The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Martin Mayhew has been hired as GM of the Football Team and report directly to Rivera. Really shows the power Rivera has solidified with the franchise.

Given that he is a minority candidate that means that the 49ers now have 3rd round comp picks in the 2021, 2022, and 2023 drafts (new rule that you get 2 picks from the first minority hire you 'develop' and lose in a given year (Saleh) and then 1 additional if you lose another). I don't think it is clear yet if these comp picks are in addition to the player comp picks or if they replace them (i.e., all player comp picks are pushed down and some teams at the bottom will lose out)

Foxtrol wrote: »

Martin Mayhew has been hired as GM of the Football Team and report directly to Rivera. Really shows the power Rivera has solidified with the franchise.

Given that he is a minority candidate that means that the 49ers now have 3rd round comp picks in the 2021, 2022, and 2023 drafts (new rule that you get 2 picks from the first minority hire you 'develop' and lose in a given year (Saleh) and then 1 additional if you lose another). I don't think it is clear yet if these comp picks are in addition to the player comp picks or if they replace them (i.e., all player comp picks are pushed down and some teams at the bottom will lose out)

I think they are in addition to the player comp picks, and in the third round these picks come after the player comp picks in the draft order. I read the other day that 32 player comp picks are awarded each year, and these coach/GM picks are additional.

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

Hadn't realised the comp picks for development staff went that far. Bit mad given Mayhew was formerly the GM for the Lions.

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Good incentive to develop minority candidates but it probably shouldn’t apply if the candidate has already held an equivalent position in the past. 49ers will gladly take the picks however

I know I might be biased given that we just got the picks but I think it still makes sense for minority candidates who have previously held HC or GM roles elsewhere to be available for these picks.

This rule is trying to put more minority candidates in the shop window for jobs (rather than the 'jobs for the boys') and excluding people deemed to be previously qualified from that benefit doesn't help achieving that goal. You want to promote keeping those minority candidates who failed in their first run in the active pool, rather than them falling away and disappearing.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I know I might be biased given that we just got the picks but I think it still makes sense for minority candidates who have previously held HC or GM roles elsewhere to be available for these picks.

This rule is trying to put more minority candidates in the shop window for jobs (rather than the 'jobs for the boys') and excluding people deemed to be previously qualified from that benefit doesn't help achieving that goal. You want to promote keeping those minority candidates who failed in their first run in the active pool, rather than them falling away and disappearing.

Yeah I’d have no major issue with it really. It’s a very clever way of incentivising minority hires at the lower levels and giving guys opportunities. It shouldn’t be necessary in the first place but there you go. A comp pick three years running is very nice for the 49ers

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Patricia going back to NE is something...

https://www.nfl.com/news/matt-patricia-returning-to-patriots-in-role-that-combines-scouting-and-working-w

The Texans interviewing Josh McCown is the essence of left-field.

https://www.nfl.com/news/texans-interview-josh-mccown-jim-caldwell-for-vacant-head-coaching-job

Speaking of left field...The Bears just interviewed Mike Singletary for their DC position. He was recently fired from a high school coaching job where he won one game in two years.

I mean the guy is a legend round Chicago but my God...

Shedite27 wrote: »

Stinks of a token effort to satisfy the Rooney Rule

Does that apply to coordinators? Thought that role was only for head coach searches

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It’s being reported that the lions and Matthew Stafford are parting ways in the off season. With Phillip rivers calling it a day you’d think the Colts would be in the frame to sign him.

Yeah I'd expect so. We have all 7 pick and 2nd most cap space so we would be in play I'd say to take on a $30m contract.

Probably the most underrated quarterback in the league, totally held back by playing for a really badly run organisation. Would love him to go to the bears but...I mean he's trying to get away from bad organisations so I assume he'll want to go somewhere good.

Indy maybe??

Stafford is probably cheaper than Jimmy G so the 49ers may save on cap space depending on how they ship Jimmy away.

I though the Lions had agreed to move on from Stafford?

letowski wrote: »

For Stafford’s suitors, I think when you crosstab teams with cap space, draft capital and teams that have a QB need (excluding teams with high draft picks), then it really only leaves Washington, New England and Indianapolis. 49ers would be in the running but they are too tight with cap space and probably would like to re-sign Trent Williams too. It will be interesting to see if New England make a move, it would give you an idea if Bill thinks he can win a SB in the short term or not.

49ers look to be the front runners if they want Stafford and any auction doesn't get too rich. Practically all the teams before and around them in the draft are either set for QB, will be in the position to draft one of the top rookie QBs in the draft, or likely wouldn't be seen as contenders enough for Stafford to want to join (from all reports it seems the Lions are going to do right by Stafford).

49ers would actually save $4m bringing in Stafford and trading or cutting Garoppolo, so it would put them in an even better position to keep the likes of Williams - that is even before any additional contract massaging they could do with Stafford once he arrives.

I've seen the Colts mentioned a few times but though they have a lot of cap space their draft capital is comparatively pretty weak. For example, the 49ers #12 draft pick is worth around the same as the Colts 1st and 2nd round picks combined.

As a 9ers fan I'm hoping they end up getting Stafford and I'd be ok with giving up the #12 pick and potentially a later pick (or Jimmy) for him as I think he'll be a revelation in the Shanahan offense, vying against the Chiefs for the best in the league. Having said that I'm pretty happy with the position the team is in heading into the offseason. Worst case scenario we end up sticking with a QB that led us to the Super Bowl on an average non-rookie starter price and add one of the top talents in the draft, that should fall due to the run on young QBs.

letowski wrote: »

I didn't realize just looking at Garrapolo's contract, he has so little guaranteed money. It was a good structured front-loaded contract, that would give the 9ers the option to cut him if they were to acquire Stafford.

Our contract guy is great most of the time, generally it means they're structure players play well they'll get even above market rate but if they don't we can get out of it.

The team made a mess of last offseason on which guys they restructured and turned money guaranteed so they're a bit more stuck on a few guys who'd they'd like to escape from now. It was telling that even after they checked out Brady last season and they decided to stick with Jimmy he wasn't one of those they restructured.

I still think they wouldn't have to cut Garoppolo though, as with the amount of QB needy teams he has mid-round trade value. There are rumours he might have a no trade clause in 2021 but I'd say he'd accept a trade to any reasonable team and be certain of his money rather than hit FA and potentially end up with a Cam/Winston type deal.