All Activity

We need Coker to step up in this one if TMac can’t go

He, saying it's "only questionable" doesn't mean much since it just popped up today in practice, to me that's just the initial thing they put down, particularly as if they knew he wasn't going to play already, making him doubtful or out would give the Saints that knowledge too. Had he been on the report all week but still practicing in a limited designation, I wouldn't be concerned. But late week hamstring pop ups can very much go either way. Either it was a slight tweak so they then sat him down for the rest of practice to make sure he didn't make it worse and cause a real injury, or it was a real hamstring pull and they'll make him inactive for the game to hopefully only miss one week as opposed to multiple weeks by playing and making it worse.

Jaycee isn't gonna say anything different lol

He will play, its only questionable status. Just sucks hes dinged up. This is a game where we should beat the horse poo out of them and he could go off

He popped up on the injury report mid week a few weeks ago with the same thing. Anyone see anything out there if this is going to be similar to that and he'll still play or if his availability is in real question for this weekend? Because of course I have no backup WR to play this week if he ends up not playing, scrambling right now trying to find at trade partner with no good options on waivers (unless I pick up XL or Coker to play in his play, but that just seems scary in it's own right lol)

Man, why didn’t that cold bloodedness come out during the Cardinals games.

its the nfl, its designed for parity

8-9. Beat the Saints twice and then win one of the rest.

wtf, why cant we have nice things?

Popped up as limited with a hamstring. Questionable for Sunday

I think we steal one of the 49ers, Rams, Seahawks trio. *Should beat NO twice. Lose to Atlanta, and then hope to steal one from TB.

https://x.com/upandadamsshow/status/1986822199097888801?s=46&t=W75E23VenL1ei42iX22E5g

Link?

Cards and Packers already happened. It’s bound to happen again.

Hurney and Fox should have been looking for Jake's replacement after the 2007 season. 2008 we possibly win the Superbowl had we had better play at Qb.

The chorus with the monopoly money dance move kills me. I'm a simple man.

It only happens if Dowdle continues to play like prime Adrian Peterson for the rest of the season. Seems unlikely.

You sure about that because this poo sounds like a fuging episode of Trailer Park Boys LOLOLOL https://www.facebook.com/share/1BaR4x7QrS/

Gotta lock down that QB who threw for 100 yards and committed two turnovers at historic Lambeau Field. He's vital to our future success. Couldn't absolutely pick someone up from a couch / practice squad that could provide you with the same production. No siree.

In all honesty, outside of the Saints games, I don't think we will be favored in any remaining game (unless Tampa is playing their backups against us week 18)

Rough back half of the schedule. NFC West looks like the best division (up there with NFC North), Tampa has been very good this year (despite their injuries), and I can't remember the last time we swept the season series with Atl (easily more than 10 years). I think we go 8-9 - beat the Saints twice and go 1-1 against the Bucs.

Quoted rom one of the many Bryce threads... Wanted to reply to this, but since my answer turned into a go route (i.e. went long) I thought I'd put it in a separate thread. So here's my take on the names mentioned above...and a few others. ... Lance was a prototypical "take an athlete and teach him to play quarterback" example who now serves as an example of why that's a bad idea. Worth remembering that Lance was given to a coach heralded as a QB guru with a friendly system. In the end though, even that potentially ideal situation wasn't enough. And the fact those events were followed up by said guru taking his team to the Super Bowl with a QB who went undrafted helps bolster the folly.of that approach. But then you have Wilson, an actual quarterback with off the charts passing skill. This guy's sure to succeed, right? Well...wrong, which demonstrates that even the right skill set doesn't guarantee success. Could Wilson have succeeded in a better situation under better coaching? Unknown, but it's a question I find myself asking a lot. (See also: Levis, Will) Rosen falls into the Ryan Leaf / Ryan Mallet category, i.e. don't hand the keys to your billion dollar franchise over to a dickhead. Character matters, and not strictly in the 'upright citizen vs thuggish criminal ' way. (I could add maybe don't draft guys with the first name 'Ryan' unless they went to Harvard, and even then only in the 7th round) Darnold is another guy who likely could have benefited from a better situation / coaching (see also Carr: David). Heck, it also might have helped to send him to The Wizard and have him ask for "da noiv", or perhaps to Egon Spengler and company to chase away any and all "ghosts". Sending him to Matt Rhule? Yeah...definitely not the answer But hey, at least he's doing better now. (ttill playoff time, anyway) Mind you, Drew Brees does serve as proof that guys who land in less than ideal - or just flat out lousy - situations early on can indeed resurrect their careers later on in better surroundings. Will Darnold go that far? Unknown, but we do know it's possible. Kenny Pickett (also known by the X-Men moniker 'Littlehand') is that proverbial great college quarterback who for one reason or another just doesn't cut it in the pros. (gotta say, feels like the past several drafts have put forth a lot of that particular QB archetype) Mac Jones could arguably carry this label as well, though I'm waiting to see how things play out in San Francisco. For now, Jones might be a better example of why you should always be cautious and skeptical of guys from certain systems. Justin Fields is a cell in that spreadsheet column, as is Kyler Murray. Now I'm sure someone here will mention another certain quarterback we're all quite familiar with as a prime example of this subset too Fair point, though I think he, Murray and Tagovailoa work better under the heading of "Davids". What's a David? It's a guy you send to battle against a "Goliath". And by all means, bet on that guy if he's a shepherd. If he's a quarterback, though? Root for him, encourage him, appreciate his courage and be inspired by him... ...but don't draft him. The return on investment might be a great story, but it's not likely to be one that involves championships and rings. ... Bottom Line? You've no doubt heard the saying "this ain't rocket science". Well, I'd argue saying "this ain't quarterback evaluation" might truly make a better negative metaphorical comparison. At least with rocket science, it's science. You're working with things that have some level of consistency, even predictability. Stuff like chemistry, physics, metallurgy, etc. Things that have rules. Human beings? Specifically young male athletes with competing amounts of ego and testosterone, who've generally been heavily catered to a lot of their lives, and have now been handed large sums money and a portal to fame... Yeah, good luck with that Heck, you might get better odds buying a Powerball ticket, or perhaps playing a roulette wheel at a Vegas casino (gambling involves risk; please play responsibility; for help with gambling addiction call the Gambling Hotline at 1-800-522-4700)

The sad part is Williams led the league in rushing tds as well with like 18 and didn't even make the pro bowl that season. Too bad it all ended in Jake's epic collapse

Yeah. He talked about using him that way and I forget the term. Maybe nickel LB? Ike have to watch it again. If you look at the video it is maybe 2/3 through where talks about him and also CSW.

I noticed when he plays in the box more, his play improves. Almost like another LB. Reminds me of the safety for the cardinals back in 2015