Thought this was interesting, so I took a photo of the TV: It's pretty fascinating, considering the company we are keeping. The turnover in SF is as if one their team busses drove off the bridge; I've never seen a team have such a crappy offseason. On the other hand, Chip Kelly has chosen to get rid of a ton of players on his own accord. The main difference is that the Eagles let go some really good players: LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson, Evan Mathis, and Nick Foles were all better than anyone we lost this offseason. I mean, everyone we got rid of deserved it, except perhaps Charles Clay and Jared Odrick, but we arguably upgraded those positions anyway. Most of the chaff was Ireland's 2013 boon. (That alone makes me think our bad luck year was 2013 and our good luck year is 2017.) I'd say we improve the most out of the three teams, easily.
Kinda weird that we retained almost the entire coaching staff despite all that turnover...and after bringing in a new shot caller in the front office.
also the 5th youngest team in the league.. we needed the turnover, id like to see if anyone could justify keeping any of the players that got shipped out? I think Hickey is doing a good job thus far.
Unless it's really obvious that an assistant coach needs to be replaced (like Sherman), you gotta let the HC decide who he wants to delegate authority to.
Eh...nothing to see here aside from getting younger. You lose two of your starting WRs and your TE and bring in a 1st round rookie WR and a few other role-players as well as a replacement TE that was hurt for over 1/3rd of 2014 and it'll look that way. We're also relying on young, unproven LBs, DBs and Gs. At some point you're going to have to admit there's risk involved here. Every one of us knows that but after all, that's the cost of getting better. That said...I doubt any of the new guys are worse than who was in their place last year. The Dolphins were 8-8 last year so it's not like they didn't need a bunch more talent than they had. The team sucked in a lot of places. On that note, I don't see why fans are so anxious to make their team's players sound so much better than we know they are. If the team is really going to get into the Play-offs, win those game and possibly contend for a Super Bowl, quite a bit of that 8-8 talent we've seen over the last couple of years is going to have to go in favor of younger players who are either better or fit what the coaches want to see.
I think there was greater risk in staying the course, which we know is (as you say) 8-8. Also, Suh doesn't fit your narrative. Key question is did we get better in the offseason, and I think the answer is yes.
the NATURAL receiving talent of this group compared to last years isn't even close.. The d-tacle position isn't even close. the running back position has been upgraded in talent..
I agree.. i think the corner group will be better as well, jimmy wilson was not good..mike thomas healthy, jammer healthy, brice mccain, bowman, they are a better group.
I know it's just OTAs, no pads, no hitting, etc, but there was a LOT of talk from the media in attendance of how sharp RT was. I don't recall that in previous seasons. He's a year experienced in this offense, knows the language, in a better position to lead, and should be MUCH more comfortable with the sight lines compared to last year at this point where EVERY thing about it was an adjustment.
Suh fits the narrative perfectly because in order to make room for his snaps, the team got rid of Odrick and Starks. In fact, you lost 2 players and replaced them with 1 (who probably had the most snaps of the 3 I'm guessing) and another who was a 2nd round rookie (no snaps). I don't think there's any risk in staying where you're at because you know exactly what you are. It's all in how you define "risk" I guess. Miami has been an 8-8 team for 2 seasons and so they needed to make moves (which all have inherent risk attached) in order to even attempt getting better. I applaud them for that as I'm sure you do too. To me, risk is a variable present in all moves. It's akin to sitting at a Texas Hold'em table. Every hand costs you something. The moment you don't buy in, you're not involved anymore. "Risk" is therefore not an evil term for me because it's the price of doing business. You make a move, you take risk. The only way to avoid risk altogether is to be static, which after two 8-8 seasons indicates the team would probably be 8-8 again, lol. I guess I use the words "risk" and "opportunity" to mean the same thing. That's just my technical background. It's all just describing the enlargement of a parameter space really.
Let's get one thing straight first: the goal is to win a Super Bowl. So the "risk" of staying the course is that we're likely to stay around 8-8 (i.e risk of failure). The offseason moves we've made I think change that calculus. And Suh doesn't fit the narrative of "nothing to see here aside from getting younger". Suh is a disruptive force like we've never had on defense (possibly ever but certainly in recent times). You can't just dismiss that like some other moves we've made, which have potential but haven't yet proven it on the field.
Very happy with the turnover. San Francisco on the other hand... You never know. I saw the '94 squad and it never had time to gel. Philbin is a great organizer. So he might be able to orchestrate some chemistry early. Did I just type that?
