Interesting Stats on Browns' Picks
-
We can talk stats all day, presume that all the analytics tell a story. Don't mean nothing. It's all about their motivation once they get to camp, what attitude they bring day in and day out to make the team. When and if they do, do they become complacent or are they that hungry ass dog that everyone thought they were when the Browns drafted them. I'll wait till the season starts to draw an opinion.
-
- includes important discussion of "analytics" role.Must-Read on Browns recent history
Much of the commentary on this thread can be updated with the above two links.. please go to them because they're.. reality.
-
More people not trusting The Process. ?
a/k/a... Dutch's Disciples...
-
Sounds like a gay motorcycle club......scary !
Scary how? Scared you might secretly be attracted to said motorcycle club?
You boomers are adorable.
-
Scary how? Scared you might secretly be attracted to said motorcycle club?
You boomers are adorable.
No I was more into the ones that hung around Satan's Inferno on the west side of downtown Youngstown way back when........long gone now.
Satan's was an amazing place, used to go there with a Viet Nam green beret buddy that I worked with down the mill.
Oh yeah grandpa Boomer stories.
-
Scary how? Scared you might secretly be attracted to said motorcycle club?
You boomers are adorable.
No I was more into the ones that hung around Satan's Inferno on the west side of downtown Youngstown way back when........long gone now.
Satan's was an amazing place, used to go there with a Viet Nam green beret buddy that I worked with down the mill.
Oh yeah grandpa Boomer stories.
No I was more into the ones that hung around Satan's Inferno on the west side of downtown Youngstown way back when........long gone now.
Satan's was an amazing place, used to go there with a Viet Nam green beret buddy that I worked with down the mill.
Oh yeah grandpa Boomer stories.
The Misfits home;clubhouse was just on the edge of Norton.....they killed a guy who just wanted to turn his car around, and chose their driveway to do it...having no clue where he was.
-
You boomers are adorable.
I resemble that remark!
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Two points from the above: It's too bad that the marriage of analytic evaluation and the 'football player' is personality-driven, and that there isn't really a way to make it structural (with Dorsey being the proof). That's why it is so important that once you get a successful FO team you do everything you can to keep it together. Best way is for the FO to keep bringing in guys they like and promoting them once they prove themselves.
Second, a little off-the-point but I was reading a book about U.S. diplomacy and the author pointed out that, strangely, the U.S. diplomatic corps does not have a mechanism where they self-evaluate and analyze their mistakes in negotiations with other countries. At least in a formalized way. It's a bit unbelievable if you think about it.
It sounds like PFF (and probably many football operations) might suffer from the same failure. Do they go back and ask why did we grade a guy this way and where did we fail to see his upside (or downside)? I would think that that would help them a lot, and it would certainly be an interesting article if they were to publicize it, though it may be giving away too many corporate secrets.
I think it's a combination of personality AND results driven. If the analytics approach yielded overwhelmingly better results, then you'd be more inclined to lean that way. But like I pointed out with Corey Coleman, sometimes they get it WAY wrong. And that wrong pick generally ends up being pretty obvious pretty damn fast. And the success or failures at the highest level of picks are the most visible and generally going to be where people tend to formulate their opinion on the effectiveness of a given approach.
PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis. As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.
PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis. As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.
riddle me this.. I don't believe Woods would share any of his "real" plans on what his defensive scheme he really may bring..but it would make good sense to believe his 4-3 base alignment statement makes sense..
In 2019, the 49'ers team coverage grade from PFF was 92.5..9'ers played a zone coverage 3 shell on over 70% of their reg. season snaps..To the tone of allowing the 2nd fewest per pass plays--Primary was a 3 deep zone scheme..Tied Pats for fewest 1st down completions with 149 in 2019...
Is this ^^ the same 70% basics of what most would say is playing a base nickel package? or Big Nickel? or Which 2 LBer's early look to be in the mix in nickel packages? and thanks! to whenever ya can get to this.. Gone Birthday Fishing ?
Browns & Buffett: Got to go fishin, Down to rock bottom again, with just a few Friends Team Brotherhood-"It's not about You,Me or I. It's about building We"..Hue Jackson -
Two points from the above: It's too bad that the marriage of analytic evaluation and the 'football player' is personality-driven, and that there isn't really a way to make it structural (with Dorsey being the proof). That's why it is so important that once you get a successful FO team you do everything you can to keep it together. Best way is for the FO to keep bringing in guys they like and promoting them once they prove themselves.
Second, a little off-the-point but I was reading a book about U.S. diplomacy and the author pointed out that, strangely, the U.S. diplomatic corps does not have a mechanism where they self-evaluate and analyze their mistakes in negotiations with other countries. At least in a formalized way. It's a bit unbelievable if you think about it.
It sounds like PFF (and probably many football operations) might suffer from the same failure. Do they go back and ask why did we grade a guy this way and where did we fail to see his upside (or downside)? I would think that that would help them a lot, and it would certainly be an interesting article if they were to publicize it, though it may be giving away too many corporate secrets.
I think it's a combination of personality AND results driven. If the analytics approach yielded overwhelmingly better results, then you'd be more inclined to lean that way. But like I pointed out with Corey Coleman, sometimes they get it WAY wrong. And that wrong pick generally ends up being pretty obvious pretty damn fast. And the success or failures at the highest level of picks are the most visible and generally going to be where people tend to formulate their opinion on the effectiveness of a given approach.
PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis. As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.
I think it's a combination of personality AND results driven. If the analytics approach yielded overwhelmingly better results, then you'd be more inclined to lean that way. But like I pointed out with Corey Coleman, sometimes they get it WAY wrong. And that wrong pick generally ends up being pretty obvious pretty damn fast. And the success or failures at the highest level of picks are the most visible and generally going to be where people tend to formulate their opinion on the effectiveness of a given approach.
PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis. As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.
Call me a crazy old man, but I think in this data driven world scouts tend to look past the very simple "eye test" of prospects. I'm a data-driven man. I think tools like the ones noted are neat to consider when evaluating mid-tier guys, or how to thread the needle on two similar prospects.
You mentioned Kizer, and I think he's a perfect example of this. That dude when he looked bad on tape looked awful. I mean truly dreadful, and it was largely against elite competition. Meanwhile, you look at the tape of a dude like Joe Schobert (already miss him) and it's evident this dude is a football player. I swear, I think such a large reason New England has been so successful is they follow this to a huge degree. I'm curious to see how that safety they took ends up.
-
I think it's a combination of personality AND results driven. If the analytics approach yielded overwhelmingly better results, then you'd be more inclined to lean that way. But like I pointed out with Corey Coleman, sometimes they get it WAY wrong. And that wrong pick generally ends up being pretty obvious pretty damn fast. And the success or failures at the highest level of picks are the most visible and generally going to be where people tend to formulate their opinion on the effectiveness of a given approach.
PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis. As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.
Call me a crazy old man, but I think in this data driven world scouts tend to look past the very simple "eye test" of prospects. I'm a data-driven man. I think tools like the ones noted are neat to consider when evaluating mid-tier guys, or how to thread the needle on two similar prospects.
You mentioned Kizer, and I think he's a perfect example of this. That dude when he looked bad on tape looked awful. I mean truly dreadful, and it was largely against elite competition. Meanwhile, you look at the tape of a dude like Joe Schobert (already miss him) and it's evident this dude is a football player. I swear, I think such a large reason New England has been so successful is they follow this to a huge degree. I'm curious to see how that safety they took ends up.
You mentioned Kizer, and I think he's a perfect example of this. That dude when he looked bad on tape looked awful. I mean truly dreadful, and it was largely against elite competition. Meanwhile, you look at the tape of a dude like Joe Schobert (already miss him) and it's evident this dude is a football player. I swear, I think such a large reason New England has been so successful is they follow this to a huge degree. I'm curious to see how that safety they took ends up.
Exactly. So many times, the Browns have drafted on physical talent, combine stats etc. But they end up with guys who flunk out in the NFL.
What is missing is the love for the game. Guys like Joe Thomas - his story of refusing to come out of a game on his long streak when a coach sent in another LT to give him a break. Then there are guys who want the paychecks, but are more interested in their parties and dope, etc.
I'm curious bigtime to see how Kyle Dugger (safety) and Logan Wilson (lb), and Jeremy Chinn... how they do in the NFL. I had Dugger and Wilson in my stupid mock draft because I decided they were football players.
-
PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis. As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.
riddle me this.. I don't believe Woods would share any of his "real" plans on what his defensive scheme he really may bring..but it would make good sense to believe his 4-3 base alignment statement makes sense..
In 2019, the 49'ers team coverage grade from PFF was 92.5..9'ers played a zone coverage 3 shell on over 70% of their reg. season snaps..To the tone of allowing the 2nd fewest per pass plays--Primary was a 3 deep zone scheme..Tied Pats for fewest 1st down completions with 149 in 2019...
Is this ^^ the same 70% basics of what most would say is playing a base nickel package? or Big Nickel? or Which 2 LBer's early look to be in the mix in nickel packages? and thanks! to whenever ya can get to this.. Gone Birthday Fishing ?
riddle me this.. I don't believe Woods would share any of his "real" plans on what his defensive scheme he really may bring..but it would make good sense to believe his 4-3 base alignment statement makes sense..
In 2019, the 49'ers team coverage grade from PFF was 92.5..9'ers played a zone coverage 3 shell on over 70% of their reg. season snaps..To the tone of allowing the 2nd fewest per pass plays--Primary was a 3 deep zone scheme..Tied Pats for fewest 1st down completions with 149 in 2019...
Is this ^^ the same 70% basics of what most would say is playing a base nickel package? or Big Nickel? or Which 2 LBer's early look to be in the mix in nickel packages? and thanks! to whenever ya can get to this.. Gone Birthday Fishing ?
The differences in our base alignment will vary game to game. One of the more important reasons I believe Billings was brought it. I do believe you're going to be some odd, 3 man fronts that will involve vernon (should he be on the roster) and Myles in 2pt stances. Probably not much, but it will be in there. As I pointed out from watching the 2018 Broncos tape, I think our more common base look will closely resemble some of the things the Seahawks did with their under calls vs teams like the Steelers & Ravens. While we'll favor the over and speed approach with Jobi and Sheldon vs teams like Tennessee & Cincy.
I'm trying to follow your meaning on the nickel package comments though? Nickel is nickel - 5 DB's. Big nickel is just another add on term for preferring a safety as the 3rd DB instead of a more "traditional" corner. In all honesty, "Big nickel" is a thing that has been around for quite some time minus the recently popular label. As far back as I can remember (with clarity) for a prime example - Cie Grant for the Buckeyes in 2002. He was a DB that bulked up and moved to "LB". It gave the Buck defense some speed at the WILL spot and the ability to better matchup with some slot receivers and TE's that teams like Purdue, NorthWestern, and OOC opponents like Texas Tech & Washington State deployed with all of their 11 personnel + hurryup. At this point, soon to be 18 years ago, wide split "spread" offenses, zone dominant, read option, and sight adjustment teams weren't all the rage at major universities. It was kind of niche' and even scoffed at because lesser football schools used those schemes to help combat the talent disadvantage. Remember Joe Tiller and his "basketball on grass" comments. This meant Heacock didn't have to constantly sub out DB's which let OSU go out, make their calls and play fast on defense on almost any down. That group really was ahead of their time on the collegiate level.
And to answer your question on the 2LB's. Goodson will be 1, the other really depends on how camp shakes out. Phillips was not the dime backer when I watched LSU play Georgia. And a couple times he wasn't even in with the nickel group. I'm sure that was matchup specific, but I'm not about to pencil his name in there right now. So I'll say Mack Wilson for the moment.
Call me a crazy old man, but I think in this data driven world scouts tend to look past the very simple "eye test" of prospects. I'm a data-driven man. I think tools like the ones noted are neat to consider when evaluating mid-tier guys, or how to thread the needle on two similar prospects.
You mentioned Kizer, and I think he's a perfect example of this. That dude when he looked bad on tape looked awful. I mean truly dreadful, and it was largely against elite competition. Meanwhile, you look at the tape of a dude like Joe Schobert (already miss him) and it's evident this dude is a football player. I swear, I think such a large reason New England has been so successful is they follow this to a huge degree. I'm curious to see how that safety they took ends up.
The "eye test" is everything to me. Of course it goes just beyond a simple gauge of "looking" like a football player. You can be big, strong, fast and what have you... but if I can't see evidence of you processing the chess match in front of you as it unfolds, then you're just an athlete. Data should back up film and vice versa. If you grade well, I'm going to want to verify why and how you achieved that grade. If the tape looks good, I'm going to want to see how you test out when how your play has been put to a grading system. In the end, I will always trust my "traditional" scouting. Because as I've said multiple times through my years on this board - there are metrics such as catching ability, route command and footwork, eye discipline, hand usage, etc etc... none that have a quantified metric for them. Sure, you can assign a personal grade. For example, I find that Jedrick Wills has quality feet and I'm giving him a B+ grade there. But to develop a true metric system that you can compare footwork to footwork on from prospect to prospect coupled with the route, the opponent, the coverage and so forth...? I haven't seen one put forth yet. And I'm not even sure how you would begin to even try.
As for Dugger? As bad as the Browns have been in the 2nd round with a few position groups the last 20 years, the Patriots might be every bit as bad as the Browns with DB's in that regard. History is not on Dugger's side with this one. I honestly couldn't believe some of the misses until I went back and use PFR to read the picks.
I'm curious bigtime to see how Kyle Dugger (safety) and Logan Wilson (lb), and Jeremy Chinn... how they do in the NFL. I had Dugger and Wilson in my stupid mock draft because I decided they were football players.
You got it right on him being the higher pick. But see the bolded just above.
-
riddle me this.. I don't believe Woods would share any of his "real" plans on what his defensive scheme he really may bring..but it would make good sense to believe his 4-3 base alignment statement makes sense..
In 2019, the 49'ers team coverage grade from PFF was 92.5..9'ers played a zone coverage 3 shell on over 70% of their reg. season snaps..To the tone of allowing the 2nd fewest per pass plays--Primary was a 3 deep zone scheme..Tied Pats for fewest 1st down completions with 149 in 2019...
Is this ^^ the same 70% basics of what most would say is playing a base nickel package? or Big Nickel? or Which 2 LBer's early look to be in the mix in nickel packages? and thanks! to whenever ya can get to this.. Gone Birthday Fishing ?
The differences in our base alignment will vary game to game. One of the more important reasons I believe Billings was brought it. I do believe you're going to be some odd, 3 man fronts that will involve vernon (should he be on the roster) and Myles in 2pt stances. Probably not much, but it will be in there. As I pointed out from watching the 2018 Broncos tape, I think our more common base look will closely resemble some of the things the Seahawks did with their under calls vs teams like the Steelers & Ravens. While we'll favor the over and speed approach with Jobi and Sheldon vs teams like Tennessee & Cincy.
I'm trying to follow your meaning on the nickel package comments though? Nickel is nickel - 5 DB's. Big nickel is just another add on term for preferring a safety as the 3rd DB instead of a more "traditional" corner. In all honesty, "Big nickel" is a thing that has been around for quite some time minus the recently popular label. As far back as I can remember (with clarity) for a prime example - Cie Grant for the Buckeyes in 2002. He was a DB that bulked up and moved to "LB". It gave the Buck defense some speed at the WILL spot and the ability to better matchup with some slot receivers and TE's that teams like Purdue, NorthWestern, and OOC opponents like Texas Tech & Washington State deployed with all of their 11 personnel + hurryup. At this point, soon to be 18 years ago, wide split "spread" offenses, zone dominant, read option, and sight adjustment teams weren't all the rage at major universities. It was kind of niche' and even scoffed at because lesser football schools used those schemes to help combat the talent disadvantage. Remember Joe Tiller and his "basketball on grass" comments. This meant Heacock didn't have to constantly sub out DB's which let OSU go out, make their calls and play fast on defense on almost any down. That group really was ahead of their time on the collegiate level.
And to answer your question on the 2LB's. Goodson will be 1, the other really depends on how camp shakes out. Phillips was not the dime backer when I watched LSU play Georgia. And a couple times he wasn't even in with the nickel group. I'm sure that was matchup specific, but I'm not about to pencil his name in there right now. So I'll say Mack Wilson for the moment.
Call me a crazy old man, but I think in this data driven world scouts tend to look past the very simple "eye test" of prospects. I'm a data-driven man. I think tools like the ones noted are neat to consider when evaluating mid-tier guys, or how to thread the needle on two similar prospects.
You mentioned Kizer, and I think he's a perfect example of this. That dude when he looked bad on tape looked awful. I mean truly dreadful, and it was largely against elite competition. Meanwhile, you look at the tape of a dude like Joe Schobert (already miss him) and it's evident this dude is a football player. I swear, I think such a large reason New England has been so successful is they follow this to a huge degree. I'm curious to see how that safety they took ends up.
The "eye test" is everything to me. Of course it goes just beyond a simple gauge of "looking" like a football player. You can be big, strong, fast and what have you... but if I can't see evidence of you processing the chess match in front of you as it unfolds, then you're just an athlete. Data should back up film and vice versa. If you grade well, I'm going to want to verify why and how you achieved that grade. If the tape looks good, I'm going to want to see how you test out when how your play has been put to a grading system. In the end, I will always trust my "traditional" scouting. Because as I've said multiple times through my years on this board - there are metrics such as catching ability, route command and footwork, eye discipline, hand usage, etc etc... none that have a quantified metric for them. Sure, you can assign a personal grade. For example, I find that Jedrick Wills has quality feet and I'm giving him a B+ grade there. But to develop a true metric system that you can compare footwork to footwork on from prospect to prospect coupled with the route, the opponent, the coverage and so forth...? I haven't seen one put forth yet. And I'm not even sure how you would begin to even try.
As for Dugger? As bad as the Browns have been in the 2nd round with a few position groups the last 20 years, the Patriots might be every bit as bad as the Browns with DB's in that regard. History is not on Dugger's side with this one. I honestly couldn't believe some of the misses until I went back and use PFR to read the picks.
I'm curious bigtime to see how Kyle Dugger (safety) and Logan Wilson (lb), and Jeremy Chinn... how they do in the NFL. I had Dugger and Wilson in my stupid mock draft because I decided they were football players.
You got it right on him being the higher pick. But see the bolded just above.
I'm trying to follow your meaning on the nickel package comments though? Nickel is nickel - 5 DB's. Big nickel is just another add on term for preferring a safety as the 3rd DB instead of a more "traditional" corner. In all honesty, "Big nickel" is a thing that has been around for quite some time minus the recently popular label. As far back as I can remember (with clarity) for a prime example - Cie Grant for the Buckeyes in 2002. He was a DB that bulked up and moved to "LB". It gave the Buck defense some speed at the WILL spot and the ability to better matchup with some slot receivers and TE's that teams like Purdue, NorthWestern, and OOC opponents like Texas Tech & Washington State deployed with all of their 11 personnel + hurryup. At this point, soon to be 18 years ago, wide split "spread" offenses, zone dominant, read option, and sight adjustment teams weren't all the rage at major universities. It was kind of niche' and even scoffed at because lesser football schools used those schemes to help combat the talent disadvantage. Remember Joe Tiller and his "basketball on grass" comments. This meant Heacock didn't have to constantly sub out DB's which let OSU go out, make their calls and play fast on defense on almost any down. That group really was ahead of their time on the collegiate level.
And to answer your question on the 2LB's. Goodson will be 1, the other really depends on how camp shakes out. Phillips was not the dime backer when I watched LSU play Georgia. And a couple times he wasn't even in with the nickel group. I'm sure that was matchup specific, but I'm not about to pencil his name in there right now. So I'll say Mack Wilson for the moment.
Thank you Tia, and perfectly explained...i thought i knew both concepts between nickel's. and your version leaves a clear picture.. I was listening to Mike Renner at Pff on the radio & browns draft breakdown adding Delpit.. Renner kept confusing the conversation with Nickel & Woods at 9'ers great %age of 3 cover zone shells..Anywho,, Renner see's alot of us playing Ward, Greedy,Kevin Johnson, Delpit & Joseph.. with some better depth at safety in Zendejo & Redwine & CB T.Mitchell. Also, Renner loves the pick of Phillips, but only see's us playing with 2 LB'ers a lot.. but am like you, thinking now Renner knows nothing about us adding Goodson so Jacobs just won't be handed the keys like Renner thinks...one of these days we may just find out..thanks again
-
I'm trying to follow your meaning on the nickel package comments though? Nickel is nickel - 5 DB's. Big nickel is just another add on term for preferring a safety as the 3rd DB instead of a more "traditional" corner. In all honesty, "Big nickel" is a thing that has been around for quite some time minus the recently popular label. As far back as I can remember (with clarity) for a prime example - Cie Grant for the Buckeyes in 2002. He was a DB that bulked up and moved to "LB". It gave the Buck defense some speed at the WILL spot and the ability to better matchup with some slot receivers and TE's that teams like Purdue, NorthWestern, and OOC opponents like Texas Tech & Washington State deployed with all of their 11 personnel + hurryup. At this point, soon to be 18 years ago, wide split "spread" offenses, zone dominant, read option, and sight adjustment teams weren't all the rage at major universities. It was kind of niche' and even scoffed at because lesser football schools used those schemes to help combat the talent disadvantage. Remember Joe Tiller and his "basketball on grass" comments. This meant Heacock didn't have to constantly sub out DB's which let OSU go out, make their calls and play fast on defense on almost any down. That group really was ahead of their time on the collegiate level.
And to answer your question on the 2LB's. Goodson will be 1, the other really depends on how camp shakes out. Phillips was not the dime backer when I watched LSU play Georgia. And a couple times he wasn't even in with the nickel group. I'm sure that was matchup specific, but I'm not about to pencil his name in there right now. So I'll say Mack Wilson for the moment.
Thank you Tia, and perfectly explained...i thought i knew both concepts between nickel's. and your version leaves a clear picture.. I was listening to Mike Renner at Pff on the radio & browns draft breakdown adding Delpit.. Renner kept confusing the conversation with Nickel & Woods at 9'ers great %age of 3 cover zone shells..Anywho,, Renner see's alot of us playing Ward, Greedy,Kevin Johnson, Delpit & Joseph.. with some better depth at safety in Zendejo & Redwine & CB T.Mitchell. Also, Renner loves the pick of Phillips, but only see's us playing with 2 LB'ers a lot.. but am like you, thinking now Renner knows nothing about us adding Goodson so Jacobs just won't be handed the keys like Renner thinks...one of these days we may just find out..thanks again
Thank you Tia, and perfectly explained...i thought i knew both concepts between nickel's. and your version leaves a clear picture.. I was listening to Mike Renner at Pff on the radio & browns draft breakdown adding Delpit.. Renner kept confusing the conversation with Nickel & Woods at 9'ers great %age of 3 cover zone shells..Anywho,, Renner see's alot of us playing Ward, Greedy,Kevin Johnson, Delpit & Joseph.. with some better depth at safety in Zendejo & Redwine & CB T.Mitchell. Also, Renner loves the pick of Phillips, but only see's us playing with 2 LB'ers a lot.. but am like you, thinking now Renner knows nothing about us adding Goodson so Jacobs just won't be handed the keys like Renner thinks...one of these days we may just find out..thanks again
No reason to thank me. But I believe that's what I offer over most anyone that covers the NFL as a whole. There's just too many moving parts, too much personnel, for one person to give a truly informed decision on every team without some "Huh?" moments. Team specific analysts are really where it's at.
RE: Renner. Sounds like he believes that Delpit will win the centerfielder spot in our single high shells. It's possible he does just that, but Sendejo won't make it easy for him. So if he's starting, that means he has earned it. You can play cover 3 from damn near any personnel, but I'm not sure what MR is referring to. If he believes we'll be in nickel most of the time, well, you don't have to be a paid analyst to make that assessment. I think the difference here is this - will we be playing the bulk of our nickel with a 3rd corner, such as Mitchell or Johnson? Or will most of our nickel be with a 3rd safety? In which case the likely candidate for that spot is Delpit given his size and having some athletic traits over Sendejo and Karl Joseph in man coverage. Plus a solid opportunity to showcase his proof on improved tackling.
I would expect an employee of PFF to love the Phillips pick, he was rated highly by them. But if he thinks JC will be in on the nickel sets as the 2nd backer, then that means Goodson will be outside and Phillips has won the ILB spot. LIke I said, a lot of moving parts.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login