2024 Offseason Thread

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, ttitansfan4life said:

Is Burks better than Philips or NWI? Not sure I can say that he is.

Philips, yeah.  Burks had at least one high level game in his rookie season where he looked like the guy.  Phillips' best feat is still just being a training camp standout.

Better than NWI?  Definitely not.

[Andrei01]

I think it's funny Burks happens to be the current topic while at the same time we're still arguing we should box ourselves into drafting a certain position at 7 or 38, when Treylon Burks is the prime example of what could go wrong when you box yourself into drafting a position over a player, especially with a top pick.

[KingTitan]

2 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

I think it's funny Burks happens to be the current topic while at the same time we're still arguing we should box ourselves into drafting a certain position at 7 or 38, when Treylon Burks is the prime example of what could go wrong when you box yourself into drafting a position over a player, especially with a top pick.

Everyone wanted Burks from what I can remember, just wanted him in conjunction of Brown, not to replace him. 

The trade ultimately doomed him from a viewpoint of fans. 

[KingTitan]

1 hour ago, TitanLegend said:

I'm not sure Burks will even get that much of a chance. Given DHop's age and contract, I'm still not sure we don't just go with the best WR left at 7, unless all of the top 3(MHJ, Nabers, Odunze) are gone. And if they are all gone, wouldn't be surprised if Bowers is the pick.

Take an o-lineman in the 2nd that Callahan should be able to get to produce at a high level.

Alternatively, WR in the 2nd like a Worthy or Legette is also of course a possibility after grabbing someone like Alt in the first.

I expect the WR depth chart to be

DHop

Ridley

Draft pick

Burks/NWI

NWI/Burks

And if Burks doesn't get it together, NWI might just pass him outright. NWI you can at least rely on to catch what hits his hands, a decent enough #4 option. Burks disappears way too much to put him above NWI if he doesn't improve.

Cally obviously wants to pass the ball a ton. Despite having Chase and Higgins, the Bengals 3rd option(Boyd) still got a lot of work. I can't imagine relying on Burks to replicate that.

I think Cally wants at least 3 WRs that can go!

Not 1 guy and 2 NWI's.  
But 3 Alpha Dogs and then 2 other dependable guys. 

If we don't draft a WR in the 1st, I don't see one in the 2nd or 4th being wrote in pen as the 3rd.  It will be a competition, which I prefer. 

[Daniel]

13 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

I think it's funny Burks happens to be the current topic while at the same time we're still arguing we should box ourselves into drafting a certain position at 7 or 38, when Treylon Burks is the prime example of what could go wrong when you box yourself into drafting a position over a player, especially with a top pick.

Drafting things your team needs is not boxing yourself in, lol

[Andrei01]

Just now, Daniel said:

Drafting things your team needs is not boxing yourself in, lol

It most definitely is when you're trying to say OT at 7 and WR at 38 or vice versa, because you're taking everyone else off the board, which is stupid.

11 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

Everyone wanted Burks from what I can remember, just wanted him in conjunction of Brown, not to replace him. 

The trade ultimately doomed him from a viewpoint of fans. 

I'm not sure I recall it like that, and what everyone wanted is pretty irrelevant, to be honest. Still, our initial pick was bottom of the 1st, not top 20 as he was eventually drafted. The Brown trade locked him in, and that was a big mistake.

[Daniel]

2 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

It most definitely is when you're trying to say OT at 7 and WR at 38 or vice versa, because you're taking everyone else off the board, which is stupid.

I don't think anyone has said that.  I have said OT at 7, if it's Alt, and if MHJ isn't there.  And I've given reasons why.  Fixing a critical need, when it appears as though that's the only place in the draft where you will find said fix, isn't stupid.  It's taking the best player at the biggest position of need with your first pick.  I don't know why that's such a difficult argument to make to some people.

But it is stupid to pretend there's no strategy to where you need to pick what.  Playing the board and getting things where the value is is part of draft strategy.

[KingTitan]

4 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

It most definitely is when you're trying to say OT at 7 and WR at 38 or vice versa, because you're taking everyone else off the board, which is stupid.

I'm not sure I recall it like that, and what everyone wanted is pretty irrelevant, to be honest. Still, our initial pick was bottom of the 1st, not top 20 as he was eventually drafted. The Brown trade locked him in, and that was a big mistake.

Maybe not everyone, but I feel Treylon was praised more before the draft/draft night than most other prospects. Maybe because he felt like the most attainable. 

But yeah, I'm with you. You should never go into a draft saying we MUST draft this position first/second etc.

Because when someone falls that you have rated highly you overlook them.  If Harrison Jr falls to you, but you say nope, we MUST draft an OT, that isn't good business.  

[KingTitan]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

  Fixing a critical need, when it appears as though that's the only place in the draft where you will find said fix, isn't stupid.  It's taking the best player at the biggest position of need with your first pick.  I don't know why that's such a difficult argument to make to some people.

Because you present it as fact and that it isn't the only option/path to success. 

[Andrei01]

25 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I don't think anyone has said that.  I have said OT at 7, if it's Alt, and if MHJ isn't there.  And I've given reasons why.  Fixing a critical need, when it appears as though that's the only place in the draft where you will find said fix, isn't stupid.  It's taking the best player at the biggest position of need with your first pick.  I don't know why that's such a difficult argument to make to some people.

But it is stupid to pretend there's no strategy to where you need to pick what.  Playing the board and getting things where the value is is part of draft strategy.

Huh? There are literally posts on the previous page of this thread, one of them being yours, of people advocating for the top two picks being OT & WR in whatever order, as well as at least 3-4 months of basically nothing but that. 

"It's taking the best player at the biggest position of need with your first pick.  I don't know why that's such a difficult argument to make to some people."

That's literally the definition of boxing yourself in, which I thought we weren't calling for, not sure why that's such a difficult argument to make to some people. *shrugs* 

"But it is stupid to pretend there's no strategy to where you need to pick what.  Playing the board and getting things where the value is is part of draft strategy."

Not sure how you could write two antithetical sentences one after the other and call that wisdom or fact, to be honest. Playing the board and getting value where the value is =/= pre-determining what position each pick should play, weeks before you're actually on the clock.

Edited April 5 by Andrei01

[Daniel]

18 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

Because you present it as fact and that it isn't the only option/path to success. 

I present it as likely, not fact.  I welcome any argument based on something other than "some guy in the seventh round will be an eventual starter."  If yall think a left tackle can be found on Day 2, fine.  Who?  If your argument requires the benefit of hindsight, then it's not a good argument.  It's also not a good argument if it's an appeal to authority because so-and-so talking head likes player X.

If your argument is that we don't need a left tackle, or that protecting the QB is not one of the top priorities this team has, then I think you're starting from being wrong.  Simple as that.

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

Huh? There are literally posts on the previous page of this thread, one of them being yours, of people advocating for the top two picks being OT & WR in whatever order, as well as at least 3-4 months of basically nothing but that. 

"It's taking the best player at the biggest position of need with your first pick.  I don't know why that's such a difficult argument to make to some people."

That's literally the definition of boxing yourself in, which I thought we weren't calling for, not sure why that's such a difficult argument to make to some people. *shrugs* 

"But it is stupid to pretend there's no strategy to where you need to pick what.  Playing the board and getting things where the value is is part of draft strategy."

Not sure how you could write two antithetical sentences one after the other and call that wisdom or fact, to be honest. Playing the board and getting value where the value is =/= pre-determining what position each pick should play, weeks before you're actually on the clock.

You're right.  Chicago shouldn't be boxing themselves in taking the top QB first overall.

And no, that's not the definition of boxing yourself in.  Boxing yourself in is putting yourself in a position where you have little choice about what you can do.  Drafting Alt seventh is making a choice.  Any pick is making a choice.  Saying choice A is better than choice B is not boxing yourself in.  It's the definition of making a decision, not boxing yourself in.  You're conflating the two, either because you're being disingenuous, or you really don't understand the difference.

Boxing ourselves in would be spending all of our cap space and trading all of our picks for players that address every need we have except the glaring hole at tackle, assuming that Alt will be there.  And yeah.  That would be a poor decision.

You also don't seem to understand what predetermining means.  Predetermining would be saying "We need to draft a receiver at 38, even if 10 receivers have gone off the board and Johnny Newton is miraculously available.  Which I also have never said.

You can make a great argument against positions I'm not taking, though, I'll give you that.

[KingTitan]

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I present it as likely, not fact.  I welcome any argument based on something other than "some guy in the seventh round will be an eventual starter."  If yall think a left tackle can be found on Day 2, fine.  Who?  If your argument requires the benefit of hindsight, then it's not a good argument.  It's also not a good argument if it's an appeal to authority because so-and-so talking head likes player X.

If your argument is that we don't need a left tackle, or that protecting the QB is not one of the top priorities this team has, then I think you're starting from being wrong.  Simple as that.

People have acknowledged who is the top OT in this draft, at least rated that way. Others have also presented guys who some think they could be a very good alternative if we want to trade down. 

People have routinely presented other options, that aren't 7th round prospects.  
Named several prospects, we all know them closely. 

Olumuyiwa Fashanu, Penn State
Taliese Fuaga, Oregon State
JC Latham, Alabama
Amarius Mims, Georgia
TROY FAUTANU, WASHINGTON
TYLER GUYTON, OKLAHOMA

Each have great aspects about them, some more than others. Some need more coaching, while some are more ready. 
To act like none of these guys could potentially interest a team/coach is shortsighted.  To act like a team can't/won't look at any of these guys and weigh the risks/rewards of trading out of a spot and getting one them at a later spot is also shortsighted.
To act like one that gathers opinions from multiple trusted analysts to use their views to help form a viewpoint is also shortsighted. 
To act like one's view is somehow more valid than another's ignorant. 
If a poster wants to look at Jordan Mailata and compare him to another guy with similar traits and think with coaching he can turn into something, who are we to say he is wrong. There are ways to acknowledge that is unlikely of such a thing happening without saying it won't happen as if we are in control of whether it does or doesn't. 

And if you don't agree with someone saying they want to draft a WR or Edge or whatever, it's not that they are wrong. You just don't agree. Simple as that. 

[Andrei01]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

You're right.  Chicago shouldn't be boxing themselves in taking the top QB first overall.

And no, that's not the definition of boxing yourself in.  Boxing yourself in is putting yourself in a position where you have little choice about what you can do.  Drafting Alt seventh is making a choice.  Any pick is making a choice.  Saying choice A is better than choice B is not boxing yourself in.  It's the definition of making a decision, not boxing yourself in.  You're conflating the two, either because you're being disingenuous, or you really don't understand the difference.

Boxing ourselves in would be spending all of our cap space and trading all of our picks for players that address every need we have except the glaring hole at tackle, assuming that Alt will be there.  And yeah.  That would be a poor decision.

You also don't seem to understand what predetermining means.  Predetermining would be saying "We need to draft a receiver at 38, even if 10 receivers have gone off the board and Johnny Newton is miraculously available.  Which I also have never said.

You can make a great argument against positions I'm not taking, though, I'll give you that.

A.  You couldn't possibly have written that while thinking to yourself that it's a valid form of an argument to make, I would like to believe. 

B. And that's literally what you're trying to do, if you argue the best route is taking everyone that doesn't play OT or is named Marvin Harrison Jr. off the board. 

C. I'm obviously not going to look up for every single post (of yours, or whoever's, because I wasn't really addressing my initial post to you, you just happened to reply to it) that's trying to argue WR should be our second pick if the first one is OT, but I'm just taking the end of one of your posts on the previous page and quoting it below.

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

Receiver at 38 all day!

[Andrei01]

24 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

People have acknowledged who is the top OT in this draft, at least rated that way. Others have also presented guys who some think they could be a very good alternative if we want to trade down. 

People have routinely presented other options, that aren't 7th round prospects.  
Named several prospects, we all know them closely. 

Olumuyiwa Fashanu, Penn State
Taliese Fuaga, Oregon State
JC Latham, Alabama
Amarius Mims, Georgia
TROY FAUTANU, WASHINGTON
TYLER GUYTON, OKLAHOMA

Each have great aspects about them, some more than others. Some need more coaching, while some are more ready. 
To act like none of these guys could potentially interest a team/coach is shortsighted.  To act like a team can't/won't look at any of these guys and weigh the risks/rewards of trading out of a spot and getting one them at a later spot is also shortsighted.
To act like one that gathers opinions from multiple trusted analysts to use their views to help form a viewpoint is also shortsighted. 
To act like one's view is somehow more valid than another's ignorant. 
If a poster wants to look at Jordan Mailata and compare him to another guy with similar traits and think with coaching he can turn into something, who are we to say he is wrong. There are ways to acknowledge that is unlikely of such a thing happening without saying it won't happen as if we are in control of whether it does or doesn't. 

And if you don't agree with someone saying they want to draft a WR or Edge or whatever, it's not that they are wrong. You just don't agree. Simple as that. 

There are also FAs, some we know for sure we've looked at, who happened to show they could play NFL tackle and do it well.

Yes, a top 10 pick is more likely to net you a long-term starter at the position, and I've argued as such before, but that doesn't make it the only or even the optimal way to address that need, because overreaching for a prospect is more often than not detrimental to the overall improvement of the team.

I, myself, would not feel comfortable drafting Joe Alt with a top 10 pick. Fashanu is, to me, OT1 and pretty much the only one I would feel comfortable investing a top 10 pick in.

But take Fashanu out of the equation and say, for argument's sake, that Alt should be OT1. Rome Odunze is, to me, a better WR prospect than Joe Alt is at his position. So are Jared Verse, Dallas Turner or Laiatu Latu at their respective positions. To me. Which is not to say that it's the absolute truth or that I'm that great of a talent evaluator, this class being the one I've scouted the most in a long time, mostly because I've had much more free time on my hands than I've had in the last 10 years or so. But if I were to bet, I'd likely bet on either one of those prospects turning better pros at their positions than Alt.

Now, if they happen to share even some of my view, why would anyone think the better way to go for the improvement of the team and that of the LT position be to draft a lower ranked prospect, instead of a true blue chip prospect paired up with a day 2/3 prospect at the position and/or a veteran FA, like Bakhtiari, Peat, Leno or Smith?

LE: I've subconsciously taken Nabers out because that's how I view the board going, four QBs and two WRs ahead of us. In a vacuum, yes, he belongs on the tier of prospects I would take ahead of Alt.

Edited April 5 by Andrei01