Commentator: Bryce Young almost never took a big hit.
Also: Young has a great feel and instincts to avoid big hits.
These seems like bad things, to me. What’s the chances that Young won’t really take big hits? I mean, it’s possible Young can minimize many big hits, but enough for this not to be an issue? I’m a bit skeptical.
Then again, I feel like Kyler Murray almost never takes a big hit. But is Young as quick and fast?
For the Raiders, I’m hoping they can get a good O-linemen, CB, or any really good defensive player, really. If a terrific TE (catching and blocking), I would like that as well.
I would disagree if I was a Hawks fan. They rarely get to pick a player this high and got “lucky” to get this pick with the Broncos being so bad. Pick the best player on their board instead of moving back and having to pick players with question marks.
But look what the Cardinals get Houston’s 1st and 3rd next year. If the Hawks got that, from a team like Houston (which I’m going to guess won’t have a great record–but maybe I’m wrong)–I’d be happy.
I say this especially since my impression (based on Pete Carroll’s comments), that there weren’t many game changing type of players this year. If next year’s draft is better, then getting high draft picks would be preferable.
Yeah maybe this year is not such a top-heavy draft as it normally is. But I would say half of the elite defensive players were probably picked in the top ten picks, like the Bosas, Micah Parsons, Miles Garrett, Jalen Ramsey to name a few. I think NFL teams are better off taking a top ten guy if they get the chance especially if they are going to pick a defensive player.
That’s the thing: based on Carroll’s comment I didn’t think there was anyone like “Bosas, Micah Parsons, Miles Garrett, Jalen Ramsey.” I was disappointed when I heard him say this because they desperately need a playmaker in the D-line.
Texans “playing” the rest of the NFL. Everyone said the Texans wanted Will Anderson, but they all thought they would take him with their number 2. I guess they really like Stroud too.
Hawks get Devon Witherspoon(sp?) at #5. (Carter’s red flags were too red for the Hawks.)
If Witherspoon turns out to be a good cover CB, I like this pick–especially since the Hawks are now a 3-4 defense and emphasize more scheme complexity. I think of Rex Ryan’s really good Jets defenses, when they had Revis and Cromartie. (Granted, the Hawks don’t have as good a front seven as that defense, but still.)
Okay, if I knew they were going to get Witherspoon, I would have said trade back. I think he was most pundits third CB in this year’s draft? I didn’t see any mocks with the Hawks going that guy.
The NFL commentators said he was the top CB (in their opinion).
The Hawks haven’t used a high draft pick on a CB. DBs are Carroll’s wheelhouse, so I trust his judgment. If this guy turns out to be really good–in a similar ballpark to Woolen–this would be a good pick. (Man, if Jamal Adams can return to form–a real question to me–their secondary could rival the LOB.)
Holy heck, these comments from Carroll make me excited.
Pete Carroll on #Seahawks No. 5 pick Devon Witherspoon:
"Devon Witherspoon is a rare player. Since the years we've been here we haven't seen a guy like this… Last guy I recognized a guy with this makeup was back at USC.. Troy Polamalu." https://t.co/cvK2EgIGfhpic.twitter.com/NcxXhrijTk
To clear, I think Carter is high risk, high reward. He could be great–but I tend to think the odds are low. Or at least the Hawks wanted a player they had high-confidence would be good-to-great.
My ideal for Dallas at this point with Darnell Wright off the board, would be for Brian Branch, S from Alabama to be there when Dallas picks at 26, and then Dallas moves up to early in the second round and get Steve Avila, OT from TCU or Jahmyr Gibbs from Alabama early in the second round.
I wrote that before Gibbs got picked. By the way, the Lions two picks are getting terrible “ratings” as reaches. Both guys were bottom first round to early second round picks.
Yeah, Dallas had the chance to pick Branch, who I read would probably be moved to corner if the Cowboys chose him. He’s not a huge guy (under 200). For me, I would have loved Branch’s ability to play either position, which would have given the Cowboys more flexibility in the next few years. But I think the Cowboys is in win now mode. They never pick up free agents, and they picked up two this year.
Clinton Dix and Collins were both pro bowlers if I had to guess. But yes, I have no idea why both fell so far so quickly. I think with Collins, he was slightly big for today’s game, even moving to LB at some point. Clinton Dix seems like he was going to have a great career.
I read he is one of the best athletes in this class, but he has technique issues and may have been labeled as “soft” or not “loving the game” because of it. I hope he can be fixed, because outside of a left guard, an interior defender is their biggest need.
I thought Seattle did great in the draft, drafting the consensus top one or two corner and probably the top receiver.
Just to clarify. Because of Smith’s technique issues, I think guys thought he wasn’t trying hard thus labeled him “soft”. As opposed to Smith not trying hard to better his technique, which is why he was labeled soft. Not sure if you misunderstood but wanted to clarify in case.
2nd round Raiders : Michael Mayer, TE (Norte Dame)
I value TEs, but I’m guessing there is some uncertainty or maybe a lower ceiling? If not, I would expect him to have gone earlier. Really good TEs are unicorns in my view, and I tend to think a lot of teams would feel that way, too. (Belichick passed on him.)
I’ve been thinking about draft strategy, and I’m curious to hear thoughts about a question involving the two pool of players below:
Pool A
Players who meaningfully contribute right away, with the potential to be great.
Players that are “clean”–i.e., check off all the boxes regarding character, competitiveness, work ethic, medical, etc.
Pool B
Players that have talent, possibly elite talent, but haven’t fully developed into a quality starter.
Players who may also be “muddy”–i.e., uncertainties about character, competitiveness, work ethic, medicals, etc.
Now, let’s say you have big needs on the DL, but the best available linemen are only in pool B (i.e., there are no linemen in pool A). In the first and second rounds, do you pick a linemen, or do you go with another position from pool A? Should you use a lot of picks on the linemen, which would be choosing from pool B, in hopes that at one or two will hit (in the process forgoing pool A players)?
What about this choice:
B player has elite talent and maybe could likely produce right away (but there are red flags)
A player is clean and very good, but likely not elite.
Or instead of choosing A you can trade down for more picks
Generally, I like trading down, depending on the position of the A player. But if you do that, the chances of addressing the DL seems really low.
I don’t know, I’m still unsure about the best strategy.
There’s nothing wrong with your general proposition except it ignores the ebbs and flows of good draft years and bad draft years at any given position. Talking heads are always talking about good WR drafts and scant WR drafts, for example. If there are six Pool A edge rushers and two Pool B edge rushers, you have to adjust accordingly. Or (I think better, if you’re the team that needs an edge rusher) one or two Pool A edges and six or seven Pool B edges.
The Rams paid for trading their picks in favor of proven players last year when they far underperformed, but as Don says (and as I have said) they won a Super Bowl a few years after building a new stadium in a new city. There’s no question in my mind they did the right thing.
If you’re building for the long-term, another approach if you already have a high first-round pick is to take the guy and if he’s a killer in his first couple of seasons, trade him for a bunch of picks. This is what the Raiders did with Khalil Mack, and the nerdboys at the Sloan Conference proclaimed it the best trade of the year (or something like that). They essentially upped his value by drafting him, a seemingly rare thing these days.
If there are six Pool A edge rushers and two Pool B edge rushers, you have to adjust accordingly. Or (I think better, if you’re the team that needs an edge rusher) one or two Pool A edges and six or seven Pool B edges.
I’m having trouble fitting your point into the situation I describe–namely, players that fill a need are going to be higher risk (pool B). Players who are low risk (pool A) don’t fill a need. Is it better to pick the pool A player (which is a best player available approach) or take a chance on the pool B player that fills a need. This is essentially the situation the Seahawks faced. They badly need DL help, and they could have taken Jalen Carter–supposedly highly talented, but with serious question marks (pool B)–but they chose Devon WItherspoon instead, supposedly a really good CB, with clean evaluation (pool A).
The Rams paid for trading their picks in favor of proven players last year when they far underperformed, but as Don says (and as I have said) they won a Super Bowl a few years after building a new stadium in a new city. There’s no question in my mind they did the right thing.
I think the issue is not only that they traded away picks, but their cap situation isn’t very good. So now their cap is messed up, and they don’t have the high draft capital to rebuild the team (not during this draft). If they’re awfutl for the next 3-5 years, would you still feel the same?
The Seahawks make cap decisions with the cap condition in the future–they’re not going to sacrifice the latter. In this way, they believe this will put them in the position to be competitive. Or to put it another way: they’ll avoid really bad seasons (record wise).
I think there are drawbacks to this approach, too, though–namely, it can lead to a team that’s good (or at least not bad), but not good enough to win the Super Bowl. The Hawks have been stuck in that for a long time. Then again, if they hit on a trade or draft, they were position to be contenders. However, their winning lead to consistently picking at the back end of the rounds, and that made it really hard to find the players to take them over the top. A loss of really talented players in a relatively short amount of time made the challenge even greater.
In spite of these drawbacks, the Seahawks approach seems like the better one to me.
If you’re building for the long-term, another approach if you already have a high first-round pick is to take the guy and if he’s a killer in his first couple of seasons, trade him for a bunch of picks.
Theoretically, this seems ideal, but in reality, teams seem reluctant to do it–and I feel like there is a good reason for this. My sense is that doing this is too coldblooded even for NFL teams. A player can be great, in their prime, do everything right, but an NFL will still trade that player.
By the way, didn’t the Mack trade occur largely over contract dispute? I think that’s a different situation. If a team and player can’t agree, trading the player doesn’t seem like blatantly treating the player like a commodity. (I heard Bill Walsh say that the ideal situation was to trade a player right before they started to decline. But I can’t really recall the Niners doing this–or at least not very often.)
For what it’s worth, as a Cowboy fan, I would take a Super Bowl and having them suck for the next 5-7 years even. I agree with Rams decision to trade away their future for a Super Bowl. I do enjoy the journey (regular season) and try not to concentrate on the destination (championship), but after a while it gets old. During the seasons in which Dallas sucks the whole year, I barely watch them and yes I don’t enjoy the journey at all. Obviously that’s way worse than being good but not winning it all, but it’s been way too long for my Cowboys and Phillies.
Reid often talks about being “fair” to the players and about not being cold blooded. I’m not sure NFL teams care as much as he thinks, and I don’t think it really helps an NFL team to be more “fair”. I’ll be surprise if the Seahawks can get players at a discount because free agents view them as being a better management. That being said though, the bottom line is money and if a team keeps getting rid of their stars, it will hurt that bottom line. So there is a line between keeping fans happy and winning. I guess if you can consistently win by getting rid of the stars and getting new talent, fans would buy in.
You bringing up what you’d want as a Cowboy fan makes me think of what I’d want for the Raiders. I actually think more than winning a Super Bowl, I just want to see better football–or at least my idea of better football. If they did that, but didn’t win the Super Bowl, I think I’d be happier than if they didn’t play the way I like and won it. As an example, I never really enjoyed the season they went to the Super Bowl with Rich Gannon (2002). I disliked the way they played, and of course they were awful in the Super Bowl.
(On a related note, Mike Lombardi, whose son coaches for the Raiders, remarked that they’re going to run more–or rely on Jacobs more, I think, which seems to amount to the same thing. That would be cool, if true. If they played better defense, I’d be really happy. It’s been a ridiculously long time since they’ve been a very good defense. It feels like decades, and a team with bad defense is almost unwatchable to me.)
Re: Fairness
I think there are limits to taking a “business” approach. Management still has to care about people. If they treat the players like as if they’re commodities and not human beings–if they’re only valued for their performance–I doubt they could be successful. This is especially true for the coaches. I would also say this applies to all businesses, not just the NFL.
The Rams implored a strategy of using their draft capital (current and future) to trade for elite talent and they won a Super Bowl. I think a better, but similar, strategy would be to use all your draft capital every year to move up to pick in the top ten picks of the draft. Similarly you would still get very high end talent, but at a lower salary for five years. Why it won’t work? Because I think high draft picks appear to be way more “expensive” in draft capital than trading for elite talent that are hard to sign at good prices.
I think a better, but similar, strategy would be to use all your draft capital every year to move up to pick in the top ten picks of the draft.
What if you have a lot of holes to fill in your roster? That’s the first problem that came to mind. Suppose a team traded all of their draft picks (1-7) and got a top 10 pick. The team would be adding only one player. Even if this approach wasn’t too expensive (in terms of draft capital), this seems like a bad approach because a team would add too few players. Or am I missing something?
The assumption was that the same amount of draft capital it takes for the Rams to acquire the guys they traded for would be the same draft capital my strategy would use to acquire top ten draft picks.
I’m a little skeptical this could happen. My sense is that the players they got had some kind of baggage or circumstance where they wanted to leave? If so, I would think this would make they cheaper, in terms of draft capital.
Just as an FYI, the Rams have traded their last 7 first round picks. They haven’t had a first round pick since 2016. They traded two for Jalen Ramsey and two for Matthew Stafford during that time.
The Rams first round picks would likely be 20-32 range. Do you think giving up that pick and the following draft’s 1st round pick move them into the top 10 or even top 15? I feel like they’d have to give up more than that. If not, I would think more teams picking at the backend would give up that draft capital to move up that far.
Commentator: Bryce Young almost never took a big hit.
Also: Young has a great feel and instincts to avoid big hits.
These seems like bad things, to me. What’s the chances that Young won’t really take big hits? I mean, it’s possible Young can minimize many big hits, but enough for this not to be an issue? I’m a bit skeptical.
Then again, I feel like Kyler Murray almost never takes a big hit. But is Young as quick and fast?
For the Raiders, I’m hoping they can get a good O-linemen, CB, or any really good defensive player, really. If a terrific TE (catching and blocking), I would like that as well.
Houston gives Cardinals a lot to move up to #3–I think I’d be happy if I were a Cardinals fan.
Colts taking a big chance on Anthony Richardson at #4 in my opinion.
If the Hawks can trade back and get the type of picks the Cardinals got, I think I’ll be happy, too.
I would disagree if I was a Hawks fan. They rarely get to pick a player this high and got “lucky” to get this pick with the Broncos being so bad. Pick the best player on their board instead of moving back and having to pick players with question marks.
But look what the Cardinals get Houston’s 1st and 3rd next year. If the Hawks got that, from a team like Houston (which I’m going to guess won’t have a great record–but maybe I’m wrong)–I’d be happy.
I say this especially since my impression (based on Pete Carroll’s comments), that there weren’t many game changing type of players this year. If next year’s draft is better, then getting high draft picks would be preferable.
Yeah maybe this year is not such a top-heavy draft as it normally is. But I would say half of the elite defensive players were probably picked in the top ten picks, like the Bosas, Micah Parsons, Miles Garrett, Jalen Ramsey to name a few. I think NFL teams are better off taking a top ten guy if they get the chance especially if they are going to pick a defensive player.
That’s the thing: based on Carroll’s comment I didn’t think there was anyone like “Bosas, Micah Parsons, Miles Garrett, Jalen Ramsey.” I was disappointed when I heard him say this because they desperately need a playmaker in the D-line.
Texans “playing” the rest of the NFL. Everyone said the Texans wanted Will Anderson, but they all thought they would take him with their number 2. I guess they really like Stroud too.
Hawks get Devon Witherspoon(sp?) at #5. (Carter’s red flags were too red for the Hawks.)
If Witherspoon turns out to be a good cover CB, I like this pick–especially since the Hawks are now a 3-4 defense and emphasize more scheme complexity. I think of Rex Ryan’s really good Jets defenses, when they had Revis and Cromartie. (Granted, the Hawks don’t have as good a front seven as that defense, but still.)
Okay, if I knew they were going to get Witherspoon, I would have said trade back. I think he was most pundits third CB in this year’s draft? I didn’t see any mocks with the Hawks going that guy.
The NFL commentators said he was the top CB (in their opinion).
The Hawks haven’t used a high draft pick on a CB. DBs are Carroll’s wheelhouse, so I trust his judgment. If this guy turns out to be really good–in a similar ballpark to Woolen–this would be a good pick. (Man, if Jamal Adams can return to form–a real question to me–their secondary could rival the LOB.)
Yeah my bad, there some mocks having Witherspoon going to the Lions at 6.
Holy heck, these comments from Carroll make me excited.
Raiders: Tyree Wilson at #7
Man, I hope it works out.
By the way, if the Falcons and Eagles don’t take Jalen Carter, that’s a real bad sign for Carter.
I hope you are right about Carter. The Eagles are stacked on defense – at least for one more year.
To clear, I think Carter is high risk, high reward. He could be great–but I tend to think the odds are low. Or at least the Hawks wanted a player they had high-confidence would be good-to-great.
My ideal for Dallas at this point with Darnell Wright off the board, would be for Brian Branch, S from Alabama to be there when Dallas picks at 26, and then Dallas moves up to early in the second round and get Steve Avila, OT from TCU or Jahmyr Gibbs from Alabama early in the second round.
Didn’t Gibbs go to Detroit?
The thing about Alabama safeties: I feel like they’ve been a bunch that have been disappointments (e.g., Ha-ha Clinton Dix, Landon Collins, etc.)
I wrote that before Gibbs got picked. By the way, the Lions two picks are getting terrible “ratings” as reaches. Both guys were bottom first round to early second round picks.
Yeah, Dallas had the chance to pick Branch, who I read would probably be moved to corner if the Cowboys chose him. He’s not a huge guy (under 200). For me, I would have loved Branch’s ability to play either position, which would have given the Cowboys more flexibility in the next few years. But I think the Cowboys is in win now mode. They never pick up free agents, and they picked up two this year.
Clinton Dix and Collins were both pro bowlers if I had to guess. But yes, I have no idea why both fell so far so quickly. I think with Collins, he was slightly big for today’s game, even moving to LB at some point. Clinton Dix seems like he was going to have a great career.
Yeah, I was hearing this, too. I tend to think what matters is how good these players turn out. If that’s your guy, go get him.
You mean, they never pick up free agents last year?
This sounds right, but they didn’t seem very good. (I feel like there are other Alabama DBs that haven’t panned out, too.)
Dang, I hope the Hawks get John Michael Schmitz, center from Minnesota. I have a feeling a team like the Giants are going to get him, though.
There goes JMS. I just hope Evan Brown turns out to be a good C, or the Hawks draft a good one. 🙁
Don, how do you like Dallas’s pick? I’ve heard that name–mostly because the Hawks need an NT. I was a little disappointed the Cowboys picked him.
I read he is one of the best athletes in this class, but he has technique issues and may have been labeled as “soft” or not “loving the game” because of it. I hope he can be fixed, because outside of a left guard, an interior defender is their biggest need.
I thought Seattle did great in the draft, drafting the consensus top one or two corner and probably the top receiver.
Yeesh, that is not good to hear.
Just to clarify. Because of Smith’s technique issues, I think guys thought he wasn’t trying hard thus labeled him “soft”. As opposed to Smith not trying hard to better his technique, which is why he was labeled soft. Not sure if you misunderstood but wanted to clarify in case.
That’s the way I read it.
2nd round
Raiders : Michael Mayer, TE (Norte Dame)
I value TEs, but I’m guessing there is some uncertainty or maybe a lower ceiling? If not, I would expect him to have gone earlier. Really good TEs are unicorns in my view, and I tend to think a lot of teams would feel that way, too. (Belichick passed on him.)
I’ve been thinking about draft strategy, and I’m curious to hear thoughts about a question involving the two pool of players below:
Pool A
Players who meaningfully contribute right away, with the potential to be great.
Players that are “clean”–i.e., check off all the boxes regarding character, competitiveness, work ethic, medical, etc.
Pool B
Players that have talent, possibly elite talent, but haven’t fully developed into a quality starter.
Players who may also be “muddy”–i.e., uncertainties about character, competitiveness, work ethic, medicals, etc.
Now, let’s say you have big needs on the DL, but the best available linemen are only in pool B (i.e., there are no linemen in pool A). In the first and second rounds, do you pick a linemen, or do you go with another position from pool A? Should you use a lot of picks on the linemen, which would be choosing from pool B, in hopes that at one or two will hit (in the process forgoing pool A players)?
What about this choice:
B player has elite talent and maybe could likely produce right away (but there are red flags)
A player is clean and very good, but likely not elite.
Or instead of choosing A you can trade down for more picks
Generally, I like trading down, depending on the position of the A player. But if you do that, the chances of addressing the DL seems really low.
I don’t know, I’m still unsure about the best strategy.
There’s nothing wrong with your general proposition except it ignores the ebbs and flows of good draft years and bad draft years at any given position. Talking heads are always talking about good WR drafts and scant WR drafts, for example. If there are six Pool A edge rushers and two Pool B edge rushers, you have to adjust accordingly. Or (I think better, if you’re the team that needs an edge rusher) one or two Pool A edges and six or seven Pool B edges.
The Rams paid for trading their picks in favor of proven players last year when they far underperformed, but as Don says (and as I have said) they won a Super Bowl a few years after building a new stadium in a new city. There’s no question in my mind they did the right thing.
If you’re building for the long-term, another approach if you already have a high first-round pick is to take the guy and if he’s a killer in his first couple of seasons, trade him for a bunch of picks. This is what the Raiders did with Khalil Mack, and the nerdboys at the Sloan Conference proclaimed it the best trade of the year (or something like that). They essentially upped his value by drafting him, a seemingly rare thing these days.
Related, but also tangential: where do you prefer to draft in a 10-team fantasy snake draft? Are you a 1 and 20 guy, a 10-11 guy, or a 5-16 guy?
10 is my favorite position, with 9, 8, 7, 6, etc. following, in that order.
What’s a “snake draft?”
Reid,
Snake drafts are for fantasy sports in which the draft order would go from 1 to 10, then back down from 10 to 1.
Mitchell,
Basically you would prefer to have picks 10 and 11 versus 1 and 20? I would agree with that. But I think I would prefer 1 and 20 than 5 and 16.
Thanks, Don. I think I understand. But I don’t really have any opinion, and thinking about this makes my head hurt.
I’m having trouble fitting your point into the situation I describe–namely, players that fill a need are going to be higher risk (pool B). Players who are low risk (pool A) don’t fill a need. Is it better to pick the pool A player (which is a best player available approach) or take a chance on the pool B player that fills a need. This is essentially the situation the Seahawks faced. They badly need DL help, and they could have taken Jalen Carter–supposedly highly talented, but with serious question marks (pool B)–but they chose Devon WItherspoon instead, supposedly a really good CB, with clean evaluation (pool A).
I think the issue is not only that they traded away picks, but their cap situation isn’t very good. So now their cap is messed up, and they don’t have the high draft capital to rebuild the team (not during this draft). If they’re awfutl for the next 3-5 years, would you still feel the same?
The Seahawks make cap decisions with the cap condition in the future–they’re not going to sacrifice the latter. In this way, they believe this will put them in the position to be competitive. Or to put it another way: they’ll avoid really bad seasons (record wise).
I think there are drawbacks to this approach, too, though–namely, it can lead to a team that’s good (or at least not bad), but not good enough to win the Super Bowl. The Hawks have been stuck in that for a long time. Then again, if they hit on a trade or draft, they were position to be contenders. However, their winning lead to consistently picking at the back end of the rounds, and that made it really hard to find the players to take them over the top. A loss of really talented players in a relatively short amount of time made the challenge even greater.
In spite of these drawbacks, the Seahawks approach seems like the better one to me.
Theoretically, this seems ideal, but in reality, teams seem reluctant to do it–and I feel like there is a good reason for this. My sense is that doing this is too coldblooded even for NFL teams. A player can be great, in their prime, do everything right, but an NFL will still trade that player.
By the way, didn’t the Mack trade occur largely over contract dispute? I think that’s a different situation. If a team and player can’t agree, trading the player doesn’t seem like blatantly treating the player like a commodity. (I heard Bill Walsh say that the ideal situation was to trade a player right before they started to decline. But I can’t really recall the Niners doing this–or at least not very often.)
For what it’s worth, as a Cowboy fan, I would take a Super Bowl and having them suck for the next 5-7 years even. I agree with Rams decision to trade away their future for a Super Bowl. I do enjoy the journey (regular season) and try not to concentrate on the destination (championship), but after a while it gets old. During the seasons in which Dallas sucks the whole year, I barely watch them and yes I don’t enjoy the journey at all. Obviously that’s way worse than being good but not winning it all, but it’s been way too long for my Cowboys and Phillies.
Reid often talks about being “fair” to the players and about not being cold blooded. I’m not sure NFL teams care as much as he thinks, and I don’t think it really helps an NFL team to be more “fair”. I’ll be surprise if the Seahawks can get players at a discount because free agents view them as being a better management. That being said though, the bottom line is money and if a team keeps getting rid of their stars, it will hurt that bottom line. So there is a line between keeping fans happy and winning. I guess if you can consistently win by getting rid of the stars and getting new talent, fans would buy in.
Don,
You bringing up what you’d want as a Cowboy fan makes me think of what I’d want for the Raiders. I actually think more than winning a Super Bowl, I just want to see better football–or at least my idea of better football. If they did that, but didn’t win the Super Bowl, I think I’d be happier than if they didn’t play the way I like and won it. As an example, I never really enjoyed the season they went to the Super Bowl with Rich Gannon (2002). I disliked the way they played, and of course they were awful in the Super Bowl.
(On a related note, Mike Lombardi, whose son coaches for the Raiders, remarked that they’re going to run more–or rely on Jacobs more, I think, which seems to amount to the same thing. That would be cool, if true. If they played better defense, I’d be really happy. It’s been a ridiculously long time since they’ve been a very good defense. It feels like decades, and a team with bad defense is almost unwatchable to me.)
Re: Fairness
I think there are limits to taking a “business” approach. Management still has to care about people. If they treat the players like as if they’re commodities and not human beings–if they’re only valued for their performance–I doubt they could be successful. This is especially true for the coaches. I would also say this applies to all businesses, not just the NFL.
The Rams implored a strategy of using their draft capital (current and future) to trade for elite talent and they won a Super Bowl. I think a better, but similar, strategy would be to use all your draft capital every year to move up to pick in the top ten picks of the draft. Similarly you would still get very high end talent, but at a lower salary for five years. Why it won’t work? Because I think high draft picks appear to be way more “expensive” in draft capital than trading for elite talent that are hard to sign at good prices.
What if you have a lot of holes to fill in your roster? That’s the first problem that came to mind. Suppose a team traded all of their draft picks (1-7) and got a top 10 pick. The team would be adding only one player. Even if this approach wasn’t too expensive (in terms of draft capital), this seems like a bad approach because a team would add too few players. Or am I missing something?
The assumption was that the same amount of draft capital it takes for the Rams to acquire the guys they traded for would be the same draft capital my strategy would use to acquire top ten draft picks.
I’m a little skeptical this could happen. My sense is that the players they got had some kind of baggage or circumstance where they wanted to leave? If so, I would think this would make they cheaper, in terms of draft capital.
Just as an FYI, the Rams have traded their last 7 first round picks. They haven’t had a first round pick since 2016. They traded two for Jalen Ramsey and two for Matthew Stafford during that time.
The Rams first round picks would likely be 20-32 range. Do you think giving up that pick and the following draft’s 1st round pick move them into the top 10 or even top 15? I feel like they’d have to give up more than that. If not, I would think more teams picking at the backend would give up that draft capital to move up that far.