picks on defensive players, 4 second round picks, 3 third round picks, signed two major EDGE free agents, a major safety free agent and have a bottom 5 defense in every single metric.  That's Pettine. 

Quote

 

No context.

No context.

No context.

No context.

 

Grow up.  I just gave you context.  The top 15 in receiving yards have an average draft position of 75+ while 20 years ago it was 45. 
The top sack leaders at EDGE are at 35th overall average.
Top sack leaders on DL are 50th overall average.

If you can't see the context you're blind. 

[ET80]

10 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Would it make you feel better if I told you that the more complete a team is, the more acceptable it becomes?  Because I can grant that. 

I'll buy this.

10 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

If you're the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs, Ravens... If you're a team with a successful system, a team that has been to the playoffs more often than not over the past 10 years, you sometimes have to take risks and go for need stuff like that.

I'll buy this, too.

11 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

But the very logic behind being a top 10 drafting team suggests your team isn't talented and you've got a foundation issue. 

I think you're oversimplifying it. Let's go back to the Gallery v Fitzgerald discussion. Who made the right selection, given what we know about each player? 

I don't think it's practical to slot players by position only. You have to look at who you're drafting, how they fit in your system, culture, etc. Just slotting guys based on position is another way to consistently draft in the top 10.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

16 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

If you're the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs, Ravens... If you're a team with a successful system, a team that has been to the playoffs more often than not over the past 10 years, you sometimes have to take risks and go for need stuff like that.

This is rough, man. The argument keeps changing, and is now "successful teams can draft non-premium positions in the mid-first round". Doesn't that alone disprove your argument? That, if it's based on team success, and you're now claiming that successful teams can do it, doesn't that give validity to the argument? Isn't that the point?

The Steelers won a Super Bowl at the end of the 2005-2006 season. Their first round picks during the prior years, starting in 1998: Faneca (OG - 26), Troy Edwards (WR - 13), Plaxico Burress (WR-8), Kendall Simmons (OG - 30), Heath Miller (TE - 30). Five of their eight first round picks during those previous drafts were on "non-premium positions", which culminated in a Super Bowl win. (Yes, Faneca, Simmons and Miller were past pick #24, but lets not ignore the two WRs drafted well before that pick.)

Peat started his career for the Saints at OG and only moved to OT due to injury. If they spent an early 1st round pick on a player, start him off at OG, and play him at OG until injuries strike, I'd say it absolutely fits.

You're trying (hard) to save this argument, even going so far as to change it completely.

Edited November 29, 2020 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

@Outpost31: a question unrelated to the topic at hand. Do you believe in "tanking" as a viable strategy to build a team? Second question: if a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, is it better to finish 4-12 than it is 7-9?

Edited November 29, 2020 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[FrantikRam]

Completely lost me at touting the Packers for anything. They have had one of the best QBs in NFL history and have one Super Bowl appearance. They have clearly not given him enough help, so whatever their strategy was for building a team, it was the wrong one.