(02-24-2022, 10:26 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Or alternatively what the impact in the locker room/future negotiations is for "It's okay to let your contract thoughts make you play awful most of the regular season, you'll be rewarded with a big fat contract anyway."

I mean that's up to the coaches to decide if he was "awful" or not. Based on some of the deep dive on the 22 late in the year, I kind of want to go back and re watch some of the earlier games. The tackling issues weren't great but I wonder if coverage lapses were them in the early stages of installing what they were doing later in the year. They added a lot of interesting checks late that I don't remember seeing early, but I wasn't looking for them earlier either.

Either way, he would be the top safety on the market and would be highly coveted so thinking you are "sticking it" to him by not paying him doesn't really work. All not paying him does is hurt the team as there is no replacement on the roster and the draft may yield someone who eventually is capable but the near term impact will be heavy on the quality of play as a whole. 

(02-23-2022, 10:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You apply the franchise tag no other team can make an offer; there's nothing to match. 

Most common franchise tag allows for lower salary but teams can make offers to your players. If you don’t match you get 2 firsts. Win-win.

Non-exclusive franchise tag: The non-exclusive franchise tag is the most commonly used method to keep unrestricted free agents from hitting the market. The one-year tender offer pays a player the average of the top five salaries at the respective position over the last five years, or 120 percent of his previous salary — depending on whichever is greater. In the meantime, the player can negotiate with other teams but the club applying the tag has the right to match any offer or receive two first-round draft picks as compensation in case the player leaves.

Exclusive franchise tag: The exclusive franchise tag, as the name indicates, prohibits other teams from negotiating with the tagged player. However, it also carries a higher financial burden with it: the one-year tender sheet is worth the average of the top five salaries of the player’s position for the current year, or 120 percent of his previous salary. The one-year basis as opposed to the five years used with the non-exclusive tag means that the exclusive one is more expensive.


Transition tag: The third form of the tag also functions as a one-year fully-guaranteed contract, but still works a bit differently. On the one hand, it “only” pays a player the average of the top 10 salaries at the position over the last season and is therefore cheaper than the two franchise tags. On the other hand, however, it only guarantees a club the right of first refusal to match any incoming offers for the player. If he leaves, his now-former team will not receive any compensation.

(02-23-2022, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I understand the reasoning behind the Franchise Tag, but if you're not planning on using the Franchise Tag I see no negative to using the transition Tag

To an extent yes, unless you don't want to pay a player the Transition Tag price either.

(02-24-2022, 10:32 AM)Au165 Wrote: I mean that's up to the coaches to decide if he was "awful" or not. Based on some of the deep dive on the 22 late in the year, I kind of want to go back and re watch some of the earlier games. The tackling issues weren't great but I wonder if coverage lapses were them in the early stages of installing what they were doing later in the year. They added a lot of interesting checks late that I don't remember seeing early, but I wasn't looking for them earlier either.

Either way, he would be the top safety on the market and would be highly coveted so thinking you are "sticking it" to him by not paying him doesn't really work. All not paying him does is hurt the team as there is no replacement on the roster and the draft may yield someone who eventually is capable but the near term impact will be heavy on the quality of play as a whole. 

It's not a matter of "sticking it" to him. Hence why I never used those words.

I also think there's a pretty large amount of safeties in this FA. Jordan Whitehead, Marcus Williams, Justin Reid, Xavier Woods, Quandre Diggs, Devin McCourty, Tyrann Mathieu, and plenty more. 

It seems like a huge WR FA year and a big S FA year.

It doesn't only hurt the team not paying him because that's $13m+ that can be spent elsewhere, which would help the team. EDIT: I would see tagging him and trading him as a possibility, but I think he needs to actually sign his tag before he can be traded.

(02-24-2022, 10:55 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's not a matter of "sticking it" to him. Hence why I never used those words.

I also think there's a pretty large amount of safeties in this FA. Jordan Whitehead, Marcus Williams, Justin Reid, Xavier Woods, Quandre Diggs, Devin McCourty, Tyrann Mathieu, and plenty more. 

It seems like a huge WR FA year and a big S FA year.

It doesn't only hurt the team not paying him because that's $13m+ that can be spent elsewhere, which would help the team.  EDIT: I would see tagging him and trading him as a possibility, but I think he needs to actually sign his tag before he can be traded.

The flippant nature of your response of "playing awful" definitely gave that tone, but I'll concede you didn't say it directly.

Sure, a group of safeties who are either worse, older, or just as expensive. Thinking we are coming out of this with a comparable player for a major savings is penny wise and a pound foolish. Saving a million or two is not worth what it'll cost us in production/continuity.

It does hurt the team because you look at net improvement. The secondary is already going to add another outside corner most likely, so having a new moving piece behind that starter is not going to yield great results early. Continuity within units is a highly underrated part of success. The cap is there to fix the line, the issue will be more so how we structure deals and our refusal to give out heavy guarantees (Most likely Bates issue) which is why I think people who are expecting the top of the barrel FA OL are going to be disappointed no matter what because they probably will reject us for more guarantees elsewhere. 

As for a franchise and trade scenario, yes the tender must be signed first which then gives Bates the ability to refuse to sign it to control where he goes like Jadaveon Clowney did. In that scenario, he can refuse to sign it long past the draft preventing any sort of near term compensation for moving him and even tank the value by limiting where he will agree to be traded to. You don't want to go down this path anyways as it's simply a bad look for a team trying to build a winning culture. Teams that end up in franchise tag stand offs rarely are teams that go on to have success for years after the disputes.

(02-24-2022, 11:55 AM)Au165 Wrote: The flippant nature of your response of "playing awful" definitely gave that tone, but I'll concede you didn't say it directly.

Sure, a group of safeties who are either worse, older, or just as expensive. Thinking we are coming out of this with a comparable player for a major savings is penny wise and a pound foolish. Saving a million or two is not worth what it'll cost us in production/continuity.

It does hurt the team because you look at net improvement. The secondary is already going to add another outside corner most likely, so having a new moving piece behind that starter is not going to yield great results early. Continuity within units is a highly underrated part of success. The cap is there to fix the line, the issue will be more so how we structure deals and our refusal to give out heavy guarantees (Most likely Bates issue) which is why I think people who are expecting the top of the barrel FA OL are going to be disappointed no matter what because they probably will reject us for more guarantees elsewhere. 

As for a franchise and trade scenario, yes the tender must be signed first which then gives Bates the ability to refuse to sign it to control where he goes like Jadaveon Clowney did. In that scenario, he can refuse to sign it long past the draft preventing any sort of near term compensation for moving him and even tank the value by limiting where he will agree to be traded to. You don't want to go down this path anyways as it's simply a bad look for a team trying to build a winning culture. Teams that end up in franchise tag stand offs rarely are teams that go on to have success for years after the disputes.

The continuity argument kind of goes out the window when you realize that they brought in 3 new starters in the secondary last year in FA.  

(02-24-2022, 11:55 AM)Au165 Wrote: The flippant nature of your response of "playing awful" definitely gave that tone, but I'll concede you didn't say it directly.

Sure, a group of safeties who are either worse, older, or just as expensive. Thinking we are coming out of this with a comparable player for a major savings is penny wise and a pound foolish. Saving a million or two is not worth what it'll cost us in production/continuity.

It does hurt the team because you look at net improvement. The secondary is already going to add another outside corner most likely, so having a new moving piece behind that starter is not going to yield great results early. Continuity within units is a highly underrated part of success. The cap is there to fix the line, the issue will be more so how we structure deals and our refusal to give out heavy guarantees (Most likely Bates issue) which is why I think people who are expecting the top of the barrel FA OL are going to be disappointed no matter what because they probably will reject us for more guarantees elsewhere. 

As for a franchise and trade scenario, yes the tender must be signed first which then gives Bates the ability to refuse to sign it to control where he goes like Jadaveon Clowney did. In that scenario, he can refuse to sign it long past the draft preventing any sort of near term compensation for moving him and even tank the value by limiting where he will agree to be traded to. You don't want to go down this path anyways as it's simply a bad look for a team trying to build a winning culture. Teams that end up in franchise tag stand offs rarely are teams that go on to have success for years after the disputes.

All depends on which Bates you think you're getting.

2019 Bates was bad in coverage and bad in tackling.
2020 Bates was great in coverage and bad in tackling.
2021 Bates was bad in coverage and okay in tackling.

Then of course there was 2021 Playoff Bates who was making plays everywhere.. but which Bates are you getting in 2022? I have absolutely no idea and if everyone were being honest, they don't either, because the only thing he's been consistent in is his inconsistency. 

If you get 2019 Bates or 2021 regular season Bates, then yes, you could have easily gotten a comparable player for major savings.

Just seems strange to spend top money on a guy who you can't even be sure if he'll be good or not.

I'm going to need a source on that claim, lol. The Patriots seemed to always be franchise tagging guys, and they've had those guys hold out during the preseason and they've traded guys on the tag. They tagged and Asante Samuel held out during preseason, went to the SB that year. They tagged and traded Cassell another year and kept on being the Patriots. The Seahawks tagged and traded Frank Clark in 2019 and won 11 games and a playoff game. The Chiefs tagged and traded Dee Ford in 2019 and won the Super Bowl.

(02-24-2022, 12:09 PM)Whatever Wrote: The continuity argument kind of goes out the window when you realize that they brought in 3 new starters in the secondary last year in FA.  

Sure...who was the continuity to that unit? The safeties. Most of the coordination gets done from the backside forward, you lose a key guy there you lose a lot of the direction. You have a unit that came into it's own down the stretch, blowing it up now is not a way to improve on the success at the end of last year.

(02-24-2022, 12:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: All depends on which Bates you think you're getting.

2019 Bates was bad in coverage and bad in tackling.
2020 Bates was great in coverage and bad in tackling.
2021 Bates was bad in coverage and okay in tackling.

Then of course there was 2021 Playoff Bates who was making plays everywhere.. but which Bates are you getting in 2022? I have absolutely no idea and if everyone were being honest, they don't either, because the only thing he's been consistent in is his inconsistency. 

If you get 2019 Bates or 2021 regular season Bates, then yes, you could have easily gotten a comparable player for major savings.

Just seems strange to spend top money on a guy who you can't even be sure if he'll be good or not.

I'm going to need a source on that claim, lol. The Patriots seemed to always be franchise tagging guys, and they've had those guys hold out during the preseason and they've traded guys on the tag. They tagged and Asante Samuel held out during preseason, went to the SB that year. They tagged and traded Cassell another year and kept on being the Patriots. The Seahawks tagged and traded Frank Clark in 2019 and won 11 games and a playoff game. The Chiefs tagged and traded Dee Ford in 2019 and won the Super Bowl.

Who says he was bad at those thing? If you say PFF we can stop there. Knowing how coverage is graded there now you might as well let some random person of the street tell you if a guy is good or bad in coverage. I talked to a national reporter who was telling me that the NFL thinks VERY highly of Jesse Bates, so much so on the open market he probably ends up top 3 in average salary. It's hard to judge secondary play as fans, especially if you don't have all 22 or know what you are looking at, but it's even harder when you lack a pass rush in 2020 or other extenuating circumstances persist in scheme change or other issues like a bunch of new players in the unit. 

Washington has tanked since Cousins left, Jaguars have been a shit show since the Yannick tag and trade, Texans have been awful since the Clowney incident. Heck even the Steelers have stepped back since Bell, and many point to that (along with AB) of being when the organization kind of got caught rolling in the mud. I am not talking simply tagging people and being done, I am saying ending up in tag situations that you ratchet up rhetoric and end up in public spats and stand offs. Those are signs of dysfunctional organizations and the ones you named above handled the issues decently, although Frank Clark may have gotten ugly for a minute if I remember. 

I'm usually okay with moving on from guys, but FS is one of those positions you better have a damned good plan at replacing if you move on. Our defense carried us late and essentially removing the lynchpin of the secondary is a massive risk to take on. I'd cut Joe Mixon in a heartbeat to pay for Jesse Bates (massive cap savings post June 1st by the way).

(02-24-2022, 12:23 PM)Au165 Wrote: Sure...who was the continuity to that unit? The safeties. Most of the coordination gets done from the backside forward, you lose a key guy there you lose a lot of the direction.

If it was that valuable, S's wouldn't have the lowest non-specialist FT #'s in the league.  The NFL shot callers aren't willing to overpay for continuity.  Neither should we.  I mean the Rams drug Weddle out of a 2 year retirement at the end of the year and won the SB.

At the end of the day, Bates admits that he didn't handle his business the right way this year.  The coaches that are advising the FO are obviously not banging their fists on the desk to meet his demands.  The honus is on him to lower his demands if he wants to stay.  

Just seems like a yearly thing around here.  Fan favorite is set to hit FA, board rationalizes as to why the club should FT them and cave to their demands.  Saw it last year with Lawson and the year before with AJ.  

(02-24-2022, 12:53 PM)Whatever Wrote: If it was that valuable, S's wouldn't have the lowest non-specialist FT #'s in the league.  The NFL shot callers aren't willing to overpay for continuity.  Neither should we.  I mean the Rams drug Weddle out of a 2 year retirement at the end of the year and won the SB.

At the end of the day, Bates admits that he didn't handle his business the right way this year.  The coaches that are advising the FO are obviously not banging their fists on the desk to meet his demands.  The honus is on him to lower his demands if he wants to stay.  

Just seems like a yearly thing around here.  Fan favorite is set to hit FA, board rationalizes as to why the club should FT them and cave to their demands.  Saw it last year with Lawson and the year before with AJ.  

The greatest defenses of the last decade were led by high end safeties, if you are a team built to have a high end defense the safety position is key. In reality, the best defenses this past season outside of maybe Dallas had high end safeties. 

Buffalo - TWO high paid safeties who at the time were both paid top 6 (still top 15) in the league but market has risen since then.
Arizona- Budda Baker is a top 5 paid safety.
Patriots- McCourty has remained a top paid safety many years in NE
Browns- Just paid John Johnson top 10 money
Bears- Paid Eddie Jackson although he has been up and down

You have to be careful about confusing money and importance, that's the same kind of crap Mike Brown used for years to explain why we didn't need to pay guards. The price is always relative to current reality, saying "I don't want to pay 13" dismisses the fact that when others got 11 it was a larger percentage of the cap than what 13 is today. In reality, these things should be looked at the players percentage of total cap when adjusting for the cap increase he could make in the mid 15's and would still just be a top 10 contract relative to the other contracts and how they were as a function of total cap space at the time. Al that said 13-15 now won't be top 5 or maybe even 10 by the time the contract ends, so looking at old contracts that happened pre cap jump for comparison is tough.

As for the "fan" thing, I am telling you very smart football people are saying letting Jesse Bates leave is a massive issue. If there was a backup plan in place that would be one thing, but if you're just going to FA and hoping to save a little money it's probably not going to end well. This isn't Lawson who had huge injury issues, or even WJ3 who has some injury issues, this is one of your own who is a quality player an pretty reliable.

(02-24-2022, 12:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: Who says he was bad at those thing? If you say PFF we can stop there. Knowing how coverage is graded there now you might as well let some random person of the street tell you if a guy is good or bad in coverage. I talked to a national reporter who was telling me that the NFL thinks VERY highly of Jesse Bates, so much so on the open market he probably ends up top 3 in average salary. It's hard to judge secondary play as fans, especially if you don't have all 22 or know what you are looking at, but it's even harder when you lack a pass rush in 2020 or other extenuating circumstances persist in scheme change or other issues like a bunch of new players in the unit. 

Washington has tanked since Cousins left, Jaguars have been a shit show since the Yannick tag and trade, Texans have been awful since the Clowney incident. Heck even the Steelers have stepped back since Bell, and many point to that (along with AB) of being when the organization kind of got caught rolling in the mud. I am not talking simply tagging people and being done, I am saying ending up in tag situations that you ratchet up rhetoric and end up in public spats and stand offs. Those are signs of dysfunctional organizations and the ones you named above handled the issues decently, although Frank Clark may have gotten ugly for a minute if I remember. 

I'm usually okay with moving on from guys, but FS is one of those positions you better have a damned good plan at replacing if you move on. Our defense carried us late and essentially removing the lynchpin of the secondary is a massive risk to take on. I'd cut Joe Mixon in a heartbeat to pay for Jesse Bates (massive cap savings post June 1st by the way).

I wasn't going by PFF, though people were more than happy to use that to prove he did well in 2020 (which he did). I was going with my eyes, PFR, Bates own words of admitting he wasn't focused, the FO's reluctance to pay him.

I heard from a national reporter that Joe Burrow would refuse to play for the Cincinnati Bengals if drafted by them. Sure glad single national reporters have more value than literally everything else in front of you.

- - - -

Oh, so what you really meant is mostly a bunch of historically poorly run teams continue to be poorly run. Super shocking and nothing to do with some kind of franchise tag curse.

Kirk Cousins starting record with DC was 26-30-1. The best record that DC had while Cousins was there was his rookie year in 2012, when RG3 was the starter.

Jaguars WITH Yannick were 24-40. That's a shitshow even before then.

The Texans won 10 games and a playoff game THE year they got rid of Clowney, and Clowney followed it up with 3 sacks over the next 2 years. You're confusing the Clowney business in 2019 with Bill O'Brien trading away a top-3 All-Pro WR for an expensive broken RB and a 2nd round pick in 2020, which had nothing to do with franchise tagging.

The Steelers had an overweight QB/rapist get into his late 30s. Even then they've had 0 losing seasons, 3 winning seasons, and 2 playoff appearances in the 4 years since Le'Veon Bell left.

- - - -

I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of a FS on the 18th overall/17th scoring/26th passing defense.

(02-24-2022, 01:05 PM)Au165 Wrote: The greatest defenses of the last decade were led by high end safeties, if you are a team built to have a high end defense the safety position is key. In reality, the best defenses this past season outside of maybe Dallas had high end safeties. 

Buffalo - TWO high paid safeties who at the time were both paid top 6 (still top 15) in the league but market has risen since then.
Arizona- Budda Baker is a top 5 paid safety.
Patriots- McCourty has remained a top paid safety many years in NE
Browns- Just paid John Johnson top 10 money
Bears- Paid Eddie Jackson although he has been up and down

You have to be careful about confusing money and importance, that's the same kind of crap Mike Brown used for years to explain why we didn't need to pay guards. The price is always relative to current reality, saying "I don't want to pay 13" dismisses the fact that when others got 11 it was a larger percentage of the cap than what 13 is today. In reality, these things should be looked at the players percentage of total cap when adjusting for the cap increase he could make in the mid 15's and would still just be a top 10 contract relative to the other contracts and how they were as a function of total cap space at the time. Al that said 13-15 now won't be top 5 or maybe even 10 by the time the contract ends, so looking at old contracts that happened pre cap jump for comparison is tough.

As for the "fan" thing, I am telling you very smart football people are saying letting Jesse Bates leave is a massive issue. If there was a backup plan in place that would be one thing, but if you're just going to FA and hoping to save a little money it's probably not going to end well. This isn't Lawson who had huge injury issues, or even WJ3 who has some injury issues, this is one of your own who is a quality player an pretty reliable.

Poyer and Hyde combined only make $2 mil more than Adams.  "Highly paid" is relative when it comes to S's.  Vonn Bell is the 16th highest paid S, but is only $6 mil APY.  Hell, Brandon Wilson is 36th highest paid S in the league.  Also, keep in mind that four of those 5 teams have QB's on rookie deals and Allen's deal is extremely cap friendly through '22 before it balloons.  

I also have to point out that the two highest paid S's in the league, Jamal Adams and Harrison Smith, had their teams finish 28th and 30th in total defense.  But these are also teams with highly paid QB's.  If Mike Brown holds true to form, Burrow will get extended next year.  

My point about importance was directed towards the continuity angle.  However, S's are cheap because it's easy to draft a quality Day 1 starter on the first couple of days of the draft and it's a position that players can play at a high level for many years so there are always quality vets available.  Most teams smartly choose to devote their cap dollars to positions where it's much harder to find quality replacements.  

You're asking people to take a lot on faith when you shoot down sources that graded Bates negatively, say only the coaches can really evaluate him, then say very smart football minds say there will be big issues if he isn't retained.  Any way we want to look at it, Bates has played one year at an elite level, is coming off the worst year of his career, and wants Top 5 money.  His play level has swing wildly up and down every year since he was drafted.  It's very hard to justify.

(02-24-2022, 03:49 PM)Whatever Wrote: You're asking people to take a lot on faith when you shoot down sources that graded Bates negatively, say only the coaches can really evaluate him, then say very smart football minds say there will be big issues if he isn't retained.  Any way we want to look at it, Bates has played one year at an elite level, is coming off the worst year of his career, and wants Top 5 money.  His play level has swing wildly up and down every year since he was drafted.  It's very hard to justify.

That’s because PFF bends the truth on their every player every play claim, especially when it comes to coverage, but also is loose at times at who is qualified to grade things. When I talk to really smart football minds it’s people who’ve been tied to the NFL who watch a lot of tape from a team perspective. I think PFF is a great place for advanced stats but grades you must be VERY VERY careful with. I once talked to a scout who told a story about their grades on a player in a game who was graded really high by PFF was trash because he wasn’t doing what they asked him to do and he fluked into a couple plays because the QB made some dumb decisions.

When people say every team uses PFF it’s a bit misleading, every team uses their advanced stats basically none of them use their grades that fans like to quote.

(02-24-2022, 01:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I wasn't going by PFF, though people were more than happy to use that to prove he did well in 2020 (which he did). I was going with my eyes, PFR, Bates own words of admitting he wasn't focused, the FO's reluctance to pay him.

I heard from a national reporter that Joe Burrow would refuse to play for the Cincinnati Bengals if drafted by them. Sure glad single national reporters have more value than literally everything else in front of you.

- - - -

Oh, so what you really meant is mostly a bunch of historically poorly run teams continue to be poorly run. Super shocking and nothing to do with some kind of franchise tag curse.

Kirk Cousins starting record with DC was 26-30-1. The best record that DC had while Cousins was there was his rookie year in 2012, when RG3 was the starter.

Jaguars WITH Yannick were 24-40. That's a shitshow even before then.

The Texans won 10 games and a playoff game THE year they got rid of Clowney, and Clowney followed it up with 3 sacks over the next 2 years. You're confusing the Clowney business in 2019 with Bill O'Brien trading away a top-3 All-Pro WR for an expensive broken RB and a 2nd round pick in 2020, which had nothing to do with franchise tagging.

The Steelers had an overweight QB/rapist get into his late 30s. Even then they've had 0 losing seasons, 3 winning seasons, and 2 playoff appearances in the 4 years since Le'Veon Bell left.

- - - -

I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of a FS on the 18th overall/17th scoring/26th passing defense.

Yes, I’m saying dysfunctional organizations do dysfunctional things. I’m also saying if we aren’t one of those dysfunctional organizations anymore it would behoove use not to do dysfunctional things.

As to overeating them, they were really good down the stretch and through the playoffs. The defense is further along than the offense and frankly there is nothing saying we will actually get the OL fixes right but we have a solid defense now so keeping that together would be the safer approach. I still contend Jesse Bates has nothing to do with the approach to fixing the OL because the outgoing cash they are willing to spend (not cap) has already been decided either way.

(02-24-2022, 01:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I wasn't going by PFF, though people were more than happy to use that to prove he did well in 2020 (which he did). I was going with my eyes, PFR, Bates own words of admitting he wasn't focused, the FO's reluctance to pay him.

I heard from a national reporter that Joe Burrow would refuse to play for the Cincinnati Bengals if drafted by them. Sure glad single national reporters have more value than literally everything else in front of you.

- - - -

Oh, so what you really meant is mostly a bunch of historically poorly run teams continue to be poorly run. Super shocking and nothing to do with some kind of franchise tag curse.

Kirk Cousins starting record with DC was 26-30-1. The best record that DC had while Cousins was there was his rookie year in 2012, when RG3 was the starter.

Jaguars WITH Yannick were 24-40. That's a shitshow even before then.

The Texans won 10 games and a playoff game THE year they got rid of Clowney, and Clowney followed it up with 3 sacks over the next 2 years. You're confusing the Clowney business in 2019 with Bill O'Brien trading away a top-3 All-Pro WR for an expensive broken RB and a 2nd round pick in 2020, which had nothing to do with franchise tagging.

The Steelers had an overweight QB/rapist get into his late 30s. Even then they've had 0 losing seasons, 3 winning seasons, and 2 playoff appearances in the 4 years since Le'Veon Bell left.

- - - -

I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of a FS on the 18th overall/17th scoring/26th passing defense.

Burrows Dad was high on Taylor based on his study of Zac’s coaching and reputation. Burrow played football at Nebraska and coached there. He knows football coaches I promise. Taylor is extremely respected by anybody from Cornhusker country. Maybe only Osborne tops him. Can’t remember who swayed him about his coaching but somebody. That was maybe agent talk. Then Joe was wowed by him at the combine and they were good to go.

(02-24-2022, 04:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: That’s because PFF bends the truth on their every player every play claim, especially when it comes to coverage, but also is loose at times at who is qualified to grade things. When I talk to really smart football minds it’s people who’ve been tied to the NFL who watch a lot of tape from a team perspective. I think PFF is a great place for advanced stats but grades you must be VERY VERY careful with. I once talked to a scout who told a story about their grades on a player in a game who was graded really high by PFF was trash because he wasn’t doing what they asked him to do and he fluked into a couple plays because the QB made some dumb decisions.

When people say every team uses PFF it’s a bit misleading, every team uses their advanced stats basically none of them use their grades that fans like to quote.

I think we all know that an analyst (PFF or otherwise) doesn't 100% know what a player is assigned to do, but they give their best guess.

I guess a fair question though is let's say a player does exactly what they were assigned to do, but it still results in a negative result.
Or on the flip side, they can't/don't do what they're assigned to do, but it results in a positive play.
How should that be assessed or who should be assessed?

Clearly people (teams and fans) put value into PFF if they're making money and growing the company, so they must be doing something well.

EDIT - You also talk about teams caring about their advanced stats, but that's locked behind their highest-tiered paywall. Since most fans don't want to pay for a stat service, they only get access to the cheaper/free tiers, which is primarily the player grades. And I think fans like the grades a lot because it gives them a comparable metric about whether a player is good/bad and also better/worse than someone else (accurate or not).

(02-24-2022, 05:05 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I think we all know that an analyst (PFF or otherwise) doesn't 100% know what a player is assigned to do, but they give their best guess.

I guess a fair question though is let's say a player does exactly what they were assigned to do, but it still results in a negative result.
Or on the flip side, they can't/don't do what they're assigned to do, but it results in a positive play.
How should that be assessed or who should be assessed?

Clearly people (teams and fans) put value into PFF if they're making money and growing the company, so they must be doing something well.

EDIT - You also talk about teams caring about their advanced stats, but that's locked behind their highest-tiered paywall. Since most fans don't want to pay for a stat service, they only get access to the cheaper/free tiers, which is primarily the player grades. And I think fans like the grades a lot because it gives them a comparable metric about whether a player is good/bad and also better/worse than someone else (accurate or not).

A player should always be graded on what they were supposed to do based on the play design, offensive alignment, and any checks made. The first one is easy and what PFF tries to grade on, the second is harder because each coordinator is different, the last one is basically impossible.

Negative results aren’t always anyones fault and I think that’s the hardest thing for people to understand. I like to come back to the double post TD from the first KC game. In that situation we were cover 3, the Chiefs were banking on that so when the first post crosses Baates face he takes him as he should. Apple is playing outside leverage because he has help to the inside he thinks, when the second post comes inside it’s wide open. Neither guy did anything wrong but fans don’t understand that the perfect offensive play call should be indefensible.

As to PFF, they have made fans feel smarter like they understand the game better which is why their popularity has increased. Most people don’t know that the NFL teams actually have access to a tier even higher than the general public with MUCH deeper stats. That subscript costs a lot, like new car a lot, and is only accessible to NFL teams/media members/ NFL partners. This is what the NFL teams are using when people reference PFF and this is the data that is really valuable, it’s super granular and gets into much more situational information.

(02-22-2022, 05:22 PM)J24 Wrote: Two totally  different  situation 

1)Bates will be  25 while  Bell will be 28 this off season. 

2.) They're  asked to do two different things. One is deep Centerfield Safety(Bates) and the other is an inbox Safety  Bell. 

3.) The Front office  signed both Iloka and Williams  to Long term deals in 2016. 

As to the OP  the Bengals will resign Bates this off-season.  He is to valuable to the defense not to be here. In fact there is a good chance he will sign long term.

You tell me I'm talking about two totally different situations but you compare resigning Iloka and Williams to resigning Bates and Bell? Bates will command more than the combined salaries we gave Iloka and Williams.

This is what happens when talks come to re-signing players. You're not willing to re-sign a player before you even know what he's demanding? You don't like him. 

I've said I have 0 problem with signing Williams, but I'd prefer to keep Bell over him. In his short time here he's proved to be the equal player and superior leader to Bates...But I'm sure JuJu Smith-Schuster would prefer we keep Bates instead of Bell in the AFC North

I am ok with singing JB but for the right money not overpaying a guy even if the whole team wants him signed. Bates also needs to know he has to improve in some areas as well.