I think I have figured out the perfect FA and draft plan for the defense

[Buckweath]

Here it goes.

FA

You sign a top notch FA safety (Thomas, Collins or Amos) for multiple years and a good DT (McCoy, Richardson, Suh, etc.) for a one-year or two-year contract. You can also sign other players on offense and defense on cheap deals.


Draft

1st round: CB

2nd round: ILB and C/G

3rd round: CB


You restructure Houston. You tag Ford. You trade a 2020 2nd round pick for Patrick Peterson or a lower pick for a decent veteran player who has a year or two left on his contract. I guess you could sign instead a FA CB on a one-year deal.

You end up with:

Houston-Nnadi-Jones-Ford

O'Daniel-Hitchens-2nd round LB

Peterson-Collins-Berri-1st round CB (Fuller in the slot)



You have Speaks and Kpassagnon as backup at DE. You have your FA DT rotating with Nnadi/Jones.

With the Hithens contract, I just don't think you can afford paying big dollars to a FA LB. Plus, recent drafts have showed that you can have a good LB late 2nd round/early 3rd round (Anzalone, Carter, Warner, Cunningham, etc.) and those guys are good early.

The linebackers would be the weakest group but I think they can be decent, especially if Hitchens goes back to his Cowboys' form.

The secondary would be a strong group. Even if Berri doesn't play, you have Watts or Murray (I know he is poor) who can play there. You have Ward and a 3rd round pick as backup CBs. I guess that 3rd round pick could be a safety but I would rather get a CB. If Berri doesn't play, Veach needs to find a scrap heap safety like Dorsey did so well.

I think it would be a defense set up for the next two years where you can draft a 1st round DE in 2020 to replace Houston/Ford or something like that.

Fire away! SB here we come.

What do you think?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Buckweath

If you can read between the lines, that's absolutely what he said.

There's no reading between the lines. He said it ON THE RADIO. And there was zero inflection in his voice - it was 100% GM-speak.

[Buckweath]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

then I want to play poker with you.

it's not about changing what the other GM thinks of Ford, but convincing him that you value him enough to not give him away for peanuts.

Let's play poker then!

Praising a player's level of play doesn't help drive his value up at all.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by Buckweath

Let's play poker then!

Praising a player's level of play doesn't help drive his value up at all.

Probably makes it a little higher than saying we are not sure if we are going to keep him or not.

[bricks]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

question-
Those of you that think Hitchens is not a MLB and should play WLB, but think he's not great in coverage-
Do you have any idea what the responsibilities are for either position in a 4-3? I don't think you do. You should take like...5 minutes and google '4-3 defense' and read up a little on what the skillsets for each position typically are.

Hitchens original position was weakside linebacker in Dallas. That is part of the reason why I stated he should play there.

He is not good in coverage, thats proven nor does he have the IQ to excel at MLB. The only thing I could really think of as to why he should play on the weakside is on running downs. I just feel he has the speed, size and athleticism to chase down the RB from side to side in order to perform that role.

And I stated that he and DOD should substitute where DOD could be a good compliment for Hitchens in that he has the skill set to be responsible in coverage for either the RB or slot receiver that lines up on the weakside and that could compensate or make up for Hitchens weakness. But DOD is too small and imo would get galloped by athletic, mauling OL. Thats where I think both Hitchens size, speed and athleticism has value and could compensate for DODs weakness in that regard.

[bricks]

I also think Hitchens could be used in blitz packages. He has the explosiveness imo but needs to time his blitzes better. I do see potential in that area though.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Buckweath

Let's play poker then!

Praising a player's level of play doesn't help drive his value up at all.

If you were an NFL GM...and were interested in Ford, do you think the conversation about compensation starts lower or higher if Veach has publicly said that the Chiefs are iffy on him as he's suspect in every aspect of the game save pass rush?

Don't double down, dude. You said something dumb without thinking it through. But if you DO double down, let me in that poker game witcho-dumb-ass.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by bricks

Hitchens original position was weakside linebacker in Dallas. That is part of the reason why I stated he should play there.

He is not good in coverage, thats proven nor does he have the IQ to excel at MLB. The only thing I could really think of as to why he should play on the weakside is on running downs. I just feel he has the speed, size and athleticism to chase down the RB from side to side in order to perform that role.

And I stated that he and DOD should substitute where DOD could be a good compliment for Hitchens in that he has the skill set to be responsible in coverage for either the RB or slot receiver that lines up on the weakside and that could compensate or make up for Hitchens weakness. But DOD is too small and imo would get galloped by athletic, mauling OL. Thats where I think both Hitchens size, speed and athleticism has value and could compensate for DODs weakness in that regard.

in a 4-3 under your Will won't see that many mauling OL with a free shot at him. They'll be occupied with your RDE and Jones. It's exactly where you can play an undersized but fast coverbacker.

Hitchens ain't really a coverbacker. You don't want him covering RB's one on one in the flat. He's a 4-3 MLB. He's a smidge small i think for a SAM but is pretty physical so you COULD put him there.

I don't think it's fair to say the guy lacks IQ after one season in Sutton's scheme.
How dumb can he be, really, if Dallas used him in all three spots and he played well? I mean, he had to learn all the LB's responsibilities in all playcalls.

[bricks]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

in a 4-3 under your Will won't see that many mauling OL with a free shot at him. They'll be occupied with your RDE and Jones. It's exactly where you can play an undersized but fast coverbacker.

Hitchens ain't really a coverbacker. You don't want him covering RB's one on one in the flat. He's a 4-3 MLB. He's a smidge small i think for a SAM but is pretty physical so you COULD put him there.

I don't think it's fair to say the guy lacks IQ after one season in Sutton's scheme.
How dumb can he be, really, if Dallas used him in all three spots and he played well? I mean, he had to learn all the LB's responsibilities in all playcalls.

Thats not always the case though. It all depends on the offensive play call that the opposing offense is calling There are some situations or scenarios where offenses run tosses, sweeps, screens etc and if they’re athletic freaks will pull away from guys like Jones or whomever the RDE will be.

And if DOD is the next guy in line that they have to block, he will get destroyed. Yeah I agree that Hitchens is physical and perhaps that could make up for shedding off blockers in these open field?

In all fairness though, yeah I see your point in that he never really had a steady position at LB and always had to learn different positions there.

[rtmike]

Don’t know if it’s been said.

But if Veach saying Fords not going anywhere, Patrick Peterson apologizing for his trade request means he’s staying in the desert, right?

[MahomesMagic]

I think I want to use one of our 2nd's on Jeffery Simmons.

Top of the draft talent that tore his ACL. Essentially we are trading a late 2 for a top 5 player. The point is to win as many Superbowls as possible.

Imagine Jones and Simmons together.

[pugsnotdrugs19]

I saw it mentioned by someone in a thread recently but I really want players drafted who love football. Guys like Mahomes who probably lose sleep over every loss. And I know talent matters a ton, but if two players are close in talent but one guy cares about his craft a lot more, that’s the player I want. Even if he isn’t quite as good physically.

Fortunately, Veach has always said that they like to target guys who love the game. I expect that will continue as it creates a level of accountability within the locker room.

[Chris Meck]

We're just gonna argue in circles; neither has any inside knowledge.

I'm quite certain that Hitch is your MLB. DoD is your Will. Sam is up in the air. You think otherwise.

As of right now; with FA and the draft to go. We'll see how it plays out.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Buckweath

Let's play poker then!

Praising a player's level of play doesn't help drive his value up at all.

Dude, it's literally bluffing to sweeten the bet. For ****'s sake, man. I really don't understand how you're not getting this. But I DO know, that if you've got a poker game going, I want in.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19

I saw it mentioned by someone in a thread recently but I really want players drafted who love football. Guys like Mahomes who probably lose sleep over every loss. And I know talent matters a ton, but if two players are close in talent but one guy cares about his craft a lot more, that’s the player I want. Even if he isn’t quite as good physically.

Fortunately, Veach has always said that they like to target guys who love the game. I expect that will continue as it creates a level of accountability within the locker room.

It's kind of like in my line of work: There are musicians; for whom the work is the point and then there are people who want to be STARS, for whom fame and riches are the goal.

Musicians would gladly take the money and the glory; but they're going to play music whether anyone cares or not. Whatever it takes. just to keep playing.

The wannabe STARS usually fall away and go do something else when the going gets tough; and the going ALWAYS gets tough.

Give me a band full of musicians anyday.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Dude, it's literally bluffing to sweeten the bet. For ****'s sake, man. I really don't understand how you're not getting this. But I DO know, that if you've got a poker game going, I want in.