MasterAwesome

The GM doesn't want to lessen the value of his pick and also doesn't want to lessen the value of Fields as a potential trade asset. So I'm not sure why you seem to be picking and choosing which of Poles' comments are legitimate and to be taken at face value, when it's all very likely deliberately framed in order to maintain the value of both pieces. If he was outwardly lukewarm and non-committal about Fields then he's likely harming his trade value. There's nothing you just said in your post about the #1 draft pick that doesn't also apply to Justin Fields.

Gotcha. Yeah the wasted money comment was clear but it was the "he shined" part of your post that was hard to infer sarcasm from. I was like.....were we watching the same guy?

Really? I thought he looked pretty underwhelming...or at least incredibly slow. A lot of people don't care as long as your returner doesn't turn the ball over, but he had one fumble in 6 returns and almost a second one, but was ruled down just before. Blackshear is the guy I would like to re-sign for the KR/PR position. He looked fast and elusive and was pretty sure-handed, not to mention he was a rookie who still has room to develop at that position and as RB depth. For comparison, he also had 1 fumble, but in 25 returns vs. Roberts' 6 returns. He also averaged 9.2 YPR on punts and 27.0 YPR on kickoffs, vs. Roberts' 4.5 YPR on punts and 17.5 YPR on kickoffs. I think with Roberts' age and the fact that he's coming off of a knee injury last year, it's almost a no-brainer to move on at this point.

Can you imagine the mayhem...I could see him popping up on the jumbotron like "We put $10,000 cash underneath 5 random seats in the stadium!" Or a "survive a tackle from Jeremy Chinn for $20,000" challenge.

You're talking about games where Hurts didn't even play - I'm talking about games where he has a poor or meh performance, there's a subtle distinction there. Because whether he's having a good game or a bad game as a passer, he still needs to be accounted for in the run game. Which is partly what I mean by him being a complementary piece of the team; he also complements the run game with that threat of running. Even if himself has a lackluster rushing performance, the role he plays helps indirectly elevate the rest of the team around him.

I think it's interesting and worth noting that the biggest blowout of the weekend featured a QB who threw for barely 100 yards and 0 TDs. Seems like the most dominant teams are ones where a stud QB is also a complementary piece, rather than the focal point whose singular performance almost entirely dictates whether their team wins or loses. That's the difference between a team like the Eagles vs. a team like the Bengals. If Hurts has a meh or even bad game, their smothering defense and strong run game can still fairly easily carry the load. If Burrow has a bad game, it's more likely that his team is struggling to pull off the win.

First of all, I'm sure there isn't a single person that wouldn't rather have a great QB than CMC lol. But besides that, the rest of your argument is odd. I mean he essentially went 13-0 with Jimmy G and Brock Purdy, until his team's QB situation was so dire that he himself had to play some snaps at QB. And saying he needs an offense to be built around him again is strange because he was literally inserted into a brand new already-built offense and helped propel his team to 13 straight wins, when they were 3-3 before he arrived. All his career has proven so far is that he can't put an entire offense on his back and win a game single-handedly if his QB is completely useless, which is a standard that no other skill player is held to. So you can't really say he needs a "great" QB when he hasn't even played alongside a "good" one. Is that how you feel about a guy like DJ Moore too? He needs a "great" QB to win anything? Cause instead for some reason, DJ typically gets the benefit of the doubt that he could be elite if he had a decent QB throwing him the ball. But CMC is expected to be able to win in spite of bad QB play. A QB might have more of a direct impact on a WR's performance, but factoring in indirect impact (i.e. facing stacked boxes), makes both positions fairly equally victimized by poor QB play.

You could frame a similar argument for QB lol. “Hey look this Joe Burrow guy is only making a $1 million salary. Compare him to a guy like Josh Allen making $27 million in 2023. Why pay a QB a second contract when you got young guys on rookie deals producing for way cheaper?” Also Etienne was still drafted in the 1st round. Are you advocating us taking a RB with a late 1st round pick if we’re in that position? I agree with your overall argument, but Etienne is a pretty bad example to use for multiple reasons.

Sounds like they might need to fish that DBO sign out from the BoA stadium dumpster.

Seeing Maher succumb to the yips makes me appreciate Piñeiro more, who bounced back to make every kick (including some clutch ones) since that dreaded Falcons game.

But....you're the one who is spinning that narrative lol.

I heard an employee parked in a handicap space at BOA today. By itself, might not be much…but damn it’s just yet another brushstroke in the painting of a completely dysfunctional organization!!!

This sounds like the equivalent of some kind of minor nonconformance during a corporate audit. I work for a massively successful global automotive company and if we got even like 8 minor noncompliance findings during our IATF audit, we’d consider that a huge win.

I mean it absolutely has to do with the overall appeal of the head coaching job, which is what you’re talking about at the end of the day. The NFC South is there for the taking, while the Broncos have to contend with arguably the best team in the league within their own division (not to mention a much more stacked conference overall). Also, if I were a young rookie HC I’d be more wary of the owner who has precedent of firing a rookie HC part-way through his first season as opposed to the owner who gave his rookie HC roughly a very generous 2-and-a-half years to try and fulfill his vision before ultimately firing him. A reasonable person would obviously want a look at him in a better offense, but the same reasonable person would also obviously be factoring that risk into his decision to take the job. If Wilson doesn’t pan out, their QB situation is extremely dire with pretty poor draft position over the next few years to have the opportunity to draft one. While a team like the Panthers is sitting pretty with a top 10 pick and loaded up with a bevy of additional draft picks to be positioned to move up and take one.

Denver has a gigantic bright red $240 million red flag. And shares a division with Mahomes. That's arguably the worst gig for a first-time young HC considering he's going to have to also deal with a reportedly divisive locker room because of said $240 million red flag.

You guys know Ben Johnson interviewed for other head coach vacancies too, right? It's pretty unlikely that his decision to stay with Detroit (i.e. not pursue any head coach opportunities with any team) was tied to whether or not we favor Payton. Unless coaching the Panthers specifically is his dream job and he wouldn't want to coach any other team, in which case he probably wouldn't be taking all these other interviews.

It’s funny seeing Huddlers who are consistently pro-tank, also simultaneously outraged at the prospect of waiting another year to draft a franchise QB. Like isn’t this your guiding principle? Sacrificing short term success for the increased chance at sustained long term success? So if there’s a 20% chance that one of these QBs are going to pan out and become a franchise QB, while next year’s crop has a 40-50% chance, then you should be rooting for BPA at #9 (maybe a top WR) and starting Corral or Darnold and then taking Williams or Maye next year. Seems like statistically speaking, that’s the best odds for the long-term success that you guys are supposedly yearning for.

I’d agree with that generally speaking, but with Levis specifically, is that even his game? Is his mental maturity what has given him the edge over his competition in college? Maybe I’m thinking of “mental maturity” in a different way, but I’m assuming you essentially mean his QB intelligence. And if I’m thinking “man amongst boys” with regards to QB intelligence, I’m picturing a tactical assassin who sits back in the pocket, dissects and exploits defensive coverages, picks apart soft spots in zone, looks off safeties to get them to bite, etc. With Levis, I thought he’s kinda more your prototypical extremely raw prospect with arm talent through the roof. At least I hear him being compared to guys like Josh Allen, but I’ve admitted to not watching a ton of college football so maybe I’m wrong about him.

Is the insinuation that 23-year-old college athletes are considerably physically superior to 20-22 year old college athletes? I'd say Anthony Richardson, physically speaking, looks way more like a man amongst boys and he's only 21.

I think it's essentially a measure of a QB's ability to avoid taking sacks. QBs that are high on the X axis had a high percentage of pressures leading to sacks in college (i.e. struggling to evade the pass rush). QBs that are high on the Y axis had a high percentage of pressures leading to sacks in the NFL. Based on this chart and Levis' 26.8% pressure-to-sack rate, he'd essentially be off the charts in a bad way. It's also suggesting a pretty linear correlation from college to the pros, so if you struggled with taking sacks when pressured in college, then chances are you're going to struggle with it in the NFL. It has nothing to do with each QB's o-line because the pre-condition for each data point is that the QB is already being pressured. So once the pressure has already taken place, which QBs take sacks at a higher rate vs. able to elude the sack.

You're like 10 weeks late on this thread....are you just clearing up your DVR queue and catching up on the season or something? If so, no one spoil the rest of the season for him.

There's a reason why he was considered the 'face of the franchise'...he was the closest thing to a superstar we had, and the most universally respected player across the league, media, etc. So looking at a team coached by Matt Rhule and quarterbacked by guys like Sam Darnold, Baker Mayfield, PJ Walker, and Teddy Bridgewater, and singling out CMC like "that's the guy who shoulders the blame for our 5-win seasons" is just odd to me. Whether intentional or not, you and frank are deflecting blame from the real culprits like Rhule who do warrant the brunt of criticism for these 5 win seasons. It's interesting to see the shifting narrative about certain players. If you like the player, then it's "we failed ________ and didn't put a good team around him". If you dislike the player, then it's "look, we only won X number of games with _______ - he couldn't even put the entire team on his back and will the team to the playoffs by himself".

Maybe he means "Five wins" as in Fields' career win total, over two seasons.

CMC for whatever reason is the only player I continuously see whose metric for value is tied to team wins. Unless you also think players like Burns and DJ Moore are ineffective because "five wins". I agree that RB is a devalued position and I still stand by the decision to trade CMC, but that's a pretty awful argument. Quarterback is the one position where I could maybe rationalize factoring in team record because it's the most impactful position by far. If there's one position that can single-handedly win or lose a game for the team, it's quarterback.

I dunno...reading between the lines, it sounds like they're saying if they were actually sold on any of these QBs, that they would take them. If they're simply unimpressed with this crop of QBs and are opting to therefore stick with Fields, that doesn't exactly sound like a glowing endorsement unless you're looking through it with Fields-colored glasses. Could you imagine any other team truly sold on their young, presumably franchise QB, even giving a caveat like that? Jags with Trevor Lawrence? Herbert with the Chargers? Burrow? Hurts? The fact that it's even a question is pretty damn telling. They didn't say no, they said they "would have to be completely blown away" which is pretty ambiguous considering we're not in the offseason and the evaluation process hasn't even truly begun.