The Official 2023 NFL Off-Season Thread

[Snake]

So, 2 average teams limping into the playoffs in the last 20 odd years have won the SB?

I’d rather reset the deck and gear up for a 5-7 year competitive cycle.

The question becomes: does trying to maximize ever single year (and not steer into being bad for 1-2 years) prevent you from building a roster that can truly be great and compete at the highest levels for multiple years?

I think it’s a matter of degree.

[Snake]

The Jaguars don't land Lawrence if they "maximize."
The Bengals don't land Burrow if they "maximize."
The Cardinals don't land Murray if they "maximize."

I don't think you tank for individual players.
I don't think you take the "consensus" QB at #1 just because you pick #1. See: Mayfield, Winston, etc.

However, being bad does give you the best shot at the best players. Including QBs. If you're evaluating properly.

Hurts was a second rounder, Allen didn't go top 5, Mahomes was 10th overall. Trubisky went #2.

Guys can be had later because evaluation is imperfect and situations often make players.

But, being bad gives you first dibs on everyone.

[Snake]

SI.com has LVD as the 26th best FA...lol

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/03/07/2023- ... -best-fits

[Bootz]

So, 2 average teams limping into the playoffs in the last 20 odd years have won the SB?

I’d rather reset the deck and gear up for a 5-7 year competitive cycle.

The question becomes: does trying to maximize ever single year (and not steer into being bad for 1-2 years) prevent you from building a roster that can truly be great and compete at the highest levels for multiple years?

I think it’s a matter of degree.

Hardly.

2005 Steelers weren't very good. Got in as a 6 seed, had to win 3 road games.

The 2010 Packers got in on the last weekend as the #6 seed and had to win 3 road games.

Here's the bigger point people are missing. Those teams who remain competitive for 5+ years? None of them start by rebuilding and going through a planned rough period. Pats didn't. Chiefs didn't. Not even the Eagles. It doesn't happen. Planned rebuilding doesn't yield results. There's zero evidence of it and you can't even name a team that did so.

[Bootz]

The Jaguars don't land Lawrence if they "maximize."
The Bengals don't land Burrow if they "maximize."
The Cardinals don't land Murray if they "maximize."

I don't think you tank for individual players.
I don't think you take the "consensus" QB at #1 just because you pick #1. See: Mayfield, Winston, etc.

However, being bad does give you the best shot at the best players. Including QBs. If you're evaluating properly.

Hurts was a second rounder, Allen didn't go top 5, Mahomes was 10th overall. Trubisky went #2.

Guys can be had later because evaluation is imperfect and situations often make players.

But, being bad gives you first dibs on everyone.

But the Chiefs do land Mahomes if they "maximize" and have to trade up.

Remind me again what the goal is? To say you have a #1 overall pick at QB or win championships?

[Snake]

rebuild is code for "we don't have a QB worth a shit anymore and it's now acceptable to be bad for a period of time until we commit to another one." Its rare a team "rebuilds" while rostering a great QB. The Patriots went 10 years between SB wins while rostering Brady the entire time.

Eagles had their QBOTF while their QB of the present imploded right before their eyes. Almost like they knew it was coming...

[Snake]

The Jaguars don't land Lawrence if they "maximize."
The Bengals don't land Burrow if they "maximize."
The Cardinals don't land Murray if they "maximize."

I don't think you tank for individual players.
I don't think you take the "consensus" QB at #1 just because you pick #1. See: Mayfield, Winston, etc.

However, being bad does give you the best shot at the best players. Including QBs. If you're evaluating properly.

Hurts was a second rounder, Allen didn't go top 5, Mahomes was 10th overall. Trubisky went #2.

Guys can be had later because evaluation is imperfect and situations often make players.

But, being bad gives you first dibs on everyone.

But the Chiefs do land Mahomes if they "maximize" and have to trade up.

Remind me again what the goal is? To say you have a #1 overall pick at QB or win championships?

The goal is always championships. Having a great QB gives you a better chance of winning championships. Picking higher in the draft gives you a better chance to draft a great QB.

[Bootz]

Rebuilding as we've seen doesn't work in regards to winning real championships. It might win you paper championships and offseason awards. But the fact is it doesn't do anything except prolong suffering and cause people their jobs.

[Phantom]

Titans to wear Oilers throwback uniform for home game vs Texans

[Bootz]

But the Chiefs do land Mahomes if they "maximize" and have to trade up.

Remind me again what the goal is? To say you have a #1 overall pick at QB or win championships?

The goal is always championships. Having a great QB gives you a better chance of winning championships. Picking higher in the draft gives you a better chance to draft a great QB.

Yea, as evidence by the QBs who gone to the SB and won it all recently.

[Bootz]

Wanna know the last QB picked #1 overall to win it all with the team that drafted him? Peyton in 06. And that was 8 years after they drafted him. That's probably the real timeline of "rebuilding".

[Snake]

The goal is always championships. Having a great QB gives you a better chance of winning championships. Picking higher in the draft gives you a better chance to draft a great QB.

Yea, as evidence by the QBs who gone to the SB and won it all recently.

I guess teams should trade down to 10th overall and take Richardson instead of targeting Bryce Young 1st overall because Mahomes?

Or maybe start taking guys in the 6th because Brady?

lol

[Phantom]

So it begins

Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers have had conversations with the New York Jets this week regarding a possible trade, sources tell Dan Graziano.

More: https://es.pn/41LnT2x

[_MB_]

Titans to wear Oilers throwback uniform for home game vs Texans

Pity they aren't playing the cowboys, but I get it.

[Bootz]

Yea, as evidence by the QBs who gone to the SB and won it all recently.

I guess teams should trade down to 10th overall and take Richardson instead of targeting Bryce Young 1st overall because Mahomes?

Or maybe start taking guys in the 6th because Brady?

lol

I told you, there's no evidence that it works and you don't disagree at all. Deflecting doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work.

[_MB_]

We should be in creamscicles for all the old NFC central games this year, but they probably won't let us.

We got the bears and lions at home this season. I predict it'll be one of those games.

[Snake]

I guess teams should trade down to 10th overall and take Richardson instead of targeting Bryce Young 1st overall because Mahomes?

Or maybe start taking guys in the 6th because Brady?

lol

I told you, there's no evidence that it works and you don't disagree at all. Deflecting doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work.

Your black and white thinking gets in the way of nuanced discussion.

Great QBs tend to get drafted higher than lower.

Great QBs tend to win more championships.

Picking higher will give you a better chance of selecting a great QB, and subsequently, winning a championship.

If selection slots didn’t matter, they wouldn’t give the worst teams the higher draft picks. And all pros would be equally found in round 1 as round 7.

[Bootz]

I told you, there's no evidence that it works and you don't disagree at all. Deflecting doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work.

Your black and white thinking gets in the way of nuanced discussion.

Great QBs tend to get drafted higher than lower.

Great QBs tend to win more championships.

Picking higher will give you a better chance of selecting a great QB, and subsequently, winning a championship.

If selection slots didn’t matter, they wouldn’t give the worst teams the higher draft picks. And all pros would be equally found in round 1 as round 7.

There doesn't need to be a nuanced discussion. People rely on nuance way too much on something that isnt very opinionated nor necessitates the need for interpretation.

The evidence is there and you don't even disagree with me about it. If you do, then provide an example of a team rebuilding into a contender.

[Buc2]

Carr is a GOOD quarterback. The Saints probably just went from 7-10 with Jameis and Co. to 10-7 with Carr. That's not nothing, but it's also kind of...okay? Are they anywhere near the best in the league? No. Are they even in the top 3 teams in the NFC? No.

This continues to be my point of contention with the whole "The Saints beat the salary cap every year!" discussion. Yes, they always manage to turn a $200 million cap deficit into a few solid free agent moves. Where has it gotten them? They've been to the NFCCG once in 13 years, despite a HOF Coach and a HOF QB for most of it, and despite drafting well for the most part. They're rarely in on any actual top free agents, though Payton was good at maximizing the guys they did bring in. They've been "reloading" for well over a decade now and they've managed a bunch of division title banners in an often underwhelming division.

Sounds like a familiar script. Oh yeah! The Green Bay Packers.

[Buc2]

Thought so.

The 2007 & 2011 Giants fit your description. In fact if those 2 teams met that very specific standard you created, that would be an improvement. The 2007 Giants were the worst team to ever win it. 2011 Giants had a negative point differential. Neither team had any business making it but both won it all.

Dude. There are exceptions/outliers in everything. That doesn't invalidate her point. Not even close.

[Buc2]

We should be in creamscicles for all the old NFC central games this year, but they probably won't let us.

We got the bears and lions at home this season. I predict it'll be one of those games.

The perfect season to bring back our creamsicle throwback unis... When our play will look like most of those losing creamsicle years.

[Snake]

Thought so.

The 2007 & 2011 Giants fit your description. In fact if those 2 teams met that very specific standard you created, that would be an improvement. The 2007 Giants were the worst team to ever win it. 2011 Giants had a negative point differential. Neither team had any business making it but both won it all.

Dude. There are exceptions/outliers in everything. That doesn't invalidate her point. Not even close.

The death of nuance. One post at a time.

[Bootz]

Thought so.

The 2007 & 2011 Giants fit your description. In fact if those 2 teams met that very specific standard you created, that would be an improvement. The 2007 Giants were the worst team to ever win it. 2011 Giants had a negative point differential. Neither team had any business making it but both won it all.

Dude. There are exceptions/outliers in everything. That doesn't invalidate her point. Not even close.

Except those are hardly outliers. But by all means, continue. We know you love telling people you're right and they are wrong.

[Bootz]

Dude. There are exceptions/outliers in everything. That doesn't invalidate her point. Not even close.

The death of nuance. One post at a time.

People who rely on nuance to debate facts aren't smart enough to convey the point they want to. It's major trait in sociopaths and conspiracy theorists.

[MJW]

Here's the bigger point people are missing. Those teams who remain competitive for 5+ years? None of them start by rebuilding and going through a planned rough period. Pats didn't. Chiefs didn't. Not even the Eagles. It doesn't happen. Planned rebuilding doesn't yield results. There's zero evidence of it and you can't even name a team that did so.

How do you defined "planned rebuild?"

The Patriots you mentioned...They hired a new coach and an entire new front office in 2000...Belichick purged almost all of the roster...they went 5-11 his first year. That sounds like a planned rebuild to me.

You and Doctor seem very confused about the entire concept TBH. I can't speak for everyone, but when I say "rebuild," I simply mean:

- Avoid new multi-year cap commitments for aging players
- Avoid pushing cap debt into future years
- Avoid signing mediocre veterans when you can give reps and playing time to promising younger players
- Make talent, not need, the deciding factor in your draft decisions

That's honestly it. That's how I define a "planned rebuild." Normally I'd include, "get value for players who can still play, but who might not fit the vision of the new regime," but we were too stupid to hire a new regime.

So...what part of that do you have a problem with exactly?

[Bootz]

Here's the bigger point people are missing. Those teams who remain competitive for 5+ years? None of them start by rebuilding and going through a planned rough period. Pats didn't. Chiefs didn't. Not even the Eagles. It doesn't happen. Planned rebuilding doesn't yield results. There's zero evidence of it and you can't even name a team that did so.

How do you defined "planned rebuild?"

The Patriots you mentioned...They hired a new coach and an entire new front office in 2000...Belichick purged almost all of the roster...they went 5-11 his first year. That sounds like a planned rebuild to me.

You and Doctor seem very confused about the entire concept TBH. I can't speak for everyone, but when I say "rebuild," I simply mean:

- Avoid new multi-year cap commitments for aging players
- Avoid pushing cap debt into future years
- Avoid signing mediocre veterans when you can give reps and playing time to promising younger players
- Make talent, not need, the deciding factor in your draft decisions

That's honestly it. That's how I define a "planned rebuild." Normally I'd include, "get value for players who can still play, but who might not fit the vision of the new regime," but we were too stupid to hire a new regime.

So...what part of that do you have a problem with exactly?

So if I'm reading you correctly, your entire premise involves us playing copycat to a process carried out 23 years ago?

[Buc2]

Dude. There are exceptions/outliers in everything. That doesn't invalidate her point. Not even close.

Except those are hardly outliers. But by all means, continue. We know you love telling people you're right and they are wrong.

You're wrong.

/The End

[Buc2]

Welcome to Bootz Island.

[Phantom]

Aaron Rodgers has received permission to speak with the New York Jets, source confirms. Some due diligence.

[Cheb]

In his defense, Carr with a good defense isn't something we have seen before. If he can provide the Saints with middle of the road C-grade quarterbacking, they rightly could make a claim to the division.

Not picking on you Cheb, but when did this become the standard? I genuinely don't understand it. The two teams that just played in the Superbowl won brutal divisions and then went toe-to-toe with the best in their conference to reach that point. How many teams have ever won anything because they barely won a shitty division and frauded their way into the grown-ups table? The teams in the playoffs won't be shitty. We first-hand saw what happens when a fraud division winner plays an actual playoff caliber team in the playoffs. Anybody have warm memories of our triumphant division championship or that playoff "run?" No? Me neither. Being able to say we edged out the shitty Panthers? Gonna dine out on that the next time you see a Panthers fan? No? Why, because you'd sound like a chode, that's why!

You're a Superbowl contender or you're not. If you're not, being one of the 45% of the league that now makes the playoff is fucking worthless beyond - maybe - some confidence heading into the next year, when presumably you'll have taken steps to improve. Otherwise, you think Payton Manning looks longingly at all those AFC South Banners? Nobody. Cares.

You're in a position to win the Hardware.
Or you're making moves EXPLICITLY to win the Hardware in a future season.
Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's fucking time.

This is easy to say as a fan because you aren't going to be fired and have to move your family across the country if your team loses the overwhelming majority of their games. Those in charge of your favorite team will. That's why you don't see half the teams in the league intentionally tank or jettison their roster every other year.

What you do see is somewhere around a quarter of the league changing their coaching staffs and general managers every year, not because they didn't win a Superbowl but because they didn't win enough games.

Adding Derek Carr will help the Saints win more games by your own admission. That keeps their coaching staff and GM working together, and it allows them time to add more guys who fit their system and what they want to do to hopefully build long-term success. Adding Carr increases the likelihood that this same groups of Saints can ante up every year to make a push for a title.

If I were an optimistic Saints fan, I could rightly say that despite having little help from the offense that my team had a top ten defense last year and finished one game behind the division winner. I could say that having a legitimate quarterback elevates my team substantially, which could bring back Michael Thomas to form and also send Chris Place to even greater heights. I could say that bringing in Carr doesn't just elevate the Saints to division contenders, but indeed to compete with the best teams in the NFC.

Most importantly, I could say that Derek Carr's career as a Raider wasn't too dissimilar to Drew Brees' as a Charger, and Carr coming to New Orleans at 31 ain't too different from Brees coming at 27 either. By your logic, the Saints never should have added Brees in the first place, given that he was a not dissimilar middling journeyman who wasn't a homerun swing to win a title.

Not every gesture in life needs to be a grand one.

[Bootz]

Aaron Rodgers has received permission to speak with the New York Jets, source confirms. Some due diligence.

Yea there is also this

[Phantom]

New York Jets are flying to California to meet with Mr Rodgers

Will the Jets trade Zach Wilson to the Packers?

@McFan

[Phantom]

Ravens sent notice to the NFLPA that they placed the $32.41 million non-exclusive franchise tag on QB Lamar Jackson. He now is allowed to negotiate with other teams, but the Ravens have the right to match any offer sheet he signs or take two first-round picks in return for him.

Hello Atlanta!

[_MB_]

It'll be a nine figure deal and a half dozen picks when it's all said and done.

[Snake]

It'll be a nine figure deal and a half dozen picks when it's all said and done.

How do you figure on the picks?