WrigleyField 22

I agree with your whole post really, should give credit for doing something formal, just am in the mindset where having a bunch of second generation guys filling up the league ala the Shanahans/Gibbs/Schottenheimers, maybe a couple Harbaughs with full control, and way more GMs and FO guys wouldacouldashoulda been happening There's definitely been meaningful gains with guys like Rivera (a two time HC with a long and quality first run), Lynn, and David Shaw over at Stanford getting a taste, Brian Flores is going to get plenty of leash in Miami, and several of the up and coming young coaches in the game are minority candidates which feels different All the proposals that were not draft comp related passed. None of the draft comp rules were passed. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29194925/nfl-approves-rooney-rule-changes-tables-minority-hiring-incentives Of note, the FO requirement is far ranging and includes senior non football roles like marketing/IT. And it's specified female applicants would meet the criteria as well.

He got lots of interviews, but they didn't spend a ton of time on his game, I think was Regular Show's point. Makes sense that he got a lot of air time though. Scottie is kind of dull to listen to. Rodman was probably hell to get to focus. Harper and Kukoc are fine to listen to, but Kerr is definitely a good interview. They didn't even include Longley... Yeah, I don't think they mentioned how incredible a shooter Kerr was in the doc? He was a key role player on the team, and I didn't fully appreciate him until I got older. I really wanted more Kukoc and Kerr. Also, they weren't going to travel to Australia to interview Luc Longley (that's why he isn't featured in the doc). They had to travel all the way to Montana to interview Phil Jackson lol. Kerr is really articulate and always gives great interviews. He understands the game and team dynamics really well and gives thoughtful answers. The question about whether they discussed what happened to their fathers never even registered with me until this doc. Yea they didn't cover in the same way that they did like with say, Rodman and rebounding. It was more alluded to it that flat out praise his contributions as a sharp shooter. If I was some 20 year old watching it, I might think "oh he that one shot, but they must be interviewing him so much cuz he's one of the biggest coaches in the sport now"

Even though he never started a game I think he was arguably 5th most important player on that second three peat. Assuming you have Toni at 4? Yea. With Kerr it's just that recognition though that him and Harper were splitting minutes even though at the time, it was just "Harper is the starter". And as good as Harper filled the role that was asked of him, his role was probably easier filled than Kerry's since Kerr was so elite at what he did. Obviously there was a lot of O/D switching with those 2 in tight games, but being trusted like in 97 speaks volumes to his role with the team.

He got lots of interviews, but they didn't spend a ton of time on his game, I think was Regular Show's point. Makes sense that he got a lot of air time though. Scottie is kind of dull to listen to. Rodman was probably hell to get to focus. Harper and Kukoc are fine to listen to, but Kerr is definitely a good interview. They didn't even include Longley. Did Randy Brown also not get air time? He was at least as important as Wenington and Bucheler.

Even though he never started a game I think he was arguably 5th most important player on that second three peat.

I'm less sold on the draft pick ideas. The other changes about not allowing teams to block candidates for coordinator roles and extending the Rooney rule to minority candidates are easy ones. With the draft comp thing, I'm not convinced it will affect teams decisions that much, but it will definitely create questions for every minority candidate who gets hired whether they were the best candidates. I know it's easy to rag on the NFL as being a cesspool, but on the issue of minority hires it's easy to forget they're the only league really doing anything like the Rooney Rule. The NBAs coaching/executive representation issue is just as bad and they're doing nothing formal (they have some diversity advisor in the league office that teams can consult and that's it). The NBA is doing much better than the NFL. Not sure what the numbers are now, but at one point there were as many as 14 black head coaches. Several NBA assistants are minorities. The NBA has also been the most proactive by miles in hiring women as coaches, referees and executives. NBA executives aren't really as diverse as it should be....but they are doing better than any other league. 20% of NBA exes are minorities. Over 36% of the NBA league office are minorities. Almost 46% of assistant coaches are black. I'm sure the NBA has some sort of program, they just don't feel the need to announce. Even if they don't, they are still doing pretty well, all things considered. NBA definitely better on the gender front. As far as racial diversity the league player makeup is higher black then the NFL, so it would follow it would have a higher coach makeup, though I don't know exactly where the ratios fall today or over the past decade or so. Still it definitely just came up with the Bulls VP search as far as the NBA having a diversity issue in the executive front. And the NFLs Rooney rule did seem to work for a while, before falling back off, so they're reacting, perhaps a little too reactively instead of proactively, but they have acted pretty well all things considered.

I'm less sold on the draft pick ideas. The other changes about not allowing teams to block candidates for coordinator roles and extending the Rooney rule to minority candidates are easy ones. With the draft comp thing, I'm not convinced it will affect teams decisions that much, but it will definitely create questions for every minority candidate who gets hired whether they were the best candidates. I know it's easy to rag on the NFL as being a cesspool, but on the issue of minority hires it's easy to forget they're the only league really doing anything like the Rooney Rule. The NBAs coaching/executive representation issue is just as bad and they're doing nothing formal (they have some diversity advisor in the league office that teams can consult and that's it).

New Rooney Rule enhancements to be propsed: Cliff notes: Stop the ability for teams to block assistant coaches from "bona fide" coordinator roles Draft comp for minority hires at GM/HC and coordinator levels AND QB coaches Extend Rooney rule for coordinator roles Possibly double the required number of minority candidates for GM/HC roles. https://www.nfl.com/news/owners-to-vote-on-resolution-to-incentivize-minority-hc-gm-hires

Stop bringing up the Jets before you get this locked again.

Beyond the easy start for the team as a whole, it's a pretty easy slate for Mitch if he wins the QB job out of camp. He could bum slay for a couple weeks and have good topline stats, which would be bad if you're not convinced on him. That said, I tend to think Foles will beat him if it's a truely open competition.

I think gooney will be fairly pleased with the schedule.

For all intents the cap is basically play money. If things really are that bad they'll likely just reduce every players pay to get the players revenue share in line and treat the cap as if it hadn't changed. Or actually lower the cap number but come up with some big amnesty thing where you can waive portions of dead cap without cutting players. Only thing us it will likely require players approval, but a cap cut that drastic will affect most players. So guys will probably get in line after the initial shock that their pay is getting slashed. Maybe they smooth it out against projected cap increases with the new TV deals which will kick in over the next few years.

I wondered if this is part of the strategy at RB, not that I really want it to be. Its an interesting dilemma. I'm not sure Nall and Pierce are so noteworthy that you couldn't try and just hide them on the PS. Nall did play special teams last year, but if that spot, whether it's a RB or S or TE, is mainly a ST contributor only, would it really matter if CPatt was your 3rd active RB on game days, and if an injury occurs you're in basically the same spot you'd be. That said, I'm also basing that around Nall and Pierce really being nothing special. There's still some semi interesting vet options they could look to add that would have a real chance to be part of a regular 3 man RB platoon.

I wondered if this is part of the strategy at RB, not that I really want it to be. Here's a question: Having declined the 5th year option for Mitch, if he signs a backup QB contract somewhere next year does he bring back a compensatory pick? Floyd didn't but that is because the Bears cut him after previously picking up the option year. I'm just not sure if declining the option eliminates the comp pick. I wouldn't think it does but the rules are not always intuitive Yes by not exercising the option the comp pick is in play. He'd have to get a decent deal though. He could sit out there like Winston did and ultimately sign after the comp pick period or for a low dollar amount.

So apparently this guy passed away Sunday? RIP I thought I read he died in January.

Wow, never know that background on Hodges. Thanks for posting.

I'd presume we'll get something of a summer 98/final fall out as well. 4 episodes left. Best guess at layout. 7- James Jordan / 1st and 2nd round playoffs 8 - Baseball and return / Pacers series 9 - 96 title / Jazz series 10 - 97 title (flu game!) / Jazz series wrap up and final breakup

I'm actually pretty pleased with this offseason. I'm surprised that they accomplished as much as they did without extending Robinson. Although I would like to see that get done soon. The offense looks a lot more dynamic than what they had last year. I'm fairly pleased. OL still has me worried, so hopefully they get out to a better start than last year. And RB depth is still weak IMO. I think there's still some vet RBs out there and we have tons of junky TE and DB we could still free up a spot with. And I'd love a young PS QB as a lotto ticket instead of or in addition to Bray, but not holding my breath.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of him if you follow the Bulls closely. Much has been written and debated over the years once the Bulls drafting seemed to drop off post-Lloyd on places like RealGM. And he ended up being one of the 4-5 GM candidates that just went to Eversley. That said the Magic haven't been great drafters in his time there. Also in regards to analytics and scouting I don't think is purely a crunch the numbers game. Half of it is just how to properly catalogue the more subjective scouting inputs, which sounds like it may have more what he was up to than pure numbers crunching. Anyways the Bulls also have supposedly had an analytics guy who they hired out of the league office a couple years ago. I'm not sure if he's very in depth with scouting, but apparently aided in finally pushing for the Bulls to alter their shot selection this year. He was also pulling double duty in the old FO as the cap expert and that is the new AGM Polks speciality. KC did indicate he was safe though. Write up on him https://theathletic.com/1531282/2020/01/13/mondays-with-mayberry-bulls-assistant-gm-steve-weinman-and-bulls-players-talk-about-how-they-use-analytics?source=user-shared-article

I remember rumor the Bears were interested, but Cincy was holding out for a higher pick. I want to say it was like 4th v 5rh rounder, but that could have been future/conditional. With the teams like Car that signed guys and NE apparently happy to just go with their guys, I guess there wasn't much of a market.

Matt Lloyd who was credited a lot with their good drafts was apparently an early analytics adapter, whatever that meant 8 years ago or whenever he left. I'm not familiar with Matt Lloyd and any draft picks associated with him? What draft picks have we taken where analytics came into play or were part of the evaluation? Doug McDermott was a good outside shooter, but analytics said not to take him so high because his steal and block rate was so low in college. Like I really don't think the Bulls ever used advanced analytics when it came to drafting players... Well no one knows exactly how influential he was, but his last draft with the Bulls was 2011, which was immediately followed with Teague, Snell, McDermott. Good summary, and mentions vaguely use of analytics. https://www.blogabull.com/2015/5/18/8610703/why-the-bulls-no-longer-draft-successfully-the-loss-of-matt-lloyd-and

Cool

I definitely think the process is going to be different now with Karnisovas and Eversley in charge. I don't think the Bulls really used analytics when it came to scouting draft prospects. I honestly wouldn't mind them trading down if Karnisovas doesn't see a player he really likes at the top of the draft. Matt Lloyd who was credited a lot with their good drafts was apparently an early analytics adapter, whatever that meant 8 years ago or whenever he left.

So Ginn, Wims, and Ridley likely competing for 2 spots, though you could keep 7 WR if the young guys force the issue, or if they're just fully treating Patterson as RB/returner.