Official Game Thread - Preseason Week 2 - Commander @ Lions

KDawg said:

I know what we should have done at center… not released the best one on the roster.

Click to expand...

For nothing and no backup plan...WTF

Voice_of_Reason said:

I'm defending releasing an average player. I'm not defending not being able to figure out how to replace the average player.

He wasn't depth for them. They didn't want him on the team. I've gone through why:

1. They didn't want him on the team when they chased Lindy.
2. They didn't want him competing for the center spot

It's bad for team chemistry to keep a guy and then actively try and replace him while he's on the roster. What happens if they try 3 things to replace him, fail, then you go back to him and say, "sorry, we tried to replace you, then we probably would have released you, but now you are the starter?" I mean, come on. That's just not going to work.

Biadasz was either the starter or not on the team. And they were paying him way too much to have him as a backup.

So they released him. Fine. No problem.

When plan A and plan B failed, they didn't have a plan C. And that's really where the problem is.

However, while you don't understand how I can keep defending this, I can't understand how you can't see they couldn't keep Biadasz and try to move on at the same time. It wouldn't work.

Click to expand...

Why would going after Linderbaum have in any way changed?

1) we didn’t get him.
2) you tell Linderbaum that you will be making way for him to start if he signs.
3) you now have either Allegretti or Biadasz as depth
4) I don’t know that going after Linderbaum was the right move to begin with. He would have been a vast upgrade, yes, but our theory of being cash strapped meant that money was being spent on center and not elsewhere. It’s the same thought as Pierce.

After missing on FA and early round WR's, they appeared to have lucked out with 3rd rounder WIlliams and then really late signing Diggs. That solidifies that position for his year (only this year).

At Center KDawg is right and all know it. They effed up the timing of the Biadasz release and came away with no answer but Allegretti who at best should be competing for the position because he surely doesn't have a resume as a serious starter. The only competition they brought in is Bad-Jones and a 6th rounder. That is not competition or looking ahead to who would be the competition backup.

KDawg said:

Why would going after Linderbaum have in any way changed?

1) we didn’t get him.
2) you tell Linderbaum that you will be making way for him to start if he signs.
3) you now have either Allegretti or Biadasz as depth
4) I don’t know that going after Linderbaum was the right move to begin with. He would have been a vast upgrade, yes, but our theory of being cash strapped meant that money was being spent on center and not elsewhere. It’s the same thought as Pierce.

Click to expand...

You're missing what effect keeping a player on your roster and then trying to replace them does to their psyche. And everybody knew we were attempting to upgrade center. Linderbaum was plan A, Keim said there was a plan B. Biadasz would have known that.

When both plans failed, then you turn back to Biadasz and expect him to be fully bought in without hard feelings? These guys are people. He would be right to feel put out by it. Hell, if you kept him and then tried to sign Lindy, he might have reqeusted a trade. If I was Biadasz's agent, as soon as the word was out that we were chasing other starting centers, I'd publicly come out and say "trade him or release him." Then you have that mess to deal with.

It sounds good in theory to say, "oh, just keep him while trying to sign his replacement, and he'll just suck it up and deal, and if we get his replacement, we'll release him later."

It's just not good business, it's not good for the team, and it's not a good reputation to have to get other FAs to come here.

Just watching the game now, recorded from NFL network last night. Some notes:

Good

1. Uniforms look great.
2. Starting defense looks pretty good, getting pressure, forcing turnovers, sacks.
3. Amik Robertson and Quan Martin forcing turnovers.
4. Williams, Brown, McCaffery, Okonkwo, Lane with catches in the first half.
5. Bradley and Williams had some good plays in the second half, a one-handed catch and a difficult grab on third and long.
6. Kaliakmanis looked pretty good, accurate, no turnovers, some long completions and third down conversions.
7. Stevens did his job in the kicking game.
8. No major injuries.

Bad

1. Starting offense had limited reps and looked bad.
2. Offensive line is struggling. Giving up sacks, can’t get the run game going, can’t set up a screen, false starts penalties, etc., just generally losing the line of scrimmage.
3. Getting beat on the read option.
4. Sonny Styles is disappointing so far, getting pushed around, not contributing much.
5. Defense getting gashed in the run game.
6. Henry Jr. fumbling a kickoff hurts his chance of making the team after a good showing last week.

Ugly

1. John Bates whiffing on a block, that’s his role, he needs to make those.
2. Jayden Daniels hasn’t completed a pass in two consecutive preseasons. Hopefully that rustiness doesn’t carry over into the regular season again.
3. Can’t run the ball on offense, can’t stop the run on defense.

Voice_of_Reason said:

They were making a show of the Paul/Coleman battle for the LG spot. It was Coleman's as long as he could stay healthy because he has a lot more upside and is a much better athlete.

Paul was brought back to be a very high-level and competent backup. He was paid backup money. I think they were pretty thrilled to have a guy who started all year for them last year and was not a complete mess as a primary backup.

The problem is Tunsil's injury elevated him from primary backup to starter again. Which isn't ideal, but it could also be a whole lot worse.

I think Peters did a really good job on the OL apart from Center. We had 2 all-pro/pro bowl level players in Tunsil and Cosmi. Conerly looked good at the end of last year and is a first round pick. We had our 2024 3rd round pick plugging in at LG. Behind the starters we had real depth. Wylie is one of the best backup swing tackles you can have. He's competent at 4 spots. Trent Scott is a good 3rd string backup tackle and can also play a little guard, and Paul was the primary backup for at least LG, and maybe even RG. And he is either a borderline starter or really good backup. And as an added bonus, Coleman, the projected starting guard, can also play tackle. So they had really good depth.

The problem is now Paul is a starter because Tunsil got injured. They're probably fine at LT with Coleman. Paul now has to start the entire season, though, which is far from ideal.

But that's what happens when you lose a starter early in the season. Your depth has to play.

And there's literally no team that has backup players who are as good as the starters. You're going to have a drop off.

I actually think Peters did a hell of a good job with the OL outside of C because even the depth is good.

Center, that's a different story.

Click to expand...

The plan had no contintincy plan should either Tunsil or Allegretti get injured. They knew Coleman was the only serviceable backup at LT and they tried to have him win the job over Paul last camp and he failed. Even if he did win the job, and that was hardly a given, then they had no legit backup at LT and clearly have no backup center on the roster. I didn't understand the plan from the start.

Darrell Green Fan said:

The plan had no contintincy plan should either Tunsil or Allegretti get injured. They knew Coleman was the only serviceable backup at LT and they tried to have him win the job over Paul last camp and he failed. Even if he did win the job, and that was hardly a given, then they had no legit backup at LT and clearly have no backup center on the roster. I didn't understand the plan from the start.

Click to expand...

That's actually not true. The plan for a tackle getting injured short term was Wylie and Trent Scott. Both of which are absolutely viable short term professional OL backups.

And the plan for backup at guard was Paul, Wylie and Trent Scott.

The plan for a long term injury to either Tunsil or Conerly was Coleman sliding there.

They have more depth at the tackle/guard backup spots than just about any team in the league. I think people who say "they don't have a plan" are somehow thinking there is another NFL level starter on the roster who is a backup. That just doesn't happen. If there is a player who's an NFL starter, they start somewhere. They aren't a backup. Having Wylie and Scott as the backup tackles is actually really, really solid depth.

The center position is a complete mess. I have no problem with them releasing Biadasz. He was average. At best. And always fighting through a nagging injury. His PFF grade (and PFF grades are not sacred, but they are usually directionally correct) was an overall 70, and his pass blocking and run blocking were 67 and 71, though I can't remember which was which. But it doesn't matter. 70 is average. He was average. Replacement level starter.

The problem is they had a plan A, which was Lindenbaum, and that failed. Apparently according to Keim, they had a plan B, which didn't pan out. It probably was one of the centers who retired. But there was no plan C. Plan C was Allegretti and not adding anything else. That was a bad plan.

So while I think Peters made a mistake at center, and it has bitten them, I do not think he made a mistake at guard/tackle. I think they had high level quality starters and really good depth. But when you lose your starting LT a week into training camp, you have to rely on your depth for the entire season. That's not ideal.

Faithful Fan said:

Just watching the game now, recorded from NFL network last night. Some notes:

Good

1. Uniforms look great.
2. Starting defense looks pretty good, getting pressure, forcing turnovers, sacks.
3. Amik Robertson and Quan Martin forcing turnovers.
4. Williams, Brown, McCaffery, Okonkwo, Lane with catches in the first half.
5. Bradley and Williams had some good plays in the second half, a one-handed catch and a difficult grab on third and long.
6. Kaliakmanis looked pretty good, accurate, no turnovers, some long completions and third down conversions.
7. Stevens did his job in the kicking game.
8. No major injuries.

Click to expand...

I'd add Tyler Owens made some play, and it was really good. I don't remember what the play was, but I do remember commenting on it.

Faithful Fan said:

Bad

1. Starting offense had limited reps and looked bad.
2. Offensive line is struggling. Giving up sacks, can’t get the run game going, can’t set up a screen, false starts penalties, etc., just generally losing the line of scrimmage.
3. Getting beat on the read option.
4. Sonny Styles is disappointing so far, getting pushed around, not contributing much.
5. Defense getting gashed in the run game.
6. Henry Jr. fumbling a kickoff hurts his chance of making the team after a good showing last week.

Click to expand...

JD had 3 plays:
1. Shotgun, was looking for some type of a chunk play, got immediate pressure and threw the ball away.
2. Under-center play-action, got immediate pressure, and took a sack
3. Draw to get off the field.

They actually did nothing really interesting in those three plays. I would have liked to have seen a first down run if the offense was only going to get one series, just so they weren't likely in a known passing situation. I don't really think Daniels is rusty at all. I think he had absolutely no opportunity. He's had a great camp. He torched the Dolphins in the joint practice. We have good receiver depth and starters. I don't really have any concerns with any of that stuff hitting the ground running.

I have a lot of concerns on the OL as long as JGG is starting at center. They need to change that. Gublin should be getting every non-Allegretti snap until they sign whoever they are going to sign to be the backup center. JGG should not make the 53 man roster, he's a PS level player.

I'm not terribly concerned about anything the defense did. I'm not even remotely concerned about Styles. They aren't running what they are going to run. They certainly aren't game planning the read option for a backup QB. I think the defense is going to be somewhere between good and very good if they stay healthy. They're not showing anything, they're not attacking, and they're not game planning. They're not really playing a style they practice, so until we get to Philly, we don't really know what they are going to be.

Faithful Fan said:

Ugly

1. John Bates whiffing on a block, that’s his role, he needs to make those.
2. Jayden Daniels hasn’t completed a pass in two consecutive preseasons. Hopefully that rustiness doesn’t carry over into the regular season again.
3. Can’t run the ball on offense, can’t stop the run on defense.

Click to expand...

As I said, I'm not concerned about Daniels at all. I think that's going to be fine.

OL is a concern. But 3 of the 5 OL are going to be good: Coleman, Cosmi and Conerly. (I don't think I realized until just now all three have names that start with a C). The question is Paul, who is a below average replacement level LG, and Allegretti, who has both experience and also health concerns.

We'll see how that works out.

I also think when they start game planning, it's going to be a very different story. But who knows, maybe not.

One really important thing to remember: it's still preseason. They aren't game planning, they are working on specific things, and they are often putting players in position to be man on man with an opponent to see how they do.

Don't draw grand conclusions from anything that happens in preseason.

A good preseason could be meaningless: REMEMBER OSAKA!!!!
A bad preseason could be meaningless: 1991 Redskins went 0-4 and won the SB.

Sometimes a good preseason carries over to a good season, sometimes not.

Anybody jumping to any significant conclusions after any preseason game, good or bad, is badly jumping the gun.

We will know by the end of week 3 if this team is going to be competitive or not. But until then, we really know nothing.

Voice_of_Reason said:

You're missing what effect keeping a player on your roster and then trying to replace them does to their psyche. And everybody knew we were attempting to upgrade center. Linderbaum was plan A, Keim said there was a plan B. Biadasz would have known that.

When both plans failed, then you turn back to Biadasz and expect him to be fully bought in without hard feelings? These guys are people. He would be right to feel put out by it. Hell, if you kept him and then tried to sign Lindy, he might have reqeusted a trade. If I was Biadasz's agent, as soon as the word was out that we were chasing other starting centers, I'd publicly come out and say "trade him or release him." Then you have that mess to deal with.

It sounds good in theory to say, "oh, just keep him while trying to sign his replacement, and he'll just suck it up and deal, and if we get his replacement, we'll release him later."

It's just not good business, it's not good for the team, and it's not a good reputation to have to get other FAs to come here.

Click to expand...

I mean.... I think you're way overstating the situation. Virtually every football player has had competition, had a young high draft pick taken, or had a more expensive FA brought in at their position. It's literally how the league works.

I'm not arguing that Biadasz would like it, but that shouldn't really have any bearing on the team's decision making.

Maybe in the case of a perennial probowl player player, but not in the case of an average / non-premium position player. The league just doesn't work that way.

Discobob said:

I mean.... I think you're way overstating the situation. Virtually every football player has had competition, had a young high draft pick taken, or had a more expensive FA brought in at their position. It's literally how the league works.

I'm not arguing that Biadasz would like it, but that shouldn't really have any bearing on the team's decision making.

Maybe in the case of a perennial probowl player player, but not in the case of an average / non-premium position player. The league just doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

I think competition is one thing. Taking a 2 year starter here, and a starter for several years in Dallas, and then actively going out to find their replacement, I think that's different than having Chris Paul compete with Coleman, or something like that.

Biadasz has to see himself as the starter, period, and they're not brining in anybody to take my job. He's paid as a starter and treated as a starter. And has been for years. He's not old, so he's expecting to be a starter. And San Diego paid him as a starter also. People who are paid that way believe that even though there is competition, they aren't just going to be summarily replaced. Bringing in competition for a backup spot or somebody at his level to push him, sure.

Pursuing Lindy, it wouldn't be to bring somebody in to push him, he would immediately become the backup. Or, more likely, released. And he knows that. So, having him on the roster and pursuing Lindy is just a bad idea. If you fail to get Lindy, he's going to know that you actively tried to replace him and were likely going to release him late in FA and he wouldn't have the opportunities he would have had earlier. Then going back to him and saying, "hey man, it's just business, all good?"

I can speak from some experience in building and managing teams, it doesn't work that way. He would have every right to feel slighted.

It's just not a good way of going about your business.

Ravens joint practice should be interesting. The more I hear and I watched some of it when out for dinner last night how dominant the Giants were over the Dolphins -- the less I take from this team's week with the Dolphins. Raanan was on a podcast weeks back and seemed not completely sold on the Giants, but lol give the Giants Miami for a few days and his outlook changes.

I was fine with them releasing Biadasz — but only if they had a legitimate replacement lined up in free agency. Apparently, judging by Keim's podcast, they actually had two targets, although who the second one was remains a mystery.

But Peters doesn't get brownie points from me for swinging and missing. If you're voluntarily moving on from a solid center, you better have a plan to replace him. You can't take a position that was perfectly fine and turn it into a glaring weakness. That's not bad luck — that's an unforced error.

And yeah, maybe it ultimately works out. But as things stand right now, it looks really bad.

skinsinparadise said:

But Peters doesn't get brownie points from me for swinging and missing.

Click to expand...

Agreed, he’s had a bit too much leeway in that respect.

Voice_of_Reason said:

That's actually not true. The plan for a tackle getting injured short term was Wylie and Trent Scott. Both of which are absolutely viable short term professional OL backups.

And the plan for backup at guard was Paul, Wylie and Trent Scott.

The plan for a long term injury to either Tunsil or Conerly was Coleman sliding there.

They have more depth at the tackle/guard backup spots than just about any team in the league. I think people who say "they don't have a plan" are somehow thinking there is another NFL level starter on the roster who is a backup. That just doesn't happen. If there is a player who's an NFL starter, they start somewhere. They aren't a backup. Having Wylie and Scott as the backup tackles is actually really, really solid depth.

The center position is a complete mess. I have no problem with them releasing Biadasz. He was average. At best. And always fighting through a nagging injury. His PFF grade (and PFF grades are not sacred, but they are usually directionally correct) was an overall 70, and his pass blocking and run blocking were 67 and 71, though I can't remember which was which. But it doesn't matter. 70 is average. He was average. Replacement level starter.

The problem is they had a plan A, which was Lindenbaum, and that failed. Apparently according to Keim, they had a plan B, which didn't pan out. It probably was one of the centers who retired. But there was no plan C. Plan C was Allegretti and not adding anything else. That was a bad plan.

So while I think Peters made a mistake at center, and it has bitten them, I do not think he made a mistake at guard/tackle. I think they had high level quality starters and really good depth. But when you lose your starting LT a week into training camp, you have to rely on your depth for the entire season. That's not ideal.

Click to expand...

I get why they released Biadasz and have no issue but please stop saying 70 is an average PFF grade. Straight from the source, 60 is average

method man said:

I get why they released Biadasz and have no issue but please stop saying 70 is an average PFF grade. Straight from the source, 60 is average

PFF FC's Grading System: A Deep Dive into Player Evaluation — PFF FC BLOG

Discover how PFF FC revolutionizes player evaluation with its comprehensive grading system. From play-by-play analysis to normalized grades and conversion to a 0-100 scale, learn the intricacies behind PFF FC's objective and accurate player assessment.

www.blog.fc.pff.com

Click to expand...

Ah, I guess I got that wrong. My apologies. I really thought 70 was average.

skinsinparadise said:

I was fine with them releasing Biadasz — but only if they had a legitimate replacement lined up in free agency. Apparently, judging by Keim's podcast, they actually had two targets, although who the second one was remains a mystery.

But Peters doesn't get brownie points from me for swinging and missing. If you're voluntarily moving on from a solid center, you better have a plan to replace him. You can't take a position that was perfectly fine and turn it into a glaring weakness. That's not bad luck — that's an unforced error.

And yeah, maybe it ultimately works out. But as things stand right now, it looks really bad.

Click to expand...

1. I don't think THEY would say Biadasz was a solid center. You are. They never said they thought he was solid.
2. Where we agree, (I think) is after they released Biadasz, they had to do more than extending Allegretti, drafting a guy in the 6th round, and relying on a practice squad player. I get that they tried for Lindenbaum and failed, and they had a backup plan who most likely retired, but that doesn't mean you stop and hope. Hope is not a strategy. They needed to bring some other veteran in who had legitimate starting experience to push Allegretti at the very least.

If they didn't think they had at least 3 or 4 solid options, then they shouldn't have pulled the trigger on Biadasz. That I will agree with. But it looks like they had 2, and from the outset, Lindy seemed like a longshot. So then they had one. And that's not good enough.

Voice_of_Reason said:

1. I don't think THEY would say Biadasz was a solid center. You are. They never said they thought he was solid.
2. Where we agree, (I think) is after they released Biadasz, they had to do more than extending Allegretti, drafting a guy in the 6th round, and relying on a practice squad player. I get that they tried for Lindenbaum and failed, and they had a backup plan who most likely retired, but that doesn't mean you stop and hope. Hope is not a strategy. They needed to bring some other veteran in who had legitimate starting experience to push Allegretti at the very least.

If they didn't think they had at least 3 or 4 solid options, then they shouldn't have pulled the trigger on Biadasz. That I will agree with. But it looks like they had 2, and from the outset, Lindy seemed like a longshot. So then they had one. And that's not good enough.

Click to expand...

I listen to every Keim podcast, and I know we have a long history of listening to the exact same podcasts and somehow at times hearing completely different things. So with that caveat, here's the impression I've gotten from Keim on the Biadasz situation:

A. They thought Biadasz was an OK/solid center as a blocker. They didn't think he sucked.
B. They wanted more leadership and personality from the position, and they weren't always thrilled with his line calls.
C. They believed Allegretti could match Biadasz's level of play — or at least come close enough (he said or close multiple times) — for less money, while bringing more leadership, better communication and a different personality to center. And Allegretti is supposedly a really bright guy.
D. Releasing Biadasz right before free agency also freed up money they could use elsewhere.
E. Most importantly, they intended to bring in legitimate competition for Allegretti in free agency. That part of the plan simply didn't work out.

So I never got the impression from Keim that they viewed Biadasz as some disaster they desperately needed to replace. In fact, Keim repeatedly saying they believed Allegretti could match Biadasz's play or come close to it tells me the opposite. If they thought Biadasz was terrible, matching his play wouldn't exactly be much of a selling point. The logic seemed pretty straightforward: if Allegretti can give you roughly the same blocking for less money while providing better leadership and line calls, why not make the switch?

And I'd hazard a pretty strong bet that if they knew in March that the position would devolve into what it looks like today, they'd happily take Biadasz back. That doesn't mean releasing him was crazy at the time. It means the plan they had for replacing him didn't materialize, and the fallback plan hasn't worked out so far. If you see it differently, that's cool.

I'm not even sure what you're defending here, considering you agree with the central point: they needed to have a legitimate alternative to Biadasz, and the fact that they don't have one right now is a failure. That's really the entire argument.

Is your position that they were so done with Biadasz that they'd happily make the same decision again today and roll with whatever they have at center, no matter how bad it looks? Because if that's the argument, I don't see the evidence for it. Keim has repeatedly said their hope was that Allegretti would essentially be a wash with Biadasz as a blocker — or at least close enough — while upgrading the leadership and line-call aspects of the position. That doesn't exactly scream, "We have to get Biadasz out of here at any cost."

And somehow I seriously doubt that if Peters could hit a button today and choose between Biadasz and Good-Jones at center, he'd say, "Nah, we're good." If they were that dissatisfied with Biadasz, then fine. But everything Keim has reported suggests they thought they could replace his blocking, improve the intangibles, save some money and add competition in free agency. They swung and missed on the last part, Allegretti got hurt, and now a perfectly functional position looks like a major weakness. That's the problem.

If its about having Peters back. I had his back on this when it happened. I don't now. Going back to Keim, he said at the time expect a FA signing. It didn't happen. And he's said multiple times recently they just didn't miss on Linderbaum but missed on another FA, too. And again if your point is they were so over Biadaz they have zero regrets of that release regardless of how things played out. You have no idea and neither do I. But my gut is I doubt Peters is saying yeah center isn't looking hot right now but we absolutely are glad that Biadaz gone regardless of how everything unfolded. And that they'd rather have a banged up Allegretti and name that center that hits the wire versus Biadaz and Allegretti.