OT: New Owner! New Name? New Season? New Everything!!! — Oh, and New Thread. All things Washington NFL FootBall (beat it, Dan-Bag!!)

[bacchist]

We want the same thing. My point is, I don't want their politics -- whatever they are -- or anything else -- sign-stealing scandals? -- distracting the team, the media, the fan base. There has been so GD much drama with this organization the last 30 years it's been maddening.
I'm sick of this team being the source of embarrassment about not just football, but SO MUCH else.
I want the only thing that people -- fans and talking heads -- talk about with this team is the football.

I want somebody outspoken about their politics if I agree with them. Otherwise I don't want to hear it.

 

[ynotcaps]

Giants of the 80’s as an example? F the Giants.

Redskins of the 80’s won more bowls and also drafted BPA (Beatherd!!!)


Harbaugh is worth the outside noise. He always wins. He’s going to be driven to win a Super Bowl or 2.

Who else would be better?

Literally?

I'd take several of the young offensive coaches who were spawned from our staffs in the last 10-15 years.
I don't want old, and I don't think someone who's made his bones (recently, at least) in college is a gimme' to have success in the pros. That's not a JH thing, that's any of the college coaches who get named as targets to move to the league.
I don't have names to target -- I'm far more engaged on players than coaches -- but I think it's a mistake to think coach before we've IDed our FO leadership. And, dear God, I want nothing to do with another "give a 60+ year-old coach control over everything" deal.
Some names I'd rule out? Josh McDaniels. Bill O'Brien. Authors of complete shit-shows. (Hmm. So, by extension, maybe any branches of the Belichick tree.)

ETA: and to the notion that "Harbaugh is worth the outside noise," that may be true for a lot of teams -- but it is NOT true of this team, under a new ownership group that has to make people believe that this is not the flaming dumpster of fermented bear shit that it has been for almost 3 decades.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/09/29/future-nfl-head-coach-candidates-daily-cover

 

[kicksavedave]

Giants of the 80’s as an example? F the Giants.

Redskins of the 80’s won more bowls and also drafted BPA (Beatherd!!!)

I feel like Beathard (and Allen before him) made full drafts like one single year, 1981. They traded so many picks for veterans, they didn't have a first rounder in like 17 of 20 drafts from 1970 to 1990. The three first rounders they did make in those two decades? Just a few bums named Monk, May and Green.

Fun fact, Bobby Beathard was the Director of Player Personnel for the 1972 Miami Dolphins. I hear they were pretty good.

 

[Ajax1995]

People acting like ESPN’s (or whatever media source you prefer) is the ‘right’ board and someone going against that, so taking CB2 from ESPN’s board instead of CB1, means their team was looking for a trait or reaching is one of the DUMBEST things I’ve ever heard.

Teams have their own scouts and personnel people for a reason for God’s sake. Those guys put together their own board and it definitely isn’t going to look just like ESPN’s board. If they didn’t why would they employ their own guys? They could save a lot of time and money and just take whoever Mel Kiper tells them they should take.

If you want to quibble with how they put together their board and what they value and so on, have at it. But if you think they are consciously taking a worse player for a particular trait you are an idiot. They had ESPN’s CB2 ranked higher than CB1. It is as simple as that. Doesn’t mean they are right but the asinine they consciously reached because ESPN said so arguments have to go. No, they just had that guy ranked much higher than ESPN did.

 

[ynotcaps]

I feel like Beathard (and Allen before him) made full drafts like one single year, 1981. They traded so many picks for veterans, they didn't have a first rounder in like 17 of 20 drafts from 1970 to 1990. The three first rounders they did make in those two decades? Just a few bums named Monk, May and Green.

Fun fact, Bobby Beathard was the Director of Player Personnel for the 1972 Miami Dolphins. I hear they were pretty good.

That was a hallmark of the George Allen era -- no (OK almost) first rounder, lots of trades and free agents. (The Over the Hill Gang, and, lesser-used nickname, "The Ramskins.")
Beathard was such a change in that the teams he built were truly home-grown -- our draft picks (including later rounds) and UDAs were the underpinnings of our success (w/ some notable exceptions, like QBs and the odd Jim Lachey).
Allen brought the team out of the wild with his imports, Beathard led it to the Promised Land with his domestics. (Then Snyder murdered it with his hubris. But that's beside the point.)

 

[Ridley Simon]

I'd take several of the young offensive coaches who were spawned from our staffs in the last 10-15 years.
I don't want old, and I don't think someone who's made his bones (recently, at least) in college is a gimme' to have success in the pros. That's not a JH thing, that's any of the college coaches who get named as targets to move to the league.
I don't have names to target -- I'm far more engaged on players than coaches -- but I think it's a mistake to think coach before we've IDed our FO leadership. And, dear God, I want nothing to do with another "give a 60+ year-old coach control over everything" deal.
Some names I'd rule out? Josh McDaniels. Bill O'Brien. Authors of complete shit-shows. (Hmm. So, by extension, maybe any branches of the Belichick tree.)

ETA: and to the notion that "Harbaugh is worth the outside noise," that may be true for a lot of teams -- but it is NOT true of this team, under a new ownership group that has to make people believe that this is not the flaming dumpster of fermented bear shit that it has been for almost 3 decades.

Harbaugh earned his chops as the Niners coach, well before he was the rouge Michigan man. So I’m not worried about him being a college stud that cannot translate to the NFL (and the Niners sucked ass before he got there, FYI).

I don’t think Harris is gonna care about noise around a coach that wins. No one really does. Ask Michigan fan how they feel about where they are now, versus where they were 5+ years ago. I promise you, they are NOT unhappy.

I don’t want a retread either. Nor do I really want an older dude that has “won before” (Belichick, Cowher types). That said, a Doug Pederson type would be just fine.

But Harbaugh, regardless of the GM, would be a huge win for the franchise

 

[Ridley Simon]

I feel like Beathard (and Allen before him) made full drafts like one single year, 1981. They traded so many picks for veterans, they didn't have a first rounder in like 17 of 20 drafts from 1970 to 1990. The three first rounders they did make in those two decades? Just a few bums named Monk, May and Green.

Fun fact, Bobby Beathard was the Director of Player Personnel for the 1972 Miami Dolphins. I hear they were pretty good.

So—- my point stands? F the Giants?

 

[ynotcaps]

People acting like ESPN’s (or whatever media source you prefer) is the ‘right’ board and someone going against that, so taking CB2 from ESPN’s board instead of CB1, means their team was looking for a trait or reaching is one of the DUMBEST things I’ve ever heard.

Teams have their own scouts and personnel people for a reason for God’s sake. Those guys put together their own board and it definitely isn’t going to look just like ESPN’s board. If they didn’t why would they employ their own guys? They could save a lot of time and money and just take whoever Mel Kiper tells them they should take.

If you want to quibble with how they put together their board and what they value and so on, have at it. But if you think they are consciously taking a worse player for a particular trait you are an idiot. They had ESPN’s CB2 ranked higher than CB1. It is as simple as that. Doesn’t mean they are right but the asinine they consciously reached because ESPN said so arguments have to go. No, they just had that guy ranked much higher than ESPN did.

Wow, a lot of assumptions there, and use of "idiot." Strong stuff there. I won't respond in kind because I'm not twelve.

I'm the one who brought up the fact that they drafted for "traits" -- which i got from the fact that they said they based those picks on "traits" -- TO production. Not sure anybody here said anything about ESPN scouting (I know I didn't -- because I don't care for their rankings), but there was a lot of talk ALL OVER about how the CB we did pick was risky for a number of reasons. (Footnote: I actually SUPPORTED the Forbes pick at the time, so, hey, maybe your choice of "idiot" is correct -- it's just your application logic that's flawed.) The fact that he doesn't create nearly as many TOs for our defense as he does TD for opposing offenses suggests the critics are looking better so far than his proponents.

Now, to feed my inner 12-year old: if you think that anybody here actually said "they took a player who they knew was worse hoping he'd get some interceptions," then you're an absolute idiot. It's totally true, however, that this talent evaluation group could have placed too much value on a single trait/statistical measure and not enough value on being able to cover the receivers he will face twice a year in our division and not give up multiple TDs each time he's matched up against them.

You want a real, non-biased measure of the value of our picks this year? Forget ESPN (who only you referenced) or anybody else -- look up "snaps played."

 

[ynotcaps]

Harbaugh earned his chops as the Niners coach, well before he was the rouge Michigan man. So I’m not worried about him being a college stud that cannot translate to the NFL (and the Niners sucked ass before he got there, FYI).

I don’t think Harris is gonna care about noise around a coach that wins. No one really does. Ask Michigan fan how they feel about where they are now, versus where they were 5+ years ago. I promise you, they are NOT unhappy.

I don’t want a retread either. Nor do I really want an older dude that has “won before” (Belichick, Cowher types). That said, a Doug Pederson type would be just fine.

But Harbaugh, regardless of the GM, would be a huge win for the franchise

Agree to disagree. My preference is new blood. The best thing is, at this point, it's 99.98% certain a new staff is in play.
And, yes, F the Giants.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Forbes is going to be a work in progress. Same as was Davis, and in some measure, Dotson.

Forbes has a lot of skill. I mean a lot. His speed is great as well. He just needs coaching (as did Davis), and JDR and his group aren’t widely regarded as being champions with that. Hell, our own #28 would attest to that.

So, let’s reserve a little judgement on the player. Which means on the pick too.

 

[ynotcaps]

Forbes is going to be a work in progress. Same as was Davis, and in some measure, Dotson.

Forbes has a lot of skill. I mean a lot. His speed is great as well. He just needs coaching (as did Davis), and JDR and his group aren’t widely regarded as being champions with that. Hell, our own #28 would attest to that.

So, let’s reserve a little judgement on the player. Which means on the pick too.

Nothing would make me happier than to get a staff that can truly uncover what our current guys can do. And that believes each NFL team should roster more than 3 LBs.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Nothing would make me happier than to get a staff that can truly uncover what our current guys can do. And that believes each NFL team should roster more than 3 LBs.

Roger all of this

 

[kicksavedave]

People acting like ESPN’s (or whatever media source you prefer) is the ‘right’ board and someone going against that, so taking CB2 from ESPN’s board instead of CB1, means their team was looking for a trait or reaching is one of the DUMBEST things I’ve ever heard.

Teams have their own scouts and personnel people for a reason for God’s sake. Those guys put together their own board and it definitely isn’t going to look just like ESPN’s board. If they didn’t why would they employ their own guys? They could save a lot of time and money and just take whoever Mel Kiper tells them they should take.

If you want to quibble with how they put together their board and what they value and so on, have at it. But if you think they are consciously taking a worse player for a particular trait you are an idiot. They had ESPN’s CB2 ranked higher than CB1. It is as simple as that. Doesn’t mean they are right but the asinine they consciously reached because ESPN said so arguments have to go. No, they just had that guy ranked much higher than ESPN did.

When teams routinely depart from ESPN's board, it means nothing. Of course each team has its own scouting and its own board, perfectly obvious. Its what happens when teams reach for players who are universally ranked lower, that matters. Regardless of need, when they go away from the consensus boards, its an opportunity for them to demonstrate they they are smarter than the average talking schmuck (Kiper) or less smart. The results of those "reaches" are what matters. ESPN's board also matters when gauging other teams potential interest. If we know a player will fall to the 4th round, we should not be drafting them in the 2nd round, no matter how much we love them.

This FO isn't very good, period. Their reaches are usually busts and rarely studs, at a higher rate than most other FO's. Its why we still suck in year 4 of Ron Rivera.

Drafting for need means matching picks up with holes, and that's a terrible draft strategy. Drafting BPA means selecting the top player on your own board even if that position is already well stocked. The sort of picks that makes the average mock drafter go crazy (they needed a CB but they took a TE, even though they had Kelce, or some other similar junk). ESPN's board only matters to mock drafters. What matters is the picks vs the roster and the notion that you can plug todays holes with a 4th round pick who may contribute in 3 years but most of the time won't.

We needed a LB, so we took a complete project in the first round. We still need LBs. This FO is just guessing. We needed turnovers so we drafted a rail thin ballhawk. They have no real strategy. Spray and Pray!

 

[RedRocking]

Harbaugh earned his chops as the Niners coach, well before he was the rouge Michigan man. So I’m not worried about him being a college stud that cannot translate to the NFL (and the Niners sucked ass before he got there, FYI).

I don’t think Harris is gonna care about noise around a coach that wins. No one really does. Ask Michigan fan how they feel about where they are now, versus where they were 5+ years ago. I promise you, they are NOT unhappy.

I don’t want a retread either. Nor do I really want an older dude that has “won before” (Belichick, Cowher types). That said, a Doug Pederson type would be just fine.

But Harbaugh, regardless of the GM, would be a huge win for the franchise

I agree with you on Harbaugh’s football acumen.

But man, he wore out his welcome with 49ers really quick. Even when he was going to Conf Championships and that SB. I don’t even quite remember exactly what it was - I think it was more the upper brass just had a hard time dealing with him. I remember reports of dysfunction, and him refusing to even talk to GM Trent Baalke. I guess Jim is kind of an aloof prick, lol.

Not sure if I remember the players having any issue with him though. I think Kaepernick was cool with him. In any event, he’s certainly a big personality that would have to be a good fit organizationally.

 

[g00n]

Rams reach deal with Wentz to back up Stafford

The Los Angeles Rams reached agreement with quarterback Carson Wentz.

www.espn.com

I don't remember how NFL contracts work. If Wentz was released he was still getting paid? Does signing with LAR relieve WAS of that obligation now?

Either way, good luck, LA.

 

[ynotcaps]

Rams reach deal with Wentz to back up Stafford

The Los Angeles Rams reached agreement with quarterback Carson Wentz.

www.espn.com

I don't remember how NFL contracts work. If Wentz was released he was still getting paid? Does signing with LAR relieve WAS of that obligation now?

Either way, good luck, LA.

Yeah, that is... something.

As for contract, I think this was the rare situation where we were only on the hook for the year he was here -- which is what made it so easy to say "sayonara." He got his bag, but not with residual payments, I'm almost sure.

 

[g00n]

Yeah, that is... something.

As for contract, I think this was the rare situation where we were only on the hook for the year he was here -- which is what made it so easy to say "sayonara." He got his bag, but not with residual payments, I'm almost sure.

Now that you mention it I think that sounds right. 1yr pump and dump.

Ew.

 

[bacchist]

Question for the BPA peeps...

How do you measure various positions against each other? Say a tight end and a safety both stand out relative to other players at their position, both had great stats playing for top tier schools, both impressed in the combine, and gave great interviews, etc.

Do you flip a coin? Do you then fall back on need if it's too close to call? Do you weight one position more highly?

One reason I have a hard time getting on board is that it's not apples to apples when you're comparing different kinds of players and different positions. It's easy to say "best available running back", but way harder to say "best available" when the options are a RB, DE, LB, QB, or WR.

I don't think human beings are any good at evaluating countless variables, quantifying subjective evaluations, comparing across categories, and distilling things down into a single sorted list. Even the best analysts get it wrong all the time. And with such flawed inputs, how can a best available strategy necessarily provide the best results?

At least it's knowable that the offensive line sucks and we need big strong dudes that can manhandle other big strong dudes. I'm not sure it is knowable who the best player available is.

 

[HTFN]

Question for the BPA peeps...

How do you measure various positions against each other? Say a tight end and a safety both stand out relative to other players at their position, both had great stats playing for top tier schools, both impressed in the combine, and gave great interviews, etc.

Do you flip a coin? Do you then fall back on need if it's too close to call? Do you weight one position more highly?

One reason I have a hard time getting on board is that it's not apples to apples when you're comparing different kinds of players and different positions. It's easy to say "best available running back", but way harder to say "best available" when the options are a RB, DE, LB, QB, or WR.

I don't think human beings are any good at evaluating countless variables, quantifying subjective evaluations, comparing across categories, and distilling things down into a single sorted list. Even the best analysts get it wrong all the time. And with such flawed inputs, how can a best available strategy necessarily provide the best results?

At least it's knowable that the offensive line sucks and we need big strong dudes that can manhandle other big strong dudes. I'm not sure it is knowable who the best player available is.

Outside of universally important positions I think the idea there is that you just pick the guy you feel has the highest or most likely projection and upside. If you like two guys but you feel like you see Ed Reed in one you just take him and call that BPA I think.

 

[bacchist]

Outside of universally important positions I think the idea there is that you just pick the guy you feel has the highest or most likely projection and upside. If you like two guys but you feel like you see Ed Reed in one you just take him and call that BPA I think.

So BPA is drafting based on vibes?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I agree with you on Harbaugh’s football acumen.

But man, he wore out his welcome with 49ers really quick. Even when he was going to Conf Championships and that SB. I don’t even quite remember exactly what it was - I think it was more the upper brass just had a hard time dealing with him. I remember reports of dysfunction, and him refusing to even talk to GM Trent Baalke. I guess Jim is kind of an aloof prick, lol.

Not sure if I remember the players having any issue with him though. I think Kaepernick was cool with him. In any event, he’s certainly a big personality that would have to be a good fit organizationally.

Really like JH, but he also worries me as a potential short timer as a hire….

So BPA is drafting based on vibes?

maybe for dipshit organizations lol..

I have no doubt Forbes was higher on their list because they overvalued his potential turnover impact. So maybe he was their BPA…

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Player ranks QB, Left tackle, Edge Rusher. Then It would be BPA
But if like our BPA is a WR I think it would be a dumb pick on this roster

Im talking 1st and 2nd round only.

 

[HTFN]

So BPA is drafting based on vibes?

What? Is that really what you got out of that?

Rather than a strictly rigid positional ranking there are probably tiers. Like, in the NHL Centers and Defensemen are great central anchors for a franchise, NBA was PGs and Centers for a while, in the NFL you've at least got QB's and... probably either linebackers or lethal edge rushers, maybe legit lockdown corners? Game has changed a little but there are positions that define playbooks when you've got guys to do it. Outside of that schemes dictate some of the value on those other positions (except line, which is a constant)

When you get down to "do you want the standout tight end or the standout safety" and you've got the positions in the same tier of importance that's where you look at projections and boom potential. Yeah, they're both good, but do you see one being Ed Reed good? Do you see Tony Gonzalez or Antonio Gates in a guy? If we're talking "equally good" players in equally important positions then of course it becomes about who projects to be All-Pro.

 

[bacchist]

What? Is that really what you got out of that?

Well, kinda. If you like two guys but one gives you you ed reed vibes you go with the ed reed vibes guy.