Superman

I've been watching Jayden Daniels. Wow. I like him better than Drake Maye so far. He has a lot to clean up and his arm is only average, but he's a dynamic, standout performer. I feel like he's a lot of what people thought Bryce Young was, but only for real. Actually a quick, fast player who can run, good processing, etc. And even though his arm isn't super impressive, it's good enough, and he can drive the ball through zone coverage and into tight windows. I also got to watch Nabers and Thomas. Nabers is the real deal, he catches everything, his change of direction is incredible, physical at the catch point, great after the catch, etc. Full package. Thomas isn't as good of a route runner but he looks like he has some wiggle to him, he's a long strider who can get behind the defense, he's also really good at the catch point and has an impressive catch radius. I want to see his 3 cone time, but he might be a RAS star who ends up high on the Colts board.

I have questions about your timeline. I don't think he said he'd be ready by Week 1 'days before the leak.' What I found was an interview with him at the start of camp, a month before the Bears game. If you can find the link you referenced earlier, that would be awesome. I could quibble about him throwing in warmups, but the article acknowledges that he did this after he had decided to retire. I definitely agree that it wasn't a good look for him to throw during warmups, given the entirety of the situation. But I don't think there was anything nefarious about it. I don't think the team was trying to hide the reality of the situation to sell tickets, or anything like that. And I don't think Luck was trying to mislead anyone or toy with them. I think Luck somewhat selfishly just wanted to go through warmups with his teammates, one last time, and that's understandable. One could say that's a privilege to which he was no longer entitled, and that's fair, but bottom line, I don't think he was trying to mislead people. End of the day, I don't fault anyone for not liking how Luck handled things. We're all entitled to our opinions. I think your stance is overly harsh, but that doesn't really matter because your perspective doesn't require my agreement for it to be valid. I just see it differently. What does grind my gears is the alternative version of history that gets shuffled around.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider/story/_/id/35163936/andrew-luck-reveals-why-walked-away-nfl This article should be gospel on this topic. There are so many competing ideas and narratives, conspiracy theories about who know what, and when... It's all in this article. Luck finished the 2018 season, then played in the Pro Bowl, where he strained his ankle. Looking back, he says he wishes that he decided to retire right then, early in the 2019 offseason, but he didn't. During training camp, while continuing to rehab the ankle and being frustrated with the process, he started discussing retirement with his wife. He told Anthony Castonzo that he was thinking about it. He told his family and friends, including his uncle, who was his agent. His uncle told him to sleep on it. Two days later, Luck was certain that he'd retire. Ballard and Reich tried to get him to reconsider, but he wouldn't. Ballard and Luck's agent/uncle did the retirement paperwork. This is what happened over the next few days: The timeline is all there. Over the course of a couple weeks during training camp and preseason, Luck decided to retire, told the Colts, told his friends and family, etc. The Colts plan was to have him announce his retirement the day after the third preseason game. I don't know if there's a reason they decided to wait, but that amount of time passing + Luck telling a considerable amount of people led to the news leaking to the media. Also, Jacoby Brissett said that he knew Luck was retiring before the Bears game. So the idea that the team was unaware and surprised by the news that night is totally wrong. Schefter broke the news when he got it, which is his job. If anyone is to blame for the way the news broke, it's Luck and the Colts. But ultimately, that's such a small aspect of this story. I get fans who don't like how things were handled in those few days before the news came out, but it's Luck's decision, and his life. Holding such a deep seated grudge -- bordering on hatred for some -- seems misplaced, to me. All that said, what's clear from this article is that Luck did NOT decide to retire before the 2019 draft, nor did he tell the team he was retiring months before the news came out. He also didn't keep this from the team once he decided; the team knew his decision several days in advance. He struggled with his decision throughout the offseason, and made his decision to retire during training camp, at which point the team made arrangements to hold a press conference. Looking back, there are probably some things that all involved would have done differently, but at the end of the day, the team's star QB retired two weeks before the season started. No one hid it, no one lied about it, it caught everyone off guard, it sucked that it happened when it did and came out how it did, but oh well. Lastly, I haven't listened to what TY Hilton said, but based on the ESPN article, there's no way Luck was ever coming back to play.

Allen and McDermott acknowledged there was a problem. McDermott said he was very concerned about it. It's okay if different people view this differently. It can be up for interpretation, and what one person sees as diva-like, another person might find defensible. I'm just saying it's not all made up nonsense. There's something there, and Diggs is at least partly responsible for it.

The Niners seem to get their ball carriers open with space to run better than every other team. And I think his increased production this year is partly due to having a QB who's locked in. It's totally out of nowhere, but Brock Purdy is the best QB to run Shanahan's offense since MVP Matt Ryan. So between Shanahan's system and Purdy's efficiency, I think it's unlikely that there's really anything holding back Aiyuk's production. He's probably in the best situation he'll ever be in. I didn't realize he had outlier arm length, but that makes sense. He seems bigger than 6'0", IMO. Pairing him with MPJ would be interesting. But when I think about the ideal partner for MPJ, I think of a guy who can tilt the field with his speed. If all things were equal, I wouldn't mind swapping MPJ for Aiyuk, and reconfiguring the rest of the WR room around Aiyuk, but that seems unlikely for a lot of reasons.

This stuff about Diggs isn't made up, it's not rumors and false news. Maybe it's been overblown, maybe blame is being misplaced, I don't know. But it's not just a figment of anyone's imagination. Diggs has displayed some diva-like behavior. He was conspicuously absent from the Bills offseason program, and it wasn't contract related. Josh Allen and Sean McDermott both acknowledged that there was some kind of problem between Diggs and Allen, they were concerned about it, and it got squashed at some point before the 2023 season started. But then he started showing signs of being upset again. And to NCF's point about him being more concerned with his own production than the team's results, Diggs was more productive in the first half of the 2023 season, even though the Bills were losing games. Then they made some coaching changes on the offensive side, Diggs production went down, but they started winning more games and made the playoffs. This is what Diggs said last week: My read on that is 'I had to get used to not getting the ball as much.' Which is an interesting thing to say when the team was winning in the second half of the season. And then he buttons it up by casting doubt on either the team's future, or his future with the team, not sure. So if someone says Diggs has some diva to him, it's not made up. And if you want to take a 30 year old WR whose role is being adjusted on his team and will probably continue to diminish, and put him with a young QB who has a long way to go in the NFL, I think you should expect some discontent from him. https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/stefon-diggs-josh-allen-drama-buffalo-bills-minicamp/fd73bae3bf5c026ade699f31

I really like Aiyuk and have had my eye on him. I'm just not 100% sure he's a dynamic #1 WR. Really good production on a team with Deebo, CMC, Kittle... is he putting up 1,400 yards anywhere else though? He's not a burner, not super explosive as a player, really good route runner, great hands, tough, quick, but not a downfield guy. Again, I really like him, he'd easily be our best WR, a serious upgrade to our WR corps. I just wonder if we need a more dynamic player.

@ColtStrong2013 Yup. Here's another story, with Jeff Hafley talking about why he left BC as the HC to be the DC for the Packers. Pretty much says he wanted to coach football, not be a fundraiser for NIL money. I'm not even an anti NIL guy, but I get it. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/jeff-hafley-explains-why-nfl-coordinator-is-a-better-job-than-boston-college-head-coach

I don't think there's any substance to the rumor that AJ Brown wants to leave the Eagles. More importantly, his contract makes trading him extremely prohibitive. It's a $41m cap penalty in 2024 if they trade him before the draft. If they trade him after the draft, it's $10m in 2024, and $31m in 2025. I think they'd also want significantly more than one first round pick for him. All of this combined, I doubt AJ Brown is getting traded.

Yeah, I think if we want a bonafide #1 WR this year, the best way to get him is by trading. But Diggs isn't the guy I'd want.

I think some of us are seeing what we want to see in this hire... I don't think it says anything about draft prospects, nor do I see it as an indication of what the Colts might do with the DC position in the future. They probably just hired him because he's a really good DL coach. But I'll definitely give you your props if your theory plays out. I don't have any inside info, but I read a story recently that included a quote from a college coach, and he said a lot of college coaches and personnel are trying to get on with an NFL team right now. I think his exact quote was 'everyone is trying to get to the league.' I think with the changing landscape of college football, some talented coaches see the NFL as a better environment for them right now. And that thought has been pretty prominent in my mind lately, especially as the Colts have hired some college coaches. There's probably a variety of factors, but this theory makes sense to me. Here's an article from Joel Klatt giving his thoughts on the dynamic: https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/joel-klatt-why-so-many-prominent-college-coaches-are-leaving-for-the-nfl

100%. Steichen's pressers drive me crazy because he just won't play the game. His guard is up every step of the way, he avoids traps, dismisses questions with boilerplate responses, etc. It's almost a waste of time. Yet, it's impressive. His level of focus and discipline in this area is something that most coaches either lack or don't properly value, IMO. His ability to never break, never get flustered, is admirable, even if the result is a completely sanitized press conference experience that gives the fans zero insight. I'd prefer that he be more engaging and informative, but I also appreciate the gamesmanship and strict approach. It's hard to be misquoted if you say virtually nothing quotable, and it's hard to twist your words if every other answer is some version of 'we'll work through that internally,' or 'I'm not gonna get into the details on that.'

I agree, I think it's a good question and I'd love to get some clarity on how the responsibilities will be shared. But in general, it seems like another person working on gameplans, specific to the passing attack.

I agree that adding a passing game coordinator can be a good thing. It seems like most teams have added that position to the staff lately, and hope it pays off for the Colts.

To your first point, I personally think the general consensus around the GM getting players that the coach loved is a little overblown. I think sometimes we take a one-off comment and turn it into absolute gospel, when there's actually a lot of context and nuance that's missing. Reich may have loved Granson, but that doesn't mean that everyone didn't love Granson. And maybe Reich thought he was a top 50 guy, while the scouts and Ballard felt he'd be available for longer. Just a hypothetical to illustrate why I think this narrative can become exaggerated. I think the point about QBs is clear and obvious. Including Steichen having a major influence over the Richardson pick. And I think the Colts' front office is very collaborative, so I'm not questioning that the HC has an important voice. Just saying I don't think we really know to what extent his voice is influencing roster decisions. But another point that I want to push back on is the bolded. I mentioned this recently as well. What indication do we have that Steichen has a sharper eye for talent than any who was here before him, or anyone else in the building? And lastly, just to clarify my earlier point about the HC influencing the scouting process... The process is very involved, the scouts report to the GM and other front office execs, and that process is mostly independent of the coaching staff. When I talk about a new voice in the front office, I'm thinking about the potential for adjustments to the scouting and player evaluation process that is mostly handled by the front office. To my mind, that process would not be directly influenced by the HC. But if we hired a new director of college scouting, there would be a more direct impact. Again, just theorizing, and at this point, it seems irrelevant because Ed Dodds isn't going anywhere right now.

This is true, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this offseason goes. But I don't think the HC is going to make a big imprint on front office specific stuff, like the scouting process, player evaluations, etc.

Just went back to 2018, on a whim. Here's every QB drafted in the first round who is still with his first team as of today, and how many HCs he's had, as of 2024. 2018: Josh Allen (1) Lamar Jackson (1) 2019: Kyler Murray (2) Daniel Jones (3) 2020: Joe Burrow (1) Tua Tagovailoa (2) Justin Herbert (3) Jordan Love (1) 2021: Trevor Lawrence (2) Zach Wilson (1) Justin Fields (2) 2022: Kenny Pickett (1) So that's 50%, and doesn't include guys like Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Dwayne Haskins (RIP), whose original teams have changed HCs since they were drafted. Also not listing 2023 because it's so early, but that's already 1 out of 3... Just illustrating that the coaching carousel is just as crazy as the QB carousel. Teams don't seem to have any idea what they're doing...

I mentioned this in the above post, but I hope the Bears decided to keep Eberflus without expecting an amazing season in 2024. The idea that they win 10 games and fire him is kind of crazy to me. I guess we'll see... But in general, if you're a highly drafted QB, it's a strong likelihood that you're going to outlast your first HC. It sucks, but that's how it's been going over the last few years. In the last three seasons, there have been 23 new HCs. That's insane to think about. In 2022, ten new HCs; last year, just five; this year, eight new HCs (and I could make a case for 2-3 more being on the brink; how is Dennis Allen still on with the Saints??) There are only eight HCs who have been on their current job for more than five years. The other 75% of NFL head coaches were hired in 2020 or later. So if you get drafted in the first round, and the team picks up your fifth year option, you're probably lasting longer than your first HC. And let's not get started on coordinator changes... So if you're a QB getting drafted at #1, does it really matter if the HC is on the hot seat right now? He's probably going to be on the hot seat at some point in the next 2-3 years anyway, it's just the nature of the business. Like you said, I don't think anyone expected the Reich/Young pairing to get blown up so quickly. You just never know. And it might seem counterintuitive, especially because I'm not necessarily an Eberflus fan, but if the Bears are going to draft a QB in 2024, they need to commit to their present coaching staff for at least a couple seasons, bottom line. They've made significant changes to their offensive coaching staff, and hopefully they're fostering an environment in which a young QB can thrive.

If I were the Bears, this would be a mini reset for the coaching staff, with at least a two year window. If they weren't planning for Eberflus to stay for a minute, then they should have fired him and started from scratch. But they replaced the OC and are in the process of hiring several new offensive assistants, so they should be looking at it as if they have a little bit of time with whoever they draft this year. And even though I'm not a huge Eberflus fan, they won seven games this year, with Fields missing four games and some other glaring holes on their roster.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's too intricate to be possible. I'm saying it's too intricate -- and too grand in scope -- to be covered up for very long. And that's probably an area in which we hold opposing viewpoints. You seem to see the exposure of a previous scandal not only as evidence that scandals can happen, but as evidence that they MUST be happening all the time. My position is that when the scope is grand and the stakes are high, the scandal will be exposed. And what people are suggesting about the NFL would certainly qualify as grand scope and high stakes.

I follow a lot of what you're saying, but what could any front office exec do to stand out in the eyes of general fans? Just accepting your premise that 12 out of 1,000 are actually unique in some way, how would you or I be able to identify any of those 12? Even as people who follow and discuss the Colts, none of us really knows anything about Dodds or Brown, or their daily responsibilities. So it seems strange to judge the quality of their candidacy, either way. As for my "new blood" theory, it's not necessarily that we'd hire someone who excels in some way and immediately upgrades the quality of the front office. It's just that I believe adding a new voice to a room of decision makers can lead to new conversations, it sparks new questions, it can lead to reconsideration of previously established practices, etc. And I think that's important from time to time.

Yup, agreed all around. Just being overly technical, which I do sometimes. As for Rodgers, I think he'll be back in 2024. The league had a standard at the time, it was a one year suspension. That's a pretty steep penalty, for any transgression. Now it's two years, but I don't think they'll retroactively apply the harsher penalty, and I don't think that would hold up legally. As for the bet on JT, was there any indication of the game on which this bet was placed? I might have missed it, but I don't think so. If it was the Raiders game, that's inside information exemplified. New coach in the building, stresses that the offense is gonna get back to basics and feed the RB, JT is looking good at practice all week, the OL looks like they're all in sync for the first time in a while, etc... And then you tell your friend to drop $1,000 on the over for rushing yards... It's obvious how problematic that is, and how much it undermines legitimate gambling.

Yeah, I think 'not out of the realm of possibility' is a fairly innocuous and noncommittal statement to make, and I don't think most people would take objection to it. The major pushback is to people who swear up and down that pro sports are scripted and rigged, and then call everyone who disagrees a blind sheep. Personally, I think the magnitude of the scandal makes it unlikely. I don't disagree with the idea that public information is often unreliable, but when you start talking about thousands of people and literally hundreds of billions of dollars at risk, among dozens of businesses and multiple industries... At some point, someone has to lose something, on a major scale. And then the whole thing crumbles, the curtain gets pulled back, and everything gets exposed. We've seen major scandals in business and government, this is how it goes. I don't think the NFL or any major sports league would be immune.

I agree with your interpretation, and that's the way I read it as well. But I don't know if the writer's use of words should be taken 100% literal in that case. I think more precise wording would be helpful in this case. If it said 'he bet on the over,' that would require no interpretation at all.

Just trying to establish the principle, even with an absurd example. The principle is that the truth doesn't always lie in the middle. We can usually recognize what's true and what's not, and even if we're not sure, we don't give equal credence to opposing theories if one of those theories has no basis in reality. That's the case even if we don't necessarily trust any of the sources of information. So if one person says NFL games are fairly played, and another person says the outcome is decided by a flying, golden egg laying elephant, we don't put the elephant theory on the spectrum at all, not without convincing evidence. My point is that being open minded and neutral is not the same thing as accepting an unlikely and unproven theory as a legitimate possibility. Generally speaking, a person would not accept such a theory unless they were presented with evidence, and that evidence needs to be convincing. The more far-fetched the theory, the more convincing the evidence must be. And then the evidence gets scrutinized, based on a variety of factors, to see if it actually proves anything. The idea that NFL games are purposely altered is not as unlikely and far-fetched as the elephant theory. But it does call into question a lot of baseline understanding that we have about the NFL. And while it's technically possible, it would still be an incredible scandal, involving thousands of people, affecting a multi billion dollar business that co-exists with multi-multi billion dollar industries. It seems reasonable to expect that a scandal of that magnitude would be exposed eventually. There should be some sort of compelling evidence. And then that evidence should be able to withstand some scrutiny. Instead, when people ask for evidence, eventually the response comes around to some version of 'Really, you trust the NFL? How naive!'