New OC Candidates - Workin towards Waldron (pg 18)

[Epyon]

There where at least rumors that the team was going to push for Saquon last offseason, if he was available.

and as said above, you can more than pay for him with half of Eddie Jackson's money...

 

That said, it does still feel like a longer shot..... I expect we'll loook more towards WR + C in FA and/or a possibly going big on another pass rusher.

[Sugashane]

1 hour ago, Madmike90 said:

True

That said I just think RB & Safety are now positions that teams hate spending money on.

Logically it makes sense to as well. I've been of some blunt opinions for team building but have stuck with them pretty much for the last 15+ years.

OL should be mostly college OTs, most having NFL OT measurables. I want all OL to be able to play in space and 90% of the best college athletes on the OL are at OT.

I want most DBs to be CBs. If a CB is really physical but lacks top end speed, they are the perfect SS candidate. A CB who is a ballhawk but might not have the hips to stick in man coverage then they can be FS. But I'd be fine with drafting straight CBs and the zone specialists move to S.

QBs and RB should be counted together for cap allotment. Every play (almost) is run through either the QB or the RB. So if on a rookie deal I have zero issues throwing Henry, CMC, etc big money. If they are a playmaker in the passing game then I actually give more slack, as they have more value than just running (which isn't hard to find a competent runner).

1-2 WRs should be able to sub into a gadget RB, because if you're not a starter you NEED to be depth at more than 1 spots. Since high end receiving RBs are usually picked highly I think you should have 1 athlete and 1 slot-style WR try to run routes from the RB slot if you lack a really good receiving back, pick the one that does it best. Now I'm not taking CMC out for them, but Herbert/Johnson I would move out on 3rd and long for Scott or Jones. I would plug guys like De'Corian Clark and Isaiah Williams are two late-round guys that could fit this kind of role.

There is nothing wrong with a 2 down player. I'll take a Brandon Spikes guy or a Billings. Being great at a limited role is better than average at both IMO. You can sign and plug depth guys all over, but anyone REALLY good at something is someone to snag when you can. Its up to the OC/DC to utilize them properly and try to limit their weaknesses, since they won't be getting starter reps.

WRs need to have one special trait - speed, short-area burst, size/body control, great hands. ALL need to have at least average hands.

RBs need to be either fast or brutal runners, if you have a guy who can really catch or block then they get big points to jump up a draft board. 

FBs need to be either quick OL or utility weapons that can block. Give me a Ricard or a Juszczyk (utility FB who is a TE convert that is a midround-worthy pick). I could do defensive converts too. I still think CornWash would have had a better career as a FB with his physical traits, aggressiveness and total lack of COD.

I like college QBs who elevate their weaker cast more than guys who can make use of elite talent. As a GM your job is to accrue talent, but if a QB can make do with less they SHOULD be able to do even more with more. This is part of what made me love Mahomes and Rodgers as prospects. Rodgers was the first QB I scouted that I was a massive fan of, seeing him go to GB absolutely enraged me. lol

 

Just some positional thoughts for me.

[HuskieBear]

2 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

True

That said I just think RB & Safety are now positions that teams hate spending money on.

for the record - i dont think that poles does sign either of those guys and rather relies on herbert and johnson to carry a bulk of the load. just thought saquon would be sweet in the offense. 

a rookie qb's best friend is a TE and solid running game tho...

[HuskieBear]

5 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

 

This is why Waldron was wanted by so many teams.

but the seattle beat writer said he wasn't very good 

[TankWilliams]

9 hours ago, HuskieBear said:

but the seattle beat writer said he wasn't very good 

not sure if it was the same guy on hoge and jahns as I heard yesterday on the CHGO podcast, i'm guessing not, but the guy on CHGO podcast seemed to indicate he is solid all around but not probably going to be spectacular.  I'd definitely recommend listening, it was a pretty unbiased take on him, that he was brought in with the thought to work with a mobile quarterback like Russell but turned out he was pretty washed, and now Geno is a pocket guy.  Also, he said that Pete was known to be a heavy meddler in the offense, so hopefully with some extra freedom that Eberflus will hopefully give him he will call some good games.  That said, the guy suggested he was great on the scripted openings, but had deficiencies in adjusting to certain situations so that sounds like more of the same in that sense.

[AZBearsFan]

On 1/23/2024 at 8:02 PM, Sugashane said:

I like college QBs who elevate their weaker cast more than guys who can make use of elite talent.

Why does it have to be an either/or though? Regardless of who our QB is moving forward, with our draft capital and financial situation (Fields contract or no Fields contract) if Poles does his job reasonably well over the next few seasons we should have a strong stable of talent around the QB anyway, so the whole elevating a weaker cast thing should stop being a thing around here, likely as soon as 2024. 

[Sugashane]

3 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

Why does it have to be an either/or though? Regardless of who our QB is moving forward, with our draft capital and financial situation (Fields contract or no Fields contract) if Poles does his job reasonably well over the next few seasons we should have a strong stable of talent around the QB anyway, so the whole elevating a weaker cast thing should stop being a thing around here, likely as soon as 2024. 

It doesn't have to be either/or, it's just a preference. Look at Lawrence - had Higgins, Rogers, Etienne, Renfrow, and Ross so his crew was stacked. Still was the highest graded prospect I've had in a long while (above what i had for Williams and Mahomes too fwiw, and Im not shy about how I missed completely on Allen though he checks off so many of my preferences).

My reasoning is that I like to see a QB deal well with adversity on a regular basis in college because essentially, **** happens. If you have a Moore/Marshall they can get hurt. If you have an OL that can't hold the rushers for long do you speed up your tempo and still stand tall to deliver the ball or are you throwing while on the back foot(or while falling backwards). From my armchair GM/scout position it allows you to see them at a disadvantage and then as a GM you should be confident that you're good enough at your job to prevent them from playing at such a position. Just as you said Poles already has a hell of a start for securing a strong stable of talent for the next several years.

My logic may be crude and flawed but I do feel like QBs who perform while the deck is stacked against them have at least a slightly better chance to succeed than those who have constant advantages available from the talent around them. It kind of goes along with the old quote, "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."

It's not that I'd limit myself to prospects that were in bad situations, not at all. I just that I think you get a little better look at them, because the jump from college QB to pro QB is ridiculous, and getting to fall into a Purdy-level situation is just so low.

[StLunatic88]

4 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

My logic may be crude and flawed but I do feel like QBs who perform while the deck is stacked against them have at least a slightly better chance to succeed than those who have constant advantages available from the talent around them. It kind of goes along with the old quote, "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."

What does this mean though? Does it mean just putting up stats? Does it mean winning? Winning meaningful things? Does it mean continuing to be a leader/accountable in the face of that adversity?

Because I would agree with your sentiment here, but Im not sure we agree completely with what constitutes "performing" in those scenarios

[Sugashane]

4 hours ago, StLunatic88 said:

What does this mean though? Does it mean just putting up stats? Does it mean winning? Winning meaningful things? Does it mean continuing to be a leader/accountable in the face of that adversity?

Because I would agree with your sentiment here, but Im not sure we agree completely with what constitutes "performing" in those scenarios

So I'll go along with my personal thoughts, agree or disagree. Its really subjective. I'll use Mahomes too since he was brought up and I see a lot of parallels between him and Williams. 

Winning is a tricky one. Look at JJ, he did what was asked and went undefeated this year, but I would assume he is not someone either of us would put over Williams or Fields as a prospect. He had a hell of a cast around him (40 rushing TDs, damn good OL with NFL talent around it, under 11ppg allowed on defense, etc. That doesn't diminish his leadership or physical tools, but in the biggest game of the season they took the ball out of his hands largely and put it on the shoulders of Corum and Edwards. Plan worked and he was at least efficient, but it raises concern as to whether JJ was more of a game manager and if he could really carry an offense against better defenses if they shut the running attack down. Having big games against Purdue, Eastern Carolina and Michigan State isn't much of an achievement to hang his hat on, you know? There's maybe 30-40 guys on Michigan that would walk onto any of those teams and at least be a top 3 player for that team (guessing generally, not actual scouting in that depth). If you put Williams or Mahomes on that Michigan team then I think you're talking about them like the 08 Gators, 04 Trojans, 13 Seminoles, etc. Would they be a top 10 team of all time? Not likely, but absolutely in the talk as the likely best team of the 2020s. 

Stats don't do it all though either. Keenum, Brennan, Landry Jones, etc all had ridiculous numbers. But the systems in college and massive potential athletic disparity makes it easy for some Air Raid schemes to get a lot of empty numbers. One reason I really dislike Nix as a prospect, the bulk of his throws are so short and are so reliant on YAC that I don't think it will translate well to the NFL. In the NFL you can't get away with that as easily, defenses are too well coached, players too talented, pretty much everyone is a crazy athlete. Mahomes threw people open a lot. He threw really well while constantly under pressure. I feel Williams does both well. Same for Lawrence, though he had significantly more talent that moved those 50/50 balls to more like 70/30 and a hell of a run game too. Williams had that with Addison last year and no one this year. Mahomes only had Jakeem Grant, though Coutee cam on pretty damn well the year after Mahomes left since there was no one else really to compete with for targets. 

So with talent around them look at the running game. Lawrence and Michigan both had fantastic runners to work off of, but which QB shouldered the offense more? Lawrence was a killer, Etienne was a 1st round RB but at no point did I ever feel he was anywhere near as much a concern for a defense as TLaw. I feel like teams felt better about their odds if Clemson was running all day rather than Lawrence getting in a rhythm. I think defenses wanted to make JJ beat them with his arm. Williams and Mahomes have had pretty crappy rushing attacks and teams knew everything relied on their arms. Look at the OL. If you rank OLs that Lawrence, Fields, JJ, Mahomes and Williams then Mahomes and Williams' best OLs would fall short of the lowest rated the other three had IMO. That's what I mean by doing more with less.  

You of course have to look at physical gifts, clearly Fields, Lawrence, Williams, and Mahomes all have varying level of great to elite gifts. Williams falls short of the others here in their best trait, but are still positive for all but height IMO. Fields' athleticism was/is NFL WR caliber, Mahomes' arm talent/strength is off the charts, Lawrence is a ridiculous blend of top 10% traits, etc. Still Williams might not compete with the leaders in this group for any of those physical traits he has a damn good blend of them. 

Now leadership I don't have a lot to throw in on that. So much of what I hear is parroted here or is most likely wildly overblown by meathead fans/media, and I'm a skeptic of a lot of 'reports.' If you dig in as a scout and they give you Manziel vibes then that is an easy pass. But you can't hold all these 20-22 year old kids to a Tebow level 'sainthood'. But from what I can see, do they perform well late in high pressure situations? Will they take a shot to deliver a good ball? Do teammates celebrate around them when they do something well? When things are going bad, how do they treat their teammates? From the games I have watched Williams got along with his teammates and I never saw anything looking like a rift, so I assume he at least is a good leader. The sobbing and "cuddle with my dogs comment" definitely weren't  positives for me though. But as long as they aren't committing crimes IDGAF what they do in their free time. I really only care about them for what they produce on the field, and then if I hear a great story about them (Peanut, Greg Olsen for example) then yeah I'll become a bigger fan. Seeing Fields fight his *** off and never complain even though Chicago screwed him over makes me a permafan of his too. 

So after all this I have Williams graded really high. That doesn't mean I expect a future HOFer. Hope for one, but I did for that with Tru and Fields too. I do believe he is the best prospect since Lawrence, but part of the reason I also want to draft him is situational too. I do believe Poles is a damn good GM, so I don't expect to be drafting early next year. I'm not a fan of Sanders or Ewers yet, and I know someone shows up out of nowhere every year but I don't want to try to pray for a Burrow AND have to trade a fortune away to get them. Maybe he gets a haul and lucks into that team being a top 10 pick so the cost isn't so ridiculous, or maybe they make a big jump and the Bears have two picks after 15. I'd rather take the better QB prospect right now and only have to sink the one pick, trade Fields to recoup one (a 2nd hopefully) and then proceed to add talent around him just as they would for Fields. 

[Madmike90]

 

 

[HuskieBear]

17 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

 

 

poop

[Madmike90]

2 minutes ago, HuskieBear said:

poop

I think the thing is there are just still so many open OC jobs out there that guys won't want to commit to being position coaches.

[dafreak]

 

 

[Madmike90]

1 minute ago, dafreak said:

 

 

Not overly experienced but Waldron will do most of the heavy lifting...

Ironic he is 6-0" 215lbs...just like the QB he is probably going to be coaching.

[topwop1]

49 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

Not overly experienced but Waldron will do most of the heavy lifting...

Ironic he is 6-0" 215lbs...just like the QB he is probably going to be coaching.

Caleb is taller than that if that's who you're referring to