Mr. Scot

Hasselbeck but less of an arrogant prick would be okay too

Base Nickel is what McDermott ran most of the time under Rivera. Of course, he had Luke Kuechly and Thomas Davis Given that our primary vulnerability has been to the run, I'm not sure this works for us (even with a beefed up front).

Greg Beard is a Patriots reporter (Boston Sports Journal).

I was thinking of when they signed Brandon LaFell.

Depends on whether you want to use him as a designs pass rusher or an every down defensive end. When we used him in the latter role, opposing teams ran all over us.

Even when he's a liability against the run?

Or another spot like Hamilton maybe. Basically anything but quarterback. See, one of the reasons I dislike looking at unusual stories is that the teams who try to duplicate those feats usually fail. Some team sees what happened with Josh Allen and thinks to themselves "Oh, we can do that too". Then in an effort to duplicate what was done with Josh Allen you wind up with a player closer to Josh Rosen. This is the fallacy I see with people believing Malik Willis can be transformed into the second coming of Cam Newton. Especially considering we're talking about this being done by a staff who had zero to do with making Cam Newton what he was.

That's where it gets intriguing for me. Parting ways with one of Rhule's former Temple/Baylor guys might not necessarily mean he's losing power, but at the very least it could be that he's allowing himself to be talked into better decisions. Mind you, this would not deter me from wanting him fired.

Oh, restructures definitely add up. They add up to big chunks taken out of future cap.

This is not the draft to take a quarterback. It's absolutely the draft to take a tackle.

From Sean Salisbury... My feelings as well.

I'm not taking using a top ten pick on someone I think has only a 20% chance of being what I want. Mahomes and Allen are both solid passers who also have physical ability. And while that's great, it's also not that common (neither was it enough for either one this year). But again, the idea that you can just take any guy that's got great athletic ability and teach him to be an NFL level quarterback is fool's gold. Give me the guys who have got the quarterback skills over the athletic freaks that people think can be taught them ten times out of ten.

Think Aikman is going to ESPN for Monday Night Football.

I have. It was...less than inspiring. And I'm not alone on this: As far as being able to improve with great coaching, I know people think that's easy but more often than not, it isn't what happens.

Word is Washington made "a strong offer" for Wilson but Seattle declined.

If they don't have accuracy or the ability to read and process a defense, all the physical tools in the world won't make a difference. I'd add though that Willis's physical tools aren't as good as some folks think. If you watch him against higher level competition, he's nothing special.

But it wasn't, and it didn't. And on an annual basis, it's still the guys who can read a defense and throw an accurate pass who win.

Not necessarily to that level, but a mind like Stafford or Burrow is enough. Mind you, I'm not saying guys have to be immobile. Just that the whole idea of taking a super athlete who doesn't have the other tools and thinking you can teach him those things is fool's gold. If they can't read a defense on at least a medium level as a senior in college, there's a good chance they're not going to learn it on the fly in the pros.

The guy who won more Super Bowls than anyone else in the modern era was about as mobile as I am. Brees, Manning and the other Manning weren't anything special in that department either.

I get that, but it's still the passers who win the big games. And if you're not playing to win the big ones, what are you playing for? Exciting highlights? Sure those are fun, but that's not how you build a consistent winner.