Quote:Jared Odrick
This is the guy that I'm dying to see. He had a huge drop-off last year from the prior 2 year stats. Not only am I interested to see if he still has some left in the tank but also to see if our defensive system can really turn players around from a potentially bad system or bad environment elsewhere. It would be a huge plus if we turn out to be one of those teams that can take an average player and make him good. It really didn't work with Ziggy Hood but I have some hope for Odrick since he has shown in the past that he had the capabilities. Ziggy never showed anything anywhere.
Quote:This is the guy that I'm dying to see. He had a huge drop-off last year from the prior 2 year stats. Not only am I interested to see if he still has some left in the tank but also to see if our defensive system can really turn players around from a potentially bad system or bad environment elsewhere. It would be a huge plus if we turn out to be one of those teams that can take an average player and make him good. It really didn't work with Ziggy Hood but I have some hope for Odrick since he has shown in the past that he had the capabilities. Ziggy never showed anything anywhere.
Considering our draft position and the possibility that Leonard Williams would still be on the board at three, that certainly bears watching if the team does not draft Williams because of Odrick.
Quote:Well, if you consider that a 3-13 team would have numerous holes to fill, are more new starters necessarily a bad thing?
There are legitimate holes minimally at RB, and FS, a potential hole at DT where Marks is because of his rehab from an ACL.
Considering Clemons is 34, I'm not sure if we can count on him generating another 9 sacks this year. That could be considered a hole.
Gratz could also be considered a liability from last year.
Shorts?
I guess my question to you and FBT would be how many new starters would be too many, in your eyes?
I don't have a number in mind to be quite honest. My expectation is that we're going to see a lot of competition at a lot of positions this year, and many of those spots are going to put young incumbents up against either free agents we went out and signed, or another young guy we drafted. If that means we're going to see 5-7 or more new starters, so be it. It's ultimately about getting better. How that takes shape is irrelevant to me.
Quote:This is the guy that I'm dying to see. He had a huge drop-off last year from the prior 2 year stats. Not only am I interested to see if he still has some left in the tank but also to see if our defensive system can really turn players around from a potentially bad system or bad environment elsewhere. It would be a huge plus if we turn out to be one of those teams that can take an average player and make him good. It really didn't work with Ziggy Hood but I have some hope for Odrick since he has shown in the past that he had the capabilities. Ziggy never showed anything anywhere.
As Bullseye pointed out above, if the team drafts Williams, the defensive line which was already solid will become a strength. I'm looking forward to seeing Odrick in our scheme. The defense is going to be stout with or without Williams, but adding a guy like that to the mix should elevate it to the next level.
Quote:I think in most cases it will be due to a significant upgrade. Several of last year's opening day starters are no longer with the team, so those positions will have new starters by definition. Other positions were upgraded in FA - you certainly hope most of the new UFA signings will earn starting jobs in training camp. That's also a good thing, if we can upgrade a weak position like FS or RT, or fill the OTTO position with a solid starter in Skuta. Then there are draft choices who may be ready to contribute right away - slot WR, RB, LEO, PR, KR?
I agree with this, but the premise in bold begs the question I hit at earlier.
If fewer than expected of the acquisitions become starters, does that render the class a disappointment because they didn't upgrade holes?
Quote:We could have 22 new starters. The number doesnt ask or answer the question. The number, in my opinion, doesnt even bode the question. It's whether that new starter is going to improve that spot overall. Is this guy an upgrade?
Good point.
I believe offensively:
RT Parnell
WR Robinson
TE Thomas
RB Denard
Will all be improvements over last year's opening day starters. QB, FB (Gerhart), LT, LG, C, RG, WR2/3 should all be improved over what we had going into the year last year. Obviously some players will regress (looking at you LT/LG starters) and some will get injured. At this point, every position on offense should and can be better!
Defensively:
DE: Odrick
Nickel: Colvin
I think there may be regression at the outside corner position with McCray and House taking over but overall the corner position should be better if Colvin slides to nickel and Gratz is the backup man. DT is a tricky spot to project for 2015 because of the offseason surgeries to Miller and Marks. They may be back for the early part of the season but I doubt they'll be in full form until the end of the season. LB/LEO may get a boost in the draft but right now its a push or weaker than it was last year even with a healthy POZ. Safety is a position I have very little confidence in. Not many FS available in the draft, Sergio is just a guy/ST player, and Cyp leaves much to be desired IMO.
The offense has been SO awful the last several years, I think any moderate improvement will REALLY help the defense. Even though the defense might not get much of an injection of talent, playing with each other and adding speed via the draft and experience via veterans should help. If the redzone D stays where it was last year this should be a good unit. 3rd down defense may improve purely based on how teams must adjust to field position and the threat of the offense.
TLDR: Offense should be A LOT better talent, experience, and cohesively. Defense may not be as talented except for a few positions but should play better with another year of experience with each other and with better field position.
Quote:I agree with this, but the premise in bold begs the question I hit at earlier.
If fewer than expected of the acquisitions become starters, does that render the class a disappointment because they didn't upgrade holes?
If the player they were expected to replace has shown enough improvement to warrant remaining in his position, how is that a bad thing?
I don't see that scenario as a disappointment. I see it as validation that they are building the roster the right way and we're starting to see the benefits.
Quote:Yes.
This should be the last year of widescale roster turnover.
If we are going through this again next year, something went very wrong in 2015.
That's a good way to look at it.
As far as numbers of changes this season, I'm not concerned with them being high/low or what that may imply (or what one may infer from it), what I'd rather see is improvement whether there is/is not change at any starting position.
Whoever we're rolling with as starters, we've got to see it working and continuing in a positive direction. And, IMO... more than just steps forward, add in a leap or two.
Quote:That's a good way to look at it.
As far as numbers of changes this season, I'm not concerned with them being high/low or what that may imply (or what one may infer from it), what I'd rather see is improvement whether there is/is not change at any starting position.
Whoever we're rolling with as starters, we've got to see it working and continuing in a positive direction. And, IMO... more than just steps forward, add in a leap or two.
I think its equally important to balance changing starters from opening day to opening day AND having those starters play 16+ games.
Quote:As Bullseye pointed out above, if the team drafts Williams, the defensive line which was already solid will become a strength. I'm looking forward to seeing Odrick in our scheme. The defense is going to be stout with or without Williams, but adding a guy like that to the mix should elevate it to the next level.
Maybe this is the pessimist in me, but I'm not too sure about this.
Though we finally showed the ability to get after the passer last year, this defense was anything but stout.
We ranked low in run defense and gave up passing yards in bunches.
Now much of those failings had to do with being left on the field way too long due to an offense that couldn't move the ball.
But many of them were just plain talent deficiencies.
We still have to draft very well this year to have a "stout" defense, IMO.
Quote:Maybe this is the pessimist in me, but I'm not too sure about this.
Though we finally showed the ability to get after the passer last year, this defense was anything but stout.
We ranked low in run defense and gave up passing yards in bunches.
Now much of those failings had to do with being left on the field way too long due to an offense that couldn't move the ball.
But many of them were just plain talent deficiencies.
We still have to draft very well this year to have a "stout" defense, IMO.
Defense finished the season better than they started it.
It will be interesting if they can be more consistent, and start at a higher level than they did last season.
I believe they can. There seemed to be confusion at the start, and guys really "getting" the system by the end of the year.
Quote:If the player they were expected to replace has shown enough improvement to warrant remaining in his position, how is that a bad thing?
I don't see that scenario as a disappointment. I see it as validation that they are building the roster the right way and we're starting to see the benefits.
Point taken.
It also exposes the tacit premise that the signing/acquisition is necessarily an upgrade.
Of course, if the team spent millions on these guys and they don't start...that's gotta hurt some.
I mean what would be the feeling if Thomas somehow can't beat out Marcedes Lewis? I would guess disappointment would be an understatement on this board.
Quote:Defense finished the season better than they started it.
It will be interesting if they can be more consistent, and start at a higher level than they did last season.
I believe they can. There seemed to be confusion at the start, and guys really "getting" the system by the end of the year.
Initially, I was inclined to think that by virtue of the schedule alone, we should see improvement from last year.
But I think about the NFC South QBs we will likely face-Ryan, Brees, Newton and Winston-they may pose some challenges.
But there are vulnerabilities in those offenses.
All of those teams have questionable O-Lines.
Brees is also dealing with new receivers.
Ryan and Winston have questions at RB.
I also think that improvement in our offense will lead to defensive improvement. With longer drives and fewer three and outs, the defense will be on the field less. With more scoring comes playing with more leads, leading to more predictable down and distance situations.
But we could use more talent on that side of the ball.
I could understand adding two DL in this draft (a big DT and a LEO).
I could understand adding a LB and a S too.
Quote:Point taken.
It also exposes the tacit premise that the signing/acquisition is necessarily an upgrade.
Of course, if the team spent millions on these guys and they don't start...that's gotta hurt some.
I mean what would be the feeling if Thomas somehow can't beat out Marcedes Lewis? I would guess disappointment would be an understatement on this board.
I don't know if it exposes anything about the signings/acquisitions. I still would think the roster improves, if for no other reason, because you've got better depth.
To be honest, I don't see an instance where the bigger ticket free agents we've signed aren't starting on opening day barring injury. Not because we paid so much, but because the hope is that these guys do represent upgrades to the starting lineup. If they're not starting, and it's not because of their poor play, I see that as a good thing for this team.
Quote:Point taken.
It also exposes the tacit premise that the signing/acquisition is necessarily an upgrade.
Of course, if the team spent millions on these guys and they don't start...that's gotta hurt some.
I mean what would be the feeling if Thomas somehow can't beat out Marcedes Lewis? I would guess disappointment would be an understatement on this board.
I think your being a bit too pessimistic. First off, if Julius Thomas cant beat out Lewis this year as the number 1? Yikes, we are in trouble. Secondly, baring a trade, both players will be starters anyway. As we will run a lot of two TE sets.
Parnell is going to start. Thomas is going to start. Odrick is going to start. House will start. Sergio Brown theres a chance he may not and Skula the same. But you also need to take into account that a lot of those contracts are team friendly and i believe House, Brown and Skula may not be "long term" answers. More immediate future players who can play but fill a need until we can address their positions in the draft. Like for the next year or two, most of these guys should be starting. Maybe in 2 to 3 years, you see some of them not on the team anymore.
Quote:I think your being a bit too pessimistic. First off, if Julius Thomas cant beat out Lewis this year as the number 1? Yikes, we are in trouble. Secondly, baring a trade, both players will be starters anyway. As we will run a lot of two TE sets.
Parnell is going to start. Thomas is going to start. Odrick is going to start. House will start. Sergio Brown theres a chance he may not and Skula the same. But you also need to take into account that a lot of those contracts are team friendly and i believe House, Brown and Skula may not be "long term" answers. More immediate future players who can play but fill a need until we can address their positions in the draft. Like for the next year or two, most of these guys should be starting. Maybe in 2 to 3 years, you see some of them not on the team anymore.
Let me be clear, I was a huge advocate for the team to sign Thomas.
I firmly believe he will be an upgrade.
Just trying to get a gauge on/set a scenario where these acquistions did not lead to the starters.
As I said in the beginning, I think there could be as many as a dozen new starters when all is said and done with this offseason.
Quote:Let me be clear, I was a huge advocate for the team to sign Thomas.
I firmly believe he will be an upgrade.
Just trying to get a gauge on/set a scenario where these acquistions did not lead to the starters.
As I said in the beginning, I think there could be as many as a dozen new starters when all is said and done with this offseason.
I think this team needs a bit more positive and less negative scenarios LOL. We have not had the best of luck the past decade. I think almost all of the free agent acquisitions will be day 1 starters. I have a feeling we will draft a linebacker or two, which leads me to believe theres a scenario where Skula may not start. Like i said, its not like his contract kills the Jaguars. Bigcatcountry does some good breakdowns of contracts. They listed all of this year's guys and pretty much, Thomas and Odrick are the only ones we really gotta be careful with. And even then after both of their respective 2nd years, they can be let go with little to no cap hit. Skula not starting would not necessarily be a bad thing.
I think you are being a bit pessimistic. Odrick, Parnell, Thomas and House all will start. As i said, i think guys like House, Brown and Skula are not necessarily stop gaps, but good added veterans who can make an immediate impact. If they can keep that production, they will stay around, if they are not....then they are let go in a season or two with little to no cap hit.
Quote:Well, if you consider that a 3-13 team would have numerous holes to fill, are more new starters necessarily a bad thing?
There are legitimate holes minimally at RB, and FS, a potential hole at DT where Marks is because of his rehab from an ACL.
Considering Clemons is 34, I'm not sure if we can count on him generating another 9 sacks this year. That could be considered a hole.
Gratz could also be considered a liability from last year.
Shorts?
I guess my question to you and FBT would be how many new starters would be too many, in your eyes?
Honestly I don't think I have a number in mind, but will say if the roster turns over as much as it has the past 2 seasons, this train is NOT on the right track. I'm hopeful that with the coming years, to include this one, turnover happens due to great competition, not a severe need. Caldwell has been chasing roster holes and I believe we are at the junior stages of where the current roster sticks more or less, with very little turnover; roster just gets fortified. There are certainly some holes to fill, but the team isn't in desperation mode just to field a squad like seasons before. Yes, there are Vets like Clemons getting up there in age, but there is developing depth/rotation behind them. Big difference replacing onesy, twosy versus virtually every roster spot. Gratz and Shorts? Meh, did they and perhaps a few others like them truly add much as a starter to begin with? It's time this teams talent reaches the next level instead of having a starting roster on par with most "Top 10" teams practice squad talent. Is this year the year a jump in W-L record occurs? If I had to guess by the way things are progressing, next year would be the year, not this year. I'm frustrated, but ok with that because in my mind things are progressing in a meticulous, well thought out process that is becoming evident. Definitely excited for the future.
Quote:I think he was. Good catch.
Another question: If the number of new starters is below a certain number, would that represent a disappointment? Why or why not?
At this time, I'm inclined to think that if we ended up with many new starters at the beginning of the season it would indicate that some of the rookies that started last season just aren't developing as fast as might be hoped. I'm not sure if that's an indication of poor quality picks by Dave however; though some rookies may get beat out of starter positions, they may nevertheless be worthy investments in development for the long haul and provide immediate usable depth... if needed.
That being said, it seems likely that if we have a roster that's replete with new faces that it can't help but have a somewhat negative impact on the immediate 'chemistry' between players. Being such a 'team' sport, it takes time to learn about how the guy next to you is going to react in a given situation. Add the fact that we also have a new OC, and I can see the first few games of the season being... challenging.
All I know is this is the first offseason under David I feel like we're making progress. I don't have proof yet but this feels like the lead up to progress on the field, the previous two years it was an obvious step back to hopefully leap forward. Doesn't mean I liked it or even agree that it was necessary but I'm just hoping the leap is worth the sacrifice at this point.