NFL 2021 Regular Season Thread

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Sad tidbit from Bears twitter.

Ryan Pace has now drafted 7 WR's. 6 have been cut. One drafted 7th overall, one traded up for.

And they've already cut 2 draft picks from this year.

Just one first round pick spent on a WR? Matt Millen is rolling his eyes.

[Coffee Warlord]

Only 'cause Pace tends to, well, give away first rounders.

[RainMaker]

Yeah he used 2 2nd round picks to get Anthony Miller. And most of his first round picks get traded.

Ryan Pace is pretty bad.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I get why they can't suspend him, but why can't they just start someone else and leave him on the 53-man roster as one of the inactives? Is there a rule that someone has to be dressed and on your active roster if he's good enough to be talent-wise? That seems kind of arbitrary.

Of course they can. The union can also file a grievance on his behalf that the team is preventing him from playing for non football related reasons if Deshaun wants to play.

I'm not saying that they have to play him. If they think that someone is better, than say that and move on. If they don't want to play him due to the investigation, say that and move on. The idea that they are just going to make him inactive until they get the trade they want is untenable. If Deshaun has made himself unplayable by missing meetings, skipping practices, etc, then yes you can't put that guy on the field. That is not the case here. You can get away with that if it is the 4th string RB, not a top ten QB.

[Carman Bulldog]

I know how much Bears fans, and everyone else for that matter, love to shit on Ryan Pace, but this spring, Bill Barnwell conducted an analysis of team's that have best maximized their draft capital over the past five seasons and the Bears (shockingly) came in 4th. Now, this was strictly an analysis of value for position and fairly simple. I think it was the Pro Football Reference AV divided by Chase Stuart's draft value. So it does not account for trades out, up, or down.

[rjolley]

Pace's big knock for me is the move up to get Trubisky. Other than that, he's done a decent job of drafting and maneuvering with picks. The move to get Mack was worth it and the one to get Fields was a surprisingly good move out of nowhere. Plus, they've had some later round hits.

Still, that Mitch move.....

[molson]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Of course they can. The union can also file a grievance on his behalf that the team is preventing him from playing for non football related reasons if Deshaun wants to play.

I'm not saying that they have to play him. If they think that someone is better, than say that and move on. If they don't want to play him due to the investigation, say that and move on. The idea that they are just going to make him inactive until they get the trade they want is untenable. If Deshaun has made himself unplayable by missing meetings, skipping practices, etc, then yes you can't put that guy on the field. That is not the case here. You can get away with that if it is the 4th string RB, not a top ten QB.

So under the CBA, because he's good, the Texans have to play him if he's on their team even though he has many lawsuits for sexual assault and a pending grand jury investigation that will likely result in him facing many sex offense charges. But if he was a worse player, it'd be OK to sit him and see what happens.

I thought we were going in a different direction with this stuff.

[QuikSand]

Lions cut both kickers today. None on the 53-man.


I want to revel in the glory of this.

[QuikSand]

…and then pause to reflect that it’s just good roster management. With a roster as thin as theirs, it is certainly going to change before kick off on week one, regardless. If you consider both of your kickers to be expendable, and why not, then this is just savvy. Don’t make your marginal decisions tougher for the sake of a kicker, right now.

[molson]

The Patriots only have 1 QB on their 53-man roster.

I think that's because there's a gap in time between cutdown day and when you can put guys on the non-season ending IR. So I'm sure Hoyer will be back shortly. Probably a similar deal with the Lions.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Lions cut both kickers today. None on the 53-man.


I want to revel in the glory of this.

Trust in the Dan Campbell process.

[QuikSand]

Yes they get the unofficial assistant coach deal w Hoyer. He won’t play anywhere else do he’s theirs to cut/resign at will.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Trust in the Dan Campbell process.

I’m here for it.

[QuikSand]

One of these teams without a legit backup QB ought to have a look at Reid Stinnett, cut today by Miami. Showed a lot of poise in extended preseason work.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

One of these teams without a legit backup QB ought to have a look at Reid Stinnett, cut today by Miami. Showed a lot of poise in extended preseason work.

Incorrect. They should give the Bears a 6th or 7th rounder for Foles.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

One of these teams without a legit backup QB ought to have a look at Reid Stinnett, cut today by Miami. Showed a lot of poise in extended preseason work.

They should also take a look at Nick Foles. He has a Super Bowl ring. He has starting experience. He's a gamer. Everything you could want out of a backup quarterback and more.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Incorrect. They should give the Bears a 6th or 7th rounder for Foles.

Originally Posted by Atocep

They should also take a look at Nick Foles. He has a Super Bowl ring. He has starting experience. He's a gamer. Everything you could want out of a backup quarterback and more.

Please? Can someone please take Foles? Please?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

…and then pause to reflect that it’s just good roster management. With a roster as thin as theirs, it is certainly going to change before kick off on week one, regardless. If you consider both of your kickers to be expendable, and why not, then this is just savvy. Don’t make your marginal decisions tougher for the sake of a kicker, right now.

I've done the same thing in fantasy football when permitted!

Last I checked the over/under for the Lions' wins this year was 5. I'll take that under all day, every day.

I hope this is the darkness before the dawn. The flame that will birth the phoenix.

[Brian Swartz]

But Goff says they're going to win the division. Trust you not his crystal ball?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Cam Newton was released.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Found a guy who gave the Lions kicker scenario way too much thought ... and probably called exactly what they're doing in advance of them actually doing it

The Detroit Lions should cut both of their kickers - Pride Of Detroit

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

So under the CBA, because he's good, the Texans have to play him if he's on their team even though he has many lawsuits for sexual assault and a pending grand jury investigation that will likely result in him facing many sex offense charges. But if he was a worse player, it'd be OK to sit him and see what happens.

I thought we were going in a different direction with this stuff.

No, they don't have to play him. I said that already. What I am saying is they have to own that they are not playing him due to the many lawsuits and pending grand jury investigation. The NFL has the exempt list for just this reason but have chosen not to use it in the case. So it now falls on the Texans. If he were a lesser player, they would have already cut him and specifically said that they were doing so because of the controversy and not wanting to have that distraction on the team. The scenario that was offered was that they were sitting him to await trade offers. That is where my objection lies.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

No, they don't have to play him. I said that already. What I am saying is they have to own that they are not playing him due to the many lawsuits and pending grand jury investigation. The NFL has the exempt list for just this reason but have chosen not to use it in the case. So it now falls on the Texans. If he were a lesser player, they would have already cut him and specifically said that they were doing so because of the controversy and not wanting to have that distraction on the team. The scenario that was offered was that they were sitting him to await trade offers. That is where my objection lies.

You said that the union could file a grievance if they were preventing him from playing for a "non football related reason", but that they could "get away with it" if he was a lesser player.

So it violates the CBA to sit him to await trade offers, but it's OK to sit him because of the investigation, and, then perhaps trade him? I'm not sure what the functional difference is between those things. But I'm sure they can just say whatever the CBA requires to not have to play him, because playing him doesn't seem like an option for them. It's pretty obvious why they'd be sitting him.

It's crazy to me that there's any circumstances that would result in a CBA violation for not playing an accused sex offender with pending criminal investigations and civil lawsuits, regardless of whether they are also having trade discussions about him. Though the union also thinks it's a CBA violation to consider vaccine status in player transactions and how likely a player is to be banned from the team facility at any moment, so what do I know.

[albionmoonlight]

It feels like as long as they are paying him, he's got a pretty weak case.

The other strong argument I think he would have would be if sitting him caused him to miss playing time incentives or easily obtainable bonuses or whatnot. Maybe he could win a grievance to get that money.

But I can't see how an arbitrator could force the team to play him. How would that even work?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But I can't see how an arbitrator could force the team to play him. How would that even work?

Ask Georgia Tech
Houston back with Jackets despite felony charges

If a judge could order a football team to reinstate a guy heading for a felony rap then I'm pretty sure an arbitrator under the CBA could order an NFL team to do just about anything.

[sterlingice]

LOL Urban Meyer - I mean, he's not wrong. If you're close to the 53 line and you can improve the team % with protocols, damn right it should be part of the calculus. But you're not the dictator on a college campus anymore - you have to actually say the quiet parts quiet or not at all.

NFLPA reportedly opens investigation of Jags' Urban Meyer who said vaccine statuses influenced roster cuts - CBSSports.com


SI

[albionmoonlight]

I saw Meyer on the sideline of the Jags preseason game against the Saints, and he looked WAY more distressed than a coach should look in a preseason game.

Combine that with his history and things like the COVID thing showing that he's not really an NFL guy, and I think it is slightly more likely than not that he does not finish the season.

[Kodos]

Not a fan of Meyer, but he's not wrong here. Whether players get vaccinated and increase their odds of being available all season should be part of the equation. All else being equal, keep the guy who got his shots.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Not a fan of Meyer, but he's not wrong here. Whether players get vaccinated and increase their odds of being available all season should be part of the equation. All else being equal, keep the guy who got his shots.

Of course. But you can't say that. I think that the NFLPA is ok with the wink/nod approach to this. But the teams do have to at least pretend.

[Kodos]

I'm fine with not pretending.

[cuervo72]

It's the very definition of not being a team player, no?

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But the teams do have to at least pretend.

Why is potential availability or unavailability not a valid factor in making personnel decisions? That's like making a decision based on how prone to injury someone is.

I wonder if it would violate the CBA for the Patriots take into account how well Mac Jones did while Cam was banned from the facility (if they said that part out loud). That's kind of the natural extension of that idea that this is an inappropriate consideration. Cam was out and missed that opportunity only because of his personal choice not to get vaccinated. Maybe Mac should have sat that whole time to be fair and respectful of Cam's personal choice.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that the teams should be able to take it into account.

But my guess (and it really is just a guess) is that the NFLPA didn't want to go that far, so the NFL agreed to "not consider it" when making their decisions.

Which is fine until you get a coach that says out loud what every single team is doing quietly.

[albionmoonlight]

dola: But that' just my outsider understanding. The reality might be different.

[molson]

I'm just glad we're not going to have the weekly drama of whether Cam was able to follow all of the enhanced protocols before the game.

And it's something most teams won't have to deal with - last I saw the vaccination rate is 93%.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

You said that the union could file a grievance if they were preventing him from playing for a "non football related reason", but that they could "get away with it" if he was a lesser player.

So it violates the CBA to sit him to await trade offers, but it's OK to sit him because of the investigation, and, then perhaps trade him? I'm not sure what the functional difference is between those things. But I'm sure they can just say whatever the CBA requires to not have to play him, because playing him doesn't seem like an option for them. It's pretty obvious why they'd be sitting him.

It's crazy to me that there's any circumstances that would result in a CBA violation for not playing an accused sex offender with pending criminal investigations and civil lawsuits, regardless of whether they are also having trade discussions about him. Though the union also thinks it's a CBA violation to consider vaccine status in player transactions and how likely a player is to be banned from the team facility at any moment, so what do I know.

That bold part is what the union would want to have on the record. If it is the investigation, that is one thing. If it for the trade situation, that is something else. I don't know what the CBA allows or does not allow in either case. It does feel wrong to me that a team can make a player in good standing inactive because someone won't offer them 4 first round picks in a trade.
.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

It does feel wrong to me that a team can make a player in good standing inactive because someone won't offer them 4 first round picks in a trade.
.

We've seen something similar in the MLB and NBA around the trade deadline; holding out a player who might be traded so they don't get hurt. Same would apply to Watson if he plays and gets hurt they can't trade him.

[QuikSand]

Lots of local interest in the Ravens' RB situation, with Gus Edwards likely vaulted into RB1 role but a tasty RB2 role still sitting there for someone.

If you're a fantasy player, Ty'Son Williams is a guy who got some love leading into the '20 draft here (from me, among others IIRC) and he's basically the guy currently slotted for maybe 1/3 of the work. If that means 120 carries for 600 yards and 5 TD (not unreasonable) and a shot at RB1 if something else goes wrong, that makes him fantasy-viable and he's basically free in most drafts/auctions right now.

It also stands to reason they'd bring someone in for the job, and that seems logical. Gus Edwards is not a capable receiver, and Williams hasn't shown that he's fully on top of pass protection and receiving either -- so if they add someone, it seems more likely they want a complementary piece for 3rd downs and/or satellite work more than just a between-the-tackles type. I continue to lobby for a low-stakes trade for Mark Ingram (fits the role, knows the system, and is great in the clubhouse) and I still think that's plenty viable with a crowded depth chart in Houston. He was not impressive last year, but he won't get your QB killed and could handle 30 receptions.

I thought Darwin Thompson (cut by KC) was an option, but I saw he got practice squadded elsewhere. Not sure I see Le'Veon Bell, Devonta Freeman, or Todd Gurley as good fits, but they will get their share of rumor mill.

Anyway...it's interesting, largely because this team WILL run the ball a lot and effectively, and there's someone out there who WILL get meaningful playing time and probably some 3rd down and/or goal line work. If I had a draft tonight, I'd toss a 12th round pick at Ty'Son Williams in hopes he'd be a valuable lottery ticket.

[Thomkal]

Guess we need to start that In-season thread soon huh?

NFL moves the Saints game to Jacksonville due to the Hurricane recovery

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by henry296

We've seen something similar in the MLB and NBA around the trade deadline; holding out a player who might be traded so they don't get hurt. Same would apply to Watson if he plays and gets hurt they can't trade him.

I don't believe that should be allowed either but at least that is around the trade deadline and the team has made it clear that they are trying to trade the player. Usually, if they can't make a deal then the team will buy out the player's contract and allow him to go wherever he wants. I also did not think it was cool when Al Davis tried to screw over Marcus Allen back in the day. On the other hand, I completely agreed with Gruden sending Keyshawn home with pay and the Patriots barring Aaron Hernandez from camp before he was charged with anything.

The Deshaun situation has two separate parts IMO. Let's just deal with the trade situation. The Texans don't want to appear weak by giving in to his trade demands from the start of the off-season and they want Watson to be their QB. If this was the only issue, then the ball is in Watson's court. He was either going the Aaron Rodgers route and end up playing for the Texans or he was going to the James Harden route to force a trade which probably would have resulted in fines, suspensions and other disciplinary actions that would rightfully putting on the inactive roster.

If we are just dealing with the sexual assault allegation/investigation without any trade requests, then of course the Texans and Watson are on good terms with one another. He probably would have agreed to not coming to camp until things were cleared up, the team would have given him a leave of absence just to avoid the media circus, or he would be playing because he is innocent until proven guilty with the Texans' full backing.

I am cynically enough to believe the Texans don't care nearly as much about the sexual assault allegations/charges as they do the trade situation. I mean he is at camp every day. According to the HC, he is doing everything that he has been asked to do. If that is the case and he is not playing, then reasonable questions must be asked by the union IMO.

[thesloppy]

The Lions have now cut themselves down to one TE on the roster as well.

[albionmoonlight]

I am SO here for Dan Campbell as player/coach.

[QuikSand]

What I want from teams that I don't actively root for or against is something interesting. Go to the run-and-shoot, announce you'll go for 2 after every TD, insist on blitzing every single play... give me something. Detroit, in the person of Dan Campbell, at least groks me as a viewer/fan.

If they go out and win a 9-7 slugfest in week one, they'll immediately erect a 70-foot statue of this guy atop the Renaissance Center.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

What I want from teams that I don't actively root for or against is something interesting. Go to the run-and-shoot, announce you'll go for 2 after every TD, insist on blitzing every single play... give me something. Detroit, in the person of Dan Campbell, at least groks me as a viewer/fan.

If they go out and win a 9-7 slugfest in week one, they'll immediately erect a 70-foot statue of this guy atop the Renaissance Center.

There is a kind of mad genius to how he's managed to repeatedly lower the bar for measuring his own success

[Honolulu_Blue]

I am really hoping that all of these weird ass roster moves is just GM Brad Holmes doing some next level he-is-playing-chess-while-everyone-else-is-playing-checkers type stuff and we'll look back at these deft, innovative moves and it will change the way teams approach this part of the season.

Though, I am sure it's just a brand new GM of a terrible team scrambling to get field some semblance of an actual NFL team.

No kickers! One TE! 7 WRs!

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I am really hoping that all of these weird ass roster moves is just GM Brad Holmes doing some next level he-is-playing-chess-while-everyone-else-is-playing-checkers type stuff and we'll look back at these deft, innovative moves and it will change the way teams approach this part of the season.

Though, I am sure it's just a brand new GM of a terrible team scrambling to get field some semblance of an actual NFL team.

No kickers! One TE! 7 WRs!

I glanced over an article that did imply there was some method to this madness....something to the effect of the particular players that they released (including TE Darren Fells) were too old/experienced for the waiver process and therefore weren't subject to being cherry-picked by other teams as part of their release, and are expected to be re-signed by the Lions according to some specific timing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I glanced over an article that did imply there was some method to this madness....something to the effect of the particular players that they released (including TE Darren Fells) were too old/experienced for the waiver process and therefore weren't subject to being cherry-picked by other teams as part of their release, and are expected to be re-signed by the Lions according to some specific timing.

Yeah, I read something similar. It allowed them to cut Fells and Dean Marlowe, keep D'Shawn Hand and Tim Boyle on the initial 53 man roster. Once that initial roster was set, they then put Boyle and Hand on IR. Had Boyle & Hand been placed on IR before then, they would have been on IR all season. Now, they can come off earlier. Once they placed Boyle & Hand on IR, they re-signed Marlowe & Fells.

That makes sense. Brad Holmes working the system!

[albionmoonlight]

Brady seems so much more . . . normal? since he left the Patriots.

Tom Brady hits the bull’s eye yet again. pic.twitter.com/X2AUPBpTc9

— Tyler Dunne (@TyDunne) September 3, 2021

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Lots of local interest in the Ravens' RB situation, with Gus Edwards likely vaulted into RB1 role but a tasty RB2 role still sitting there for someone.

Lottery ticket #1, Royce Freeman. I'd give him maybe a 50/50 shot of sticking. Not sure where he grades out in straight line speed, tbh. I recall investing in him a couple of years ago here and there and being semi-burned when he was routinely out-worked by unheralded Philip Lindsay, who in retrospect just turns out to be good at football.

[Honolulu_Blue]

From The Athletic:

"An exec who did not vote in this survey noted that Campbell, while appearing rough around the edges and sounding almost like a pro wrestler at times, compared the Lions’ new coach to Billy Summers, the Stephen King character who misleads others into underestimating him."

This was from an article where five NFL executives ranked all 16 NFC teams. The Lions ranked: 13-16-16-16-16 (16th overall).