John Lynch? Are we talking about the Bucs old Safety and current commentator John Lynch?
EDIT:
Holy SHIT, we are talking about THAT John Lynch...WTF.
yep, 0 nfl exec experience. SF makes the Bears look like a well run organization.
Just because he has no experience doesn't mean he won't be a good GM. If he is a good leader and puts the right advisors, scouts, etc. in place and is open minded, analytical, and takes input from those advisors, scouts, etc. when making decisions he can become a great GM.
I found this article to be pretty good in showing that it doesn't always matter how many picks a team has, it's how well a team can evaluate talent and get the most out of the picks they have. The Bears are towards the bottom with few picks and little success with them. The Niners have had the most picks and still did little with them.
The Score is saying the Niners are interested in making a move for Cutler.
Ya That's what my findings showed since 2012. Oddly on that chart NE was just over the line. Stl and Ciny are very high on that list, how many SB's do they have? Again go back and look at my findings, and pair them w/that articles findings. Winning more then anything is predicated on having the right qb, and that is 99% of the time done via the draft.
Ya if they are interested in Cutler then that's everything I could hope for from their new GM and HC. Never wanted Kyle S on the Bears, he has been living off his dads legacy since he got in the league and really hasn't done much of anything.
yep, 0 nfl exec experience. SF makes the Bears look like a well run organization.
Just because he has no experience doesn't mean he won't be a good GM. If he is a good leader and puts the right advisors, scouts, etc. in place and is open minded, analytical, and takes input from those advisors, scouts, etc. when making decisions he can become a great GM.
GM has to be able to work FA and contracts, this isn't just about scouts and coaches. You don't put a former player as a GM w/out having them work up the ladder.
I rather we draft similar to what the Raiders did.
1st round: Khalil Mack ( Jonathan Allen ) 2nd round: Derek Carr ( Patrick Mahomes II )
Jonathan Allen is no Khalil Mack...and Mahomes doesn't seem like Derek Carr to me. So that would be nothing like what the Raiders did.
Never said Mack and Allen are the same. Both play different positions.
But what they do have in common is both are BPA at the time they were pick. Unlike Watson and Trubisky, Allen is up there because of his talent. Not because he's a QB. Teams that succed don't overdraft a position of need. They go with what the draft has gave them.
Mahomes isn't that much less compared to first round graded QBs. There is a chance he can go to the first. Seeing that we still haven't hit the combine yet, but he is great value for a second round pick while also not costing us a ton if he fails.
Raiders were smart. What if the Raiders over drafted Carr and let Mack go else where. Would that team still be the same?
I found this article to be pretty good in showing that it doesn't always matter how many picks a team has, it's how well a team can evaluate talent and get the most out of the picks they have. The Bears are towards the bottom with few picks and little success with them. The Niners have had the most picks and still did little with them.
I always appreciate it when someone uses numbers in their argument but that guy is all over the place in that article.
Problems with it: 1. 5 years is too short a time period to evaluate. As he even says in the article one good draft can significantly skew a team's numbers. That's why you need a minimum of around 10 drafts or so to keep the noise down from any outlier drafts.
2. If you want to prove quality of scouting you need to make certain that the same people are in charge of the drafting for your comparison. The Bears' last 5 years include both Emery and Pace. We of course can say Emery is dragging our numbers down some at that's a valid argument to have. But that isn't getting through in just the numbers so how many other organizations can make similar arguments and how would that affect the numbers?
3. The part where he breaks up the draft into rounds 1-3 and 4-7 is nothing but an arbitrary decision. Why 1-3 and not 1-2 or 1-4? He is making an assumption here and then tries to pull some sort narrative out of it. If you were to switch things to a 1-2 and 3-7 round organization for instance I bet you might see another different narrative which of course would be equally unreliable.
Jonathan Allen is no Khalil Mack...and Mahomes doesn't seem like Derek Carr to me. So that would be nothing like what the Raiders did.
Never said Mack and Allen are the same. Both play different positions.
But what they do have in common is both are BPA at the time they were pick. Unlike Watson and Trubisky, Allen is up there because of his talent. Not because he's a QB. Teams that succed don't overdraft a position of need. They go with what the draft has gave them.
Mahomes isn't that much less compared to first round graded QBs. There is a chance he can go to the first. Seeing that we still haven't hit the combine yet, but he is great value for a second round pick while also not costing us a ton if he fails.
Raiders were smart. What if the Raiders over drafted Carr and let Mack go else where. Would that team still be the same?
I disagree when it comes to Mahomes. I'm not impressed with his film at all to be honest. Id' rather have Kaya than Mahomes at this point. Further, none of those QB's in the 2014 draft were seen as as good as the QB's in this draft. Thats just a fact...so there was nothing for the Raiders to reach on. If it wasn't for an amazing combine performance Bortles would not have went as high as he did either.
Further I don't view Allen as good enough to pass up drafting one of the top QB's in this draft. If Allen were Mack you might have an argument...but he isn't.