Sgt Schultz

It might be worth a try. Draft the fastest player available, regardless of position, and tell him he is now our QB even if he has never taken a single snap under center at any level, even screwing around after practice. It is either that or try the wild idea of improving our OL. Nah, now I am getting silly. The fastest guy in the draft it is.

That would be if he survived until week 8. As it stands now and this last season, we need somebody that can run for their life back there. So, not far is the right answer.

My best to you. I've gone through one divorce with no children involved and even that was tough. It does run one through the gamut of emotions. My outlet was my coworkers. I was an air traffic controller at the time and we had about a 175% divorce rate, some of them very messy. Looking back at it, murder might have been an easier option! My other outlet was music. I spent a lot of hours under a set of headphones. I'm glad this forum was a good release for you. Reading somebody say incredibly stupid stuff (any of my posts, really) can be therapeutic.

How dare you not post here while that was going on. Where are your priorities? <Sigh, rolling eyes, and not at you!>

If things don't improve between now and then, maybe we can get somebody to put Rhule on the "No Fly List" while they are over there?

I hear we are going to draft another punter. It's not that we are upset with Edwards, they just want to take some of the load off him and have the versatility to run the feared "two punter formation."

Where, there was one benefit to hiring Rhule then....even if it was immediate and subsequently overrun by liabilities.

I think that was reported/speculated when the head scratching was going on about why Hurney was still around. I doubt we'll ever know. That sort of stipulation is probably not as unusual as people would think. The question I have if it is true is why fire Rivera before Hurney, even if Rivera did not have such a stipulation? Tepper did recognize that the organization was a mess, and if you were saddled with the GM for two years and have questions about whether he was part of the reason for the mess or just a victim of it, why let him have a say in who the coach is until you figure that out? The reason for publication was to let Rivera get a leg up on searching for another HC job, but I'd probably have held onto him for another year and unload them both, assuming Rivera was not going to pull a rabbit out of his hat. Both had to go, and until the triggers on both barrels could pulled, I miss the point of pulling one and letting the other poison the new coach. Then again, I don't own an NFL team so I guess the question is moot.

Yeah, given our history of keenly finding quality OL in FA, I would opt for one at most. I guess the good news is we will be lucky to be able to afford one, at most.

A good OL works as a unit, which from communications and consistency in both personnel and the positions they play. Versatility is great......for depth purposes. I've said this before, but we wind up with "jacks of all trades and masters of none," even though the guys might be masters at one position if given a chance to prove that. I'd much rather have starters that are accomplished at one OL position, perhaps decent at another, and depth that can move around than a bunch of guys that can line up anywhere but impress no one while doing it. At this point, if we can fill any holes with a sub-30 OL in FA, it would be a plus. The way we have handled the OL thus far is a clusterf*#k. We have Moton and two guys we drafted last year, who we have no idea whether they are part of the solution due to the way we used them (or didn't use them). The rest are not long-term answers, and not medium-term answers, either. Even if somehow the stars align and we solidified our OL through this year's draft, it would mean that 4 of our 5 OL will time out of their rookie deals in 2 years, if we assume both BC and Brown work out. That's why it is almost a must that we sign somebody out of the FA pool. If they are under 30, maybe they are part of the long-term answer. If not, they are placeholders to allow us to draft their replacements over time and spread out the contract pain. I don't know about anybody else, but I highly doubt we will be preparing for the last NFL game of the season at this time next year, so a methodical approach to this and doing it right is better than trying to fix it in the short-term. But they actually have to start addressing it somehow.

No matter what they call themselves, they will always be the Foreskins to me. I lived in northern Virginia for 8 years, but luckily found a bar to watch football where Washington fans were the minority. Since I grew up in St. Louis when the Cardinals were there, I could never get myself to root for them.

"We can't stand to see you unhappy. We've talked it over, and decided you might be happier in Carolina. They have beaches, mountains, and there's a lot to do once your surgery and rehab are done every season. Are you happy now?"

It may well turn out that way. Lance is in a good situation. The Niners have had the luxury of patience this year. That is probably about to change, but he had a full year to get used to the NFL and spending it under Shanahan's guidance is a lot better than spending it with Nagy. Jones could have a decent career in New England. He's a better fit for what Hoodie likes to do than Cam was. He could wind up being another Garoppolo, but by all reports Hoodie really liked Garoppolo. Fields may have a shot at a good career in Chicago, if the new regime can buck the trend of.....well.....decades of QB mediocrity with the Bears. Maybe Lawrence gets a reset since the Jags chased Meyer out of there (or he chased himself out) and hired Pederson. As for the Jets and Wilson, well, let's just say he should be afraid.....very afraid. Almost as afraid as he should be if we had somehow drafted him.

Jones was certainly not a fit everywhere. In fact, there are only a few teams he probably would fit into. The Pats being the top of that tree. In terms of landing spots, he got the best. Then Lance. After that, it gets dicey. The Bears have not exactly been a breeding ground for QB development, and Nagy was not going to buck that trend. Wilson and Lawrence had to consider signing up for kamikaze school when they were drafted by the Jags and Jets. Situations like that are part of the reason first round QBs fail as often as they do.

Do not underestimate Jimmy Hoffa and JFK's roles in the organization.

Seems like a good position for him to land in and a good situation. I don't think he was ready to be an NFL OC, but he certainly was not ready to be one on a team with our problems on that side of the ball. The Bills QB situation is solid and he will be able to show what he can do.

FWIW, Montana is still #1 in my mind, too. The sample size is so different comparing them is difficult, but Montana always was at his best in Super Bowls. He threw 11 TDs, 0 interceptions, and had an average rating of around 122.5 in his four games. Brady was very pedestrian in two games against the Giants and the last Pats game against the Rams. He was great "down the stretch" in the first Rams game and against the Falcons. He had a Jekyll and Hyde game against the Seahawks. His teams were 7-3 in Super Bowls, but had two OCs not outsmarted themselves in the dying minutes/seconds, that would be 5-5. Those two games are not on him, but it does offer some perspective. He was the MVP in both of those games, I believe, and would almost certainly not have been had the Seahawks handed the ball to Lynch one more time and the Falcons turned a 1st and 10 on the Pats 22 with 4:00 left into a FG rather than a punt. I'm not bashing Brady, he is on the short list of SB great performers. But it is not as cut and dried as the media likes to make it. His announcement completely validates what those closest to him were saying, both in the decision and in the timing. I'm sure he has a well-deserved date coming in Foxborough prior to some game next season. He was a 6th round draft pick who very easily could have had a short career as a backup, but when he got his shot, he made the most of it. While I got tired of him being force-fed on us and his whining during games whenever a defender got within 5-feet of him, he leaves behind quite a legacy.

Sorry, I missed your reference to WRs. Maybe Kalil would have been more effective as a WR. Sometimes you have to look at the free agent pool in your area of need and come to the conclusion the answer is not there. That realization is not something the Panthers accept. It's not even shopping at the bargain bin, it is more like the scratch and dent store.

The question is not whether they were more aggressive than the Panthers, by dollars, it is whether they were above or below the Mason-Dixon line of the league overall. I think most would say they were more conservative than the league average. When they did go after somebody, it was a very pointed signing (and often at WR). And sometimes they got a discount because those FAs weighed in a potential championship. Otherwise they were generally looking for role players. Oddly, while signing Moss and Brown were big splashes, they did not lead to championships, and unlike the Panthers, anything less than a championship was a disappointment. This past year was the Pats most aggressive FA acquisition season I can remember. It probably should be, because they signed one of everything and two of some (slightly exaggerating). I think they committed about $150M or so last year on 11 or so FAs. Robby Anderson? Try Matt Kalil at 5 years, $55M. Although nobody can fault you for blocking that one out. Lord knows, everybody on this board tries.

The problem with that is every time the NFL touches the rules they screw them up even worse. This could well be another example of "be careful what you wish for" before it is over.

Hire him, I don't even think I can pronounce his name.

Hey, hope is about all we have right now. Unfortunately, this poster most likely sums it up: There is no one answer, but we tried annually chasing FA's to fill the "couple of players" we were away. We never seemed to get the right couple of players, we did spend a lot of money, and then the number in "couple" grew due to injuries, lost FAs, and age. New England has been a fixture in the playoffs most of the last 20 years and won 6 titles in the process. They were not great at drafting and not terribly aggressive with FAs (the occasional Randy Moss aside). Yet, they always seemed to find role players that created greater results than the sum of the parts. It comes down to reading and reacting, and also have a realistic assessment of that the team needs and how far away it is. We may need an entire OL (save for Moton, and maybe BC and/or Brown who we have no real idea about because they were not put into a position to assess), a QB, and a few other random pieces. Too many to go on a spending spree to fill the gaps. I feel like the Three Stooges scene when Moe states they are in trouble. Larry chimes in that it will take brains to get them out of whatever situation they were in. Moe's response rings true....."That's why I said we are in trouble."

What's wrong with Baalke? He's egotistical, a prima dona living off one good turnaround year in San Francisco, power hungry, pretty incompetent, and apparently a known liability league-wide. Other than that, he is perfect for the job.

No problem. 30 years ago they would have stopped the clock and called him out of bounds. When games started lasting 3-1/2 hours without going into overtime, they tightened that up more making this call more and keeping the clock running.

They ruled his forward progress was stopped in the field of play.