This has been in the works for over a year, so I’m not worried about not talking. I’ll get worried if it’s July 15th and this isn’t done.
These things always get done at the last minute. But I will say that if it doesn’t, we’re looking at a hold out, and I wouldn’t blame Chris one damn bit for that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
This has been in the works for over a year, so I’m not worried about not talking. I’ll get worried if it’s July 15th and this isn’t done.
These things always get done at the last minute. But I will say that if it doesn’t, we’re looking at a hold out, and I wouldn’t blame Chris one damn bit for that.
Veach says a deal will get done. I have no reason to question him otherwise. Like you said these things don’t usually happen until a week or so before the deadline [Reply]
I mean yeah, I undersold him (most notably w/r/t his first step), but he did need to be coached out of the pad-level thing and he's largely done that. And the off/on effort thing was a problem even coming into the 2019 season, when I think he largely fixed it.
For a guy who has no qualms saying I flat out loathe a player ({cough} Breeland Speaks {coughcough}) I think that's a pretty measured criticism of a player who I flat said I didn't mind, even if I didn't like their approach in getting him.
Ultimately my concerns over the 5th year option may/may not have amounted to anything though. Bottom line was that the guy became TOO good for the 5th year option to matter much (guys at his level don't play on that 5th year tag) and then he took such an incredibly team friendly deal that we probably weren't going to be able to leverage that deal any further than we leveraged overall good will.
Did he end up being a better player than I thought he'd be? No question - but I hardly said "fuck this scrub - he blows...". I saw some areas of concern, laid out some real strengths and said - "this is fine player but an awfully odd way to go about getting him..."
EDIT: The real 'win' in the trade down, though, ended up being Charvarius Ward. Man, what a friggen rehab job that was. Turning a pretty cruddy trade-down and pick (Ehinger) into a legitimate starting CB on a peanuts contract was just a masterstroke from Veach. Full marks for that one, Bert. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
That would be a TERRIBLE pick.
Too early at a position that's way too deep. Even if you think Jones is a 1st round talent (he isnt), there will be a player almost exactly like him available at the back of the second and I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar player still there in the third.
Originally Posted by staylor26:
This is why I’ve said that in the past DJ:
But when we actually made the pick and I had a chance to sit down and look at how the draft went, I think I provided a pretty damn measured take on it. Even if it ultimately ended up being wrong (and I have conceded that fact), I damn sure didn't 'hate on Chris Jones...'
Hard to look at my analysis of the player before the pick and my analysis of the pick shortly after it and say I shit all over the dude. Especially when put in the context of my...uh...semi-aggressive approach to criticism. I'll lead with my chin, to be sure, but I was hardly having a full-on Dexter McCluster meltdown over him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
But when we actually made the pick and I had a chance to sit down and look at how the draft went, I think I provided a pretty damn measured take on it. Even if it ultimately ended up being wrong (and I have conceded that fact), I damn sure didn't 'hate on Chris Jones...'
Hard to look at my analysis of the player before the pick and my analysis of the pick shortly after it and say I shit all over the dude. Especially when put in the context of my...uh...semi-aggressive approach to criticism. I'll lead with my chin, to be sure, but I was hardly having a full-on Dexter McCluster meltdown over him.
That’s fair and I agree, just saying that’s where I got it from. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
That’s fair and I agree, just saying that’s where I got it from.
And ultimately, in the post you quoted, at that time I was still weighing need too heavily.
It's really just been in the last 3 years I've decided that EVERY position is a position of need in the NFL over the length of a rookie contract. So with Poe and Howard there, I understated the utility of another DT, especially while we were running a 3-4 (though I did get his potential as a 5-tech right; but that came after the post in question). I wouldn't have taken that hard-line of a stance w/r/t positional value today.
The decline of Howard and Poe, and the fairly rapid ascension of Jones, probably had something to do with that re-calibration. 1 year later we'd have been proper fucked without Jones. And ultimately it was my one-man bandwagon for Hockenson when we had Kelce in his prime that ultimately led to me talking myself into that stance pretty firmly.
Need just means so little on days 1 and 2. Those guys, if they hit, will FIND their way into the starting lineup. So just draft for ability. In that regard Terez (pretty sure he wrote the article in question) had it absolutely right. [Reply]