Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

NFL: Free agency speculation


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Ivan The Awesome said:

This is the thing I don't get with the whole Bengals Situation, if like some say, that they are NOT committed to winning, why on earth would they take Burrow and not just keep Andy Dalton? Makes no sense. 

It's complicated.

They certainly employ people who want to win, but the ownership (specifically, Mike Brown) doesn't care about it as much as he cares about making money. Hence, why he's notoriously stingy.

Remember how it was said that Jerry Richardson wasn't willing to spend huge money on things like scouting staff or firing bad coaches? The Bengals and other teams are like that too. The public doesn't see those things like they see players and player salaries, but they matter as well.

You have some teams, just like some companies, that want results but want them on the cheap. Meanwhile others (the Cowboys for example) are willing to spend money; they just have no frigging clue what they're doing.

Takes all kinds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ivan The Awesome said:

This is the thing I don't get with the whole Bengals Situation, if like some say, that they are NOT committed to winning, why on earth would they take Burrow and not just keep Andy Dalton? Makes no sense. 

You still have to Look like you are trying, even if you aren't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ivan The Awesome said:

This is the thing I don't get with the whole Bengals Situation, if like some say, that they are NOT committed to winning, why on earth would they take Burrow and not just keep Andy Dalton? Makes no sense. 

What would energize a fanbase more than a shiny new #1 overall pick QB? Plus, rookie contracts are very affordable. Veteran starting QBs cost big money, even when they're not very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ivan The Awesome said:

This is the thing I don't get with the whole Bengals Situation, if like some say, that they are NOT committed to winning, why on earth would they take Burrow and not just keep Andy Dalton? Makes no sense. 

Burrow is cheaper and puts fans in seats.

They are cheap and want to make money. If they happen to win then that is a happy accident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure plenty of us have worked for an employer that was disappointed with results and decided to talk to the employees.

The employees say, "Well, you need to hire more people and buy new and better equipment."

Bosses respond, "No, we don't want to do that. We just want you to work harder / longer / smarter and somehow produce better results."

Such bosses tend to be utter and complete morons, of course, but as unfair as it might be, being an idiot doesn't prevent you from succeeding in the corporate world. Heck, some might say it's a plus.

 

Basically, that's what it's like to work for a guy like Mike Brown or Dean Spanos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This came up before about Tepper and the future of NFL contracts. The owners in the NFL are rich, obviously, but these teams are like family businesses and a lot of their wealth is tied up in the team itself and isn’t liquid to be used for coaches, other staff, and guaranteed player contracts. Richardson was another example of this. That’s why you see teams you think are stingy. I’m sure if more owners were independently billionaires unrelated to owning the football team, they wouldn’t seem that way. I’m sure ego and other things like trying to be shrewd businessmen when it comes to paying people come into play, but there’s also just the financial reality for a lot of owners that makes it hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I appreciate the measured tone, truly. Hopefully we're at a point where we can dive a little deeper into the discussion. The observation about his footwork is fair in theory, but I'd also counter with 6'1" Brock Purdy recently admitting that he can't see his target on 40% of his throws due to the linemen in front of him. He just inked a massive deal, and while a lot of fans are understandably wondering what he's going to do with reduced weapons, "not seeing over the line" just doesn't seem to be that big of a disqualifier with his understanding of timing, leverage, and pre-snap reads (Aaron Rodgers is 6'2"... bet he's dealt with the same). Bryce is likely dealing with similar challenges due to his size, but it clearly doesn't mean it can't be managed at a high level. Also, I'm not convinced that "prototypical footwork" should be the end goal for a QB that isn't built like the prototype. What matters more is timing and rhythm with his receivers... which, as we've both noted, has been evolving as the WR room flips from vet stopgaps to rookies. He will need to improve there. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is the impact that footwork is having on his ability to process and execute. The earlier suggestion that he's “hopping around” to see the field implies a frantic or panicked visual search, which just isn’t something we’ve seen reflected in either the film or any reliable breakdown. If it were as exaggerated as described, it would’ve become a meme-worthy moment (or at least been on SportsCenter's Not Top 10). Instead, we've seen a QB who, like many young passers, occasionally loses platform stability under pressure. That is something that's common and correctable, and again, not something that shows up with enough frequency to suggest it's an endemic flaw. It’s worth continuing to track, but to argue it's a defining issue requires stronger proof than anecdote. As for the "investments" made in the offense after drafting Bryce, I think that might be stretched a bit. Yes, we've used back-to-back firsts on WRs and signed guards to big contracts. But beyond that? Mingo (2nd) and Diontae (FA) are gone. Zavala (4th) was the worst-rated OL in the league his rookie year Sanders (4th) and Evans (5th) are mid-round TEs. Tremble was given a small contract extension but is said here to be at best a blocking TE2. Jimmy Horn Jr (6th) and Coker (UDFA) are the other WR investments Corbett + BC got one-year deals coming off of injury Cade Mays was tendered, but he was cut to start last season That's not some overwhelming infusion of elite talent. It's better, sure... but acting like it's some embarrassment of riches feels overstated. Expecting instant chemistry and impact from rookies and second-year guys while simultaneously mocking the idea of contending this year also feels a little... off? So far, what I've heard as your criteria boils down to red zone efficiency and intermediate passing to the sidelines? You mentioned moving the ball inside the 20s... I'd recommend 3rd down conversion rate, big-time throws, and turnover-worthy plays. For red zone play specifically, we could look at turnovers inside the 20. Incompletions in the red zone as well as intermediate sideline incompletions could provide an interesting starting point for film study. Hell, any of these would give us a more objective framework to work from if you're open to using them. Do any of them work for you?
    • I honestly can't stand the knee jerk emotional fans on both sides be they critical or homers, very much a wait and see try to remain objective as long as possible type fan.
    • See you guys had me wrong the other day I'm not a blind homer I just like more than a game sample size, that and with Morrow at fault for 4 goals i wanted to see if they could adjust and if rod the dud would play Boom. Well we got the answer.
×
×
  • Create New...