Growl

HUDDLER
  • Content count

    9,737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,010 Fuggin Awesome

1 Follower

About Growl

  • Rank
    ICON

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

12,579 profile views
  1. Okay that's a canned response which ignores the point. When he talks about finding guys that fit us, it refers to a number of things, from finding larger players that fit our preference for them to finding day 1 starters-like the CBs we drafted who play the bulk of the snaps. It doesn't refer to adding situational pieces who allow the team to showcase different looks, as the talk from the team surrounding the Cash signing would indicate (the point being that he's a UDFA and I'd like to see us acquire more high investment players to do this with). If we want to stay succseful, we need to continue to evolve.
  2. Let me go ahead and toss out that we used our 2nd and 3rd round picks in the hopes of gaining a day 1 starter. I get your point but it isn't entirely accurate. There are still some areas on this team that we could used a high pick on, but more relevantly, my desire would be to see us use high round picks on players that give us some diversity rather than exclusively drafting depth, as you pointed out. A completely out of place 34 rush linebacker brought jn on passing downs actually seems like a nice wrinkle and wouldn't be such a bad thing to spend a high pick on. It may also allow us to actually show some 34 looks in games. There are other areas as well. I was really hoping we'd get a guy like Kenyan Drake we could line up anywhere on the offense.
  3. Lol you sound really paranoid. I didn't put any words in your mouth. I used sarcasm to infer a point-the point being that the only consequence that will come out of "overpaying" Janoris Jenkins is improved CB play and a player who you can count on to stay on the field more than Prince Amukumara. And again, you're making the enormous stretch that signing three young players somehow equates to "going all in" which has no basis other than the Huddle born foundation of "free agency=bad" or even more ridiculously "free agency=short term gratification" New York signed three young players to multi year contracts. If you choose to believe it was a "all in for this year" move then that's your prerogative, but you're fighting an uphill battle if you want to convince anybody else of that.
  4. Next Call of Duty includes CoD 4 remaster but

    There's no way they won't release it individually at some point. I'll just wait until then. I am psyched about it though and its a pretty light year for gaming, so I'll probably have to stave off some temptation.
  5. Yeah what punishments do you think Goodell is gonna dole out on them when he finds out they overpaid?
  6. Yes but I inferred that you must've been speaking about last season given that new York wasn't good. The free agents you listed for this season are all young players. The notion that they signed them for the sole purpose of "winning this season" is an enormous stretch. And frankly as long as Eli continues to only play well on even numbered weeks it won't matter what new York does.
  7. I'm aware of what I said. You insinuated the Giants did something prior to last off season that supposedly suggested they were going "all in" which then prompted me to tell you I had no idea what move you were referring to.
  8. No team really ever goes "all in" that's the point. Its just a rationale fans use to explain why their team didn't make a move they probably should have or did make a move they shouldn't have by framing the argument within a more unquantifiable measure, that measure being the distant future.
  9. The post I just made above will likely answer that question in full, but my initial point was that the notion that an NFL team without a franchise QB is obviously likely going to struggle. Its pretty much a rule. The notion that spending money=bad team is so heavily tethered to one another in your mind it only makes it look like I'm saying two different things.
  10. New Orleans is terrible because mickey Loomis has no idea how to fil out the bottom of a roster and no concern for what happens on the defensive side of the football. It doesn't have anything to do with going "all in." That's an overhyped, silly notion if there ever were one, and you don't see people applying it to other teams with aging QBs who actually know how to do the things mentioned above in spite of similar philosophies between them.
  11. So without a franchise QB an NFL team wouldn't be good? That's an earth shattering notion your putting forth.
  12. Any decade now that team is gonna collapse and stuff, hang in there guys!
  13. Trai Turner hires new representation...

    If we don't show a willingness to spend some money there aren't gonna be any rings, that's for sure