You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

i'm not sure we cut Whitner either. He only makes about $3M a year anyways.

Whitner will be costing 4.83 mil against our cap... 3.75 mil of that as base salary. ( just FYI )

I didn't know that either. That, plus what it will take for Golson is a lot of money to tie up in the S position. I hope we can manage it for a year and bring in somebody good to groom this year and then take over for one of them next year.

It seems to be growing into a trend for me, I admit... but do you have zero faith in Spillman or Trent Robinson? Not on the attack here whatsoever.... and I know you stated a day or so ago that we just haven't seen enough of the backups to really say. Me? I tend to be a bit glass-half-full with many backups after being "in the system" for a year or more.

So I guess what I'm asking is... do you think Robinson +/or Spillman can fill a starting S role as adequately as... say, a 2nd or 3rd rd rookie S?

I think you understand our difference on the backups pretty well. It's the same as last year's discussion about our backups in the d-line. When guys weren't ever highly regarded in the past, and have done little or nothing to change that opinion, then I consider our depth at that spot to be questionable. I don't want to count on "unknowns", I want guys who I know are at least capable. Sure in this day and age you can't load up a team like Eddie used to where backups wouldbe starters anywhere else.

On safeties specifically ... I think we've seen a little Spillman and what I think I've seen leaves me thinking his role is on special teams and emergency fill-in in the defensive alignment. I really liked Robinson coming out - for the spot at which he was drafted. I didn't see him as a sure-fire starter, just thought that he had a lot of potential and might develop into that. Nothing has changed for me. If I knew that one of our starters was gone I'd be glad we had him, but I'd prefer to have a guy that had even more potential, and especially a higher likelihood of being ready to step in now. But there's one more way to think about it. If one of our starters goes, we need to replace him. That new guy then creates competition with Spillman and Robinson. Someone will start and someone will backup. I couldn't care less who has which role. But if the new guy happens to be a high round pick (= generally considered better at this point in time) then that increases our odds that one of the three will trun out to be really good. Heck, really good might still be a step back since Goldson and Whitner are both pro bowlers.

Of course in the end you and I don't see what the coaches see. Maybe a guy has developed nicely, maybe he's disappointed. You tend to take the optimistic view, I tend to take the "show me" view. But the staff knows. So in the end they'll tell us what they think of Spillman and Robinson._________________

In your view... is an "unproven" 1 or 2 yr backup any more or less credible/questionable.... any more or less "questionable".. than a 2nd or 3rd rd rookie?

I hate to muddy the waters by saying "it depends", but it depends. Not sure if that's all the answer that you wanted, or if you really wanted an explanation of my thinking on this issue. If so, then read on. I know you don't agree, but does it at least make sense?

Drafting to me is all about probabilities. You and I have discussed this before when talking about how you can't successfully rank guys in the draft from best to worst. And I think we're in agreement that guys ranked "about the same" have about the same probability of success (so take a guy at a position of need). To me the round a guy is taken in represents the collective judgement of the world's foremost football talent evaluators of a guy's probability of success in the NFL. Sure there are first round flops and 7th round success stories. But that just confirms it's about probabilites, not certainty. But there are more first round successes than second rounders; more second round successes than third rounders; etc. By the time you get to the bottom of the draft or UDFAs, successes are few and far between. I'll gladly predict a guy taken in a higher round will be more successful than a guy taken at the same position in a lower round. Of course I'll be wrong some of the time, but Ill be right more often than not.

At some point a guy begins to build up a body of work at the NFL level and we have new information to change those original evaluations of NFL talent scouts. But when a guy doesn't play, or hardly plays, we have precious little new information to change those original estimates. We know the guy made the roster. That's new and meaningful information. It means he's likely to be better than a whole bunch of guys that don't make a roster. Even that of course is not a certainty. But just making a roster is not nearly enough, for me that is, to decide that kind of guy now has a better chance at success than a current year second rounder. The latter is a deemed highly likely to succeed by those who know the most about it. And the returning guy whom we haven't seen play hasn't changed his probability of success by very much. Some, by virtue of proving he's good enough to make a roster. But for me least that doesn't move him into the "highly likely to succeed" category.

Our coaches of course don't have the uncertainty we do. They see these guys practice and know how they're progressing. But since I don't, I'm going to look at positions where our backups are unproven, and were not highly regarded coming out, and suggest we strengthen that position. Could be by using a relatively high pick to get a guy who is thought to have high potential, or maybe just a lower pick to add another body with the idea that the more bodies we have competing at a position the higher our probability that one of those guys will prove to be better than originally estimated._________________

Everything you said makes sense. One thing that crossed my mind while reading though... and this maybe just puts even a mild dent in your success probability % by round... is that the higher drafted you are? The more an organization is likely to "force" you out on the field to prove yourself. At least, in a more timely manner than some poor late rd player that never gets the same opportunities._________________

Everything you said makes sense. One thing that crossed my mind while reading though... and this maybe just puts even a mild dent in your success probability % by round... is that the higher drafted you are? The more an organization is likely to "force" you out on the field to prove yourself. At least, in a more timely manner than some poor late rd player that never gets the same opportunities.

Sure. The probabilities would change a bit if coaches didn't give early preference to the higher drafted guys. If they draft a first rounder and a 6th rounder at the same position, the 6th rounder is probably going to have to be clearly better than the first rounder to beat him out. It's even worse because his progress will be retarded because early on he won't get as many reps as the first rounder. But over a period of a season or two, maybe more depending on circumstances that kind of stuff will even out. In the end though those extra early chances will certainly change the "success ratios" a bit. I think if a guy drafted in a lower round is good enough he's likely to have a successful career even if it starts off slower than a guy picked much higher._________________