Sgt Schultz

I've got to disagree with you on Corral's situation under Rhule. Your mistake is believing Rhule understood/accepted his own situation and could make legitimate NFL player evaluations. I can't think of any examples supporting either. In fact, as was discussed in numerous threads at the time, Rhule treated Corral as a freshman to be red shirted. We are not talking about Reid, Hoodie, McVay, or any other even halfway decent NFL coach here. This whole mess was being orchestrated and judged by a guy who was a chronic college coach trying to run an NFL team. Now add (and pretty consistent with that) Rhule's loyalty/attachment to Walker was beyond any justification. It is as if they share DNA or Walker has 8 x 10 glossies on Rhule. When Corral was drafted, he was competition for Walker. Corral may have still had some shot of seeing reps and a roster spot had we carried three QBs, as #3 on the Rhule chart. It would have taken an order from above for Corral to be ahead of Walker unless he looked like Dan Marino (or Joe, the way this thread has gone) on day one. When we acquired Mayfield and did not lose Darnold, Corral and Walker were suddenly "competing" for slot #3 on the QB depth chart. There was no way Rhule was parting company with Walker, so the "competition" was the equivalent of a WWE match. With that, Corral's chances at anything other than the practice squad went out the window. Let's not pretend anything Rhule did with the QB position makes any sense from an NFL perspective. That gets even worse when Walker is involved. I'm not saying Corral is going to become our savior. I'm not even saying he will stick as a backup beyond the short term. But, to act like we have seen him in under any circumstance where a credible judgement about him can be made is ignoring what a circus this past training camp and preseason was, especially but not limited to the QB position. It was a circus being run by a clown.

I remember each of those, and sad to see is a good way to describe it. Add Favre to that list. He retired, unretired, then hung around a year or so too long. It makes me appreciate the guys to hung them up and left everybody wanting more. Barry Sanders, Calvin Johnson, Jim Brown, and in hockey, Ken Dryden.

Shaq's main problem comes down to two approximate numbers: $11.3M vs. $24.5M The first is his dead money figure for 2023, the second his cap hit. This, for a team that has less than $2M in cap space for 2023 (per Spotrac's projection) and only 38 plays in that total. His cap hit is fourth among LBs next year. His 2023 base salary is not bad (14th among LBs), nor is his 2023 actual cash (16th). If his cap hit was in line with those numbers, this may not even be a discussion. I like Shaq, and I think he has been a (or THE) leader on the defense for some time. He leads at a higher level than he performs. That might not matter, except when we lost Luke, Hurney's solution was the usual: If we pay him like he is among the elite, he will become among the elite. That set the bar too high. Since 2023 is the final year of his contract, hopefully they can come up with a solution both sides like that eases his 2023 hit, keeps him around for a few years, and removes the stench of one of the final Hurney contracts.

They're still shaking off the ill effects of The Process, too. Although, it may also explain some things about their QB evaluation process the last few years.

Not to my knowledge, especially since he is the only QB currently under contract for 2023. The odds are certainly not in his favor as a third round pick and spent his rookie season on IR. But, until we know for sure who the HC and OC are, it is all speculation. Personally, I would not be surprised to see them roll with three QBs in 2023 until the position gets sorted out.

The Raidahs are an effing circus. It's deeper than Carr, and the guy benching Carr should be benched, himself. He and Russell Wilson have one thing in common: both are too expensive to get rid of.

I mentioned the potential that McAdoo was handcuffed by The Process in another post somewhere. We don't know, but it was that and Wilks took the handcuffs off, or Wilks flat out told McAdoo that we are establishing the run, Will the real Ben McAdoo please stand up. My guess is it was some combination in between. The decision to talk about running the football and then not doing it sounds like a classic move by The Process. The idea that he was going to outsmart everybody. The only people he outsmarted in the NFL were Hurney and Tepper. My guess is that when they handed the keys to Wilks, he told McAdoo we needed to establish the run, but that may have gotten the response "no shite, I've been saying that since preseason." What is tougher to diagnose is the decision to acquire a QB whose best performances were while rolling out or using play action (here we go, back to establishing the run again), and then not rolling him out or running play action, and creating a situation that nobody was going to buy play action, anyway. You'd like to think the HC is not so deep into the offense or defense that he is making those decisions (and lousing them up), but we are talking about that NFL sage also known as The Process. We can't rule out that McAdoo may have had a hand in the buffoonery of not running the football or running plays the direct opposite of what Mayfield had done competently in the past, but the pattern almost perfectly fits a certain other person.

Thanks for both the Boger update and the web site. The fact that Boger and his crew gets put on playoff games means somebody has 8 x 10 glossies on somebody else.

But that has been the assumption up until now, anyway. The way I see this, all Darnold has done is throw his name in the mix for who that vet will be. Up until now, it was clear the room and start over, with Corral remaining since he was not even in the room when we cleared it. I need to see Darnold in positions to make his past bad decisions and see him NOT make them before I am willing to say he is the odds-on favorite as the vet we will need. What we don't need is a vet who listens to the devil on his shoulder whenever he is in one of those situations. As of now, we have kept him out of them. Until we see that, if somebody wants to pony up more money for him, fine, move on to what is behind door #2. Keep in mind, the goal is to replace the vet who presumably starts week one as the starter by the end of the season. These are not the second comings of Joe Montana we are talking about, these are guys we have to keep our offense within the limits they impose.

Yeah, I think we could wind up with three QBs on the roster next year. Maybe Corral can't show enough to go past the practice squad, but I think we wind up with him, a vet, and a draft pick. That's the price of handling the position the way we have to date. It's not like we have an established #1 or #2 right now to put a lot of faith in.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw the post that if Darnold had not be injured, Rhule would probably still be here. I personally don't think a handful of games in an offense where the QB's job is to hand the ball off and not throw interceptions overrides four years of past performance. Maybe he's learned, maybe he is the same, but I need to see a lot more to conclude he has turned a corner. Regardless, had Darnold not been injured and if he has turned a corner, Rhule driving the train would have derailed it. As exhibit A, we traded for a QB who operates best out of play action and roll outs. Rhule talked about establishing the run, but when the games started, we threw on every down out of the chute and we didn't roll him out. Maybe you can pin that on McAdoo, but even if that was his stupidity, as the HC don't you pull him aside and ask him WTF he is doing and if he missed the discussion of running the football? The Process either confuses talking with doing, he thought he was going to outsmart everybody else, or both.

If this board did not over-react to a single game's events (good or bad), it would have about ten new threads a week. I appreciate @TN05 for owning up to it. Most others just act like they didn't say it or double down and then act like they never said any of it. I guess they figure if it works for Reps, Senators, and Presidents, it should work for them.

Honestly, when I have seen the Bucs this year the "Brady love" from the officials has not bee the same. San Francisco tossed him around pretty well, and it got to the point he didn't even whine about it. He may have overstayed his welcome. In the league's eyes, Manning riding off into the sunset with a championship was a "feel good" PR story. Brady had that a couple of years ago with the Bucs. This year's version, retiring, un-retiring at the expense of his marriage, and captaining a bad team does not have the same allure to it. So, I am more skeptical about the gifts people think he will get. With that said, watch them assign Boger's crew to this game. That would give credence to the old saying to not look for a conspiracy when incompetence explains things.

I can't wish for anybody to be carried out on a stretcher. That said, I think it is almost the inevitable end to Brady's career. I thought the same of Favre. In my ideal world, they would be thoroughly frustrated and stymied by our defense, and he gets roughed up a touch along the way Sunday. I would like to see him throwing his helmet, smashing a tablet, screaming at his coaches and teammates, and yelling at the ref who just walks away. Maybe, there would be some poetic justice and the ref would say "Tom, you're too old to get those calls. If his end must come on a stretcher or in the blue tent trying to figure out who he is, let that be in Atlanta next week or sometime next year when some desperate team signs him for a last gasp and then spends a few weeks wondering why they did.

This is exactly where I am. The Bucs and Brady aren't scaring anybody right now. I'm also not so sure Brady is the league's golden child anymore. If anybody has seen how the officials react to his whining when he either takes a hit, a defender gets near him, or a defender thinks about hitting him, it is not the same as it was two years ago. That said, watch them assign Boger's crew to this game. I don't think Boger and his crew are any more Brady protectors than anybody else, they just screw up every game they are assigned to. The Saints have fared better recently than the Bucs. Like us, neither has done well against teams with winning records. The Bucs have beaten one.....Dallas in week one. Since then, the closest they have come is a 5 point loss to the Ravens back in week 8. On the other hand, the Saints are on a two-game winning streak since their bye, but that most likely ends Sunday in Philly. These are two very winnable games. They are also very loseable. Had the Steelers not completely shut the door on our running game and taken our lunch money, I would feel a lot better about it. They showed how to beat us. The problem is I'm not sure the Bucs and Saints can follow that map. I have absolutely no idea. I do think Wilks cements the HC job if this team wins both, so the team, itself, may come out with that added incentive.

First, I have no doubt that given what he has done here thus far, Wilks will have teams giving him a hard look, and he probably will land a job. I rattled off a list of teams in fiasco status in a thread about Rivera, and that same list of times applies to Wilks, sans potentially Arizona. But, if you are sitting in Denver (for example), Wilks looks pretty enticing if he is available. He may not solve your problem, but he will minimize the weekly embarrassments and stabilize things. Second, when judging what he has done, we can't lose sight of the fact it has been with a roster NOT of his making, and a coaching staff he has been able to salvage/cobble together. He inherited a roster that was constructed for speed and athleticism and has managed to use it in a power game. He also lost his primary offensive weapon, and has a QB room out of Sanford and Son Salvage. Third, the reliance on the run is because that is what this roster and QB room will best support. Limit mistakes, take advantage of an OL that can run block and open holes, and pound on the opponent. Would they be this conservative if they had a QB that could be trusted to open it up? Who knows, and maybe that has already been discussed at the top levels.

Bing Crosby? At this point, I want the QB room next year to be Corrall, some draft pick, and a vet to be the bridge and help mentor. If Darnold proves he is that vet over the next couple of games and is available at a reasonable cost, so be it. But that is not in a vacuum. He is in the same pool as any other FA vets. Some of whom will have more experience they can share. I see we clarified BC to BM. I am not wowed by McAdoo, but if the answers to my first two unknowns posted above are that talking about the run but not doing it was all The Process, and one of the first questions McAdoo asked Wilks when he took the keys was "can we run the effing ball now?" then the situation is a little different.

The original question, is McAdoo developing Darnold, is a tough one to assess. We know that he has not been put in a position that he couldn't handle since The Process was sent packing. What we don't know is: The Process talked about running the football before the season started. Then we didn't. Was that McAdoo's decision, The Process proving he could outsmart the rest of the world, or some mutual agreement between them? The decision to run the ball down opponent's throats emerged with Wilks took over. Was that at Wilks' direction, was McAdoo freed from being under the thumb of The Process, or did Wilks and McAdoo agree on that? Regardless, are we developing Darnold or just putting him in positions that he almost can't fail? A team that runs the ball for 320 yards over two games will have a good chance of winning them both. A team that does that in one game almost can't lose. That does not mean we are developing Darnold. In fairness, it doesn't mean we aren't either. But if we are not and are just protecting him from himself at this stage People have mentioned how Darnold is 25 and there is no difference between him and Pickett at 24 or, I guess, Hooker 25 (early next year). But there is. Darnold is 25 but has been looking at NFL defenses, speed, and talent for five years now. He has either adjusted to them or he hasn't. His chances of getting significantly better at that adjustment moving forward are pretty slim. Pickett has one year at that, Hooker will be a rookie (assuming he makes a roster). Class has barely started or is yet to start for them. They WILL either adapt or not. That is still in front of them. I probably would be less skeptical about Darnold's future if his main problem has been something other than his decision making. I can forgive that in a rookie or QB in their first year or two (at two, we'd better be seeing improvement). After four (I won't count this year against him because maybe he has made progress), it becomes an almost impossible hill to climb. Going forward, if we are going to develop game plans to protect the QB from themselves, I would much rather it be a QB in their first or second year than in their fifth or sixth, even if they are about the same age. There is much more of a chance that we can loosen the reigns on the guys earlier in their career. They may not work out, but I like the odds better. And I am not advocating for Hooker. His age just makes him an obvious point of comparison.

She deserves more credit than that, @rayzor. She not only had to settle on him, but she had to talk The Process out of picking a long snapper.

Lambeau probably was......it has had a radiant heating system under the field since the 60's. "The Frozen Tundra" does not exist anymore. If I am not mistaken, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Foxboro all have similar systems. They are probably not the only ones. Edit: Sorry @bigdog10, I didn't see your response.

Merry Christmas to you and you families. All the best to you all.

Let's keep in mind that Darnold would probably look worse if The Process was still here calling the shots. It was like his approach was to ask the position coaches what each player sucked at, and then devise a game plan to emphasize that. As for the QB competition, or any position competition, remember who the judge was.

I was questioning the wisdom of putting up a chair rail on December 24th, but you pulled it off. You get a game ball for that one.

When you know you need to run the ball to be successful, it is cold, and your first two offensive plays are runs for a total of 65 yards, it can't be a bad thing. Did somebody forget to tell the Lions we need to run the ball to be effective on offense? They apparently thought the Steelers did it wrong.

Ron is a decent man. As far as a coach, he is a stabilizer. He can come into a fiasco, de-fiasco it and provide stability. That is not an easy task. Since he also played the game (and was successful at it), the players respect him. As @kungfoodude said, you can see it in the way the players look at him. But, let's not revise history about the end of his time here. He said when he took the job here that a HC has a shelf life of about ten years with a team, at best. Most fizzle out before them. He pretty much called it. His extreme loyalty is both an asset and a fault. The fact that we replaced a high-character guy whose career on the field gives him credibility with a narcissistic BS artist who never came close to playing on an NFL field, and takes no accountability for any failures tends to color the memories of Ron and the reasons we moved on. There will always be work for Ron and those like him in this league, because there will always be teams that create fiascoes that need to be cleaned up. If the Foreskins fire Ron tomorrow (which would be a mistake), the Broncos, Cardinals, Raidahs, and Saints as well as potentially a few others should be looking him up.