free agent signing period calendar

Much appreciated.
I think it’s very telling how much influence MHR has when over half the votes are for a guard….and btw I think if it happens it’d be a good thing.

Teams with different philosophies and no blue prints.

I voted Center because with a good center the gaurds will be better. If my understanding is correct, Center might be the most mentally demanding position on the line, so I would like an experienced Center available to compete even if Denver gets a player like Pouncey in the draft.

rec

Because it looks like there are more available than the O Linemen in FA.

One of my pet peeves is a MOCK that doesn’t attempt to replicate the actual decision-making process and instead looks like a glorified wish list. It’s as if the ‘MOCKer’ hadn’t considered the possibility that their favorite players could already be taken at the time our turn to select arrives.

There’s often a reason the player is popular, but sometimes it’s the same reason their value as a pick disappears — oddly. To use an example: Tyson Jackson was disparaged as a pick by many before the last draft. He may not have been an appealing pick but he had some clear advantages that made him valuable. An example of a popular pick among fans would be Maualuga. It was futile to try to convince people that liked Maualuga that he might not be the best pick. Once they ‘locked in’ they stuck with their favorite, which teams can not afford to do.

Drafting is a strategy and not a result. Teams have to find a way of maximizing (satisficing) their drafts for value and needs in conditions in which the fan favorites are off the board. It’s not analogous to making a wish list and hoping. Moreover, trading to get out of making an undesirable pick is usually expensive, so sometimes you have to pick.

My point here is that the average MOCK is more of a fantasy than an exercise in decision making. And the after-the-fact complaints about the draft usually reveal that the person didn’t have a sound basis for their original belief, and that’s granting them the benefit of the doubt since after-the-fact opinions are often biased to conform to present day events. Most of what we see is kibitizers whose credentials as scouts are rather suspect. Draft oddities provide them with convenient opportunities to display faux outrage. We didn’t see these people complaining when Shanahan’s drafts went belly-up, which is indicative of the motivated cognitive element in the kibitzers’ beliefs. People who start from a foundational belief that says “I hate the coach” find a reason to hate the draft, too — not surprisingly.

Re: DE34s. The dominant reason we can select one is because they’re plentiful. There are more DE34s available (calculated considering supply and demand) than OG/OCs. We have more opportunities to adequately address DE34 than OG/OC in the draft). It’s not that we wouldn’t like to address OG/OC, it’s just that there are fewer opportunities to find starter-quality players. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a breakthrough (i.e., surprising result) occurs at OT. I’m still looking for possible conversion projects. There’s a mis-impression that these players are stuck in their positions. Many of them are merely projected into their category, and it’s partly because teams are looking for OTs, who have more value. Here’s one I’ve been pondering: Roger Saffold. I think the shorter OTs with good run blocking skills are obvious candidates as combination power-scheme blocking OGs/OTs. Much of the thinking by MOCKers here on OGs has flipped completely, but it shouldn’t have. We’re not looking for roadgraders, just bigger athletic OLs. And OT is a good place to look for that somatotype.

I didn’t pay much attention to this year’s, either.

http://www.walterfootball.com/draft2011QB.php

I see lots of potential but they’re all projects who need to be developed. Bradford is probably the closest to the McDaniels type of QB and his potential availability could present a conundrum. Ryan Mallet could hold interest for us in 2011 if he declares.

It’s not actually too bad an idea to bring in a draftee, and the somewhat later picks might work better. We’d be creating a risk if Orton went down but we should be trying to develop younger QBs if possible.

I started to write something on this. My point was that expectations are usually unrealistic and expectations about rookie QBs are even moreso. The wrong lesson was learned by the recent rookie QB successes. What people should have learned is that if you’re very conservative and make no mistakes then your team can be successful. In other words, if you play like Kyle Orton.

I just finished writing something above that contains the idea of why it’s all wrong to plan to draft a QB high this year. It pits one solution against the other. What you’re essentially doing is — either — undermining Orton or undermining the high pick. If you’re not looking for an immediate starter then don’t use a high pick on one. I can accept the logic of a BPA pick, which accept deviations that bring in the most value (which you could trade, etc.), but it’s another thing all together to plan a strategy that interferes with itself.

The point I was making is that it’s always good to have QBs in-house that you’re developing, and there are many teams who provide examples of this principle. But you don’t intentionally crowd the position. Nor do you use a high pick unless you believe that you’ll need a new starter soon. It’s not about symbolic gestures, your investment of resources is delegated to replace your starter.