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!

     

Likely to trade up?


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Breer talked about that in this same column. Said the answer Houston is giving to all requests is still a "hard no". Also pointed out previously that if Caserio gives in, he'll forever be known as the guy that traded away Deshaun Watson.

I just don't see that situation getting resolved before the draft.

I don't see it that way. Caserio walked into a situation that was already nuclear.

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

I think that is the reason I would focus on that draft right now while the other teams scramble around for QB trades.

Reasonable, and what Breer said here makes me wonder if he believes we'll do that.

I know we're "in on every deal" but I don't really want us to be "in on" Darnold, and definitely not on Wentz.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Reasonable, and what Breer said here makes me wonder if he believes we'll do that.

I know we're "in on every deal" but I don't really want us to be "in on" Darnold, and definitely not on Wentz.

I am happy we are in on those deals. What better way to test the market out? I'd rather call and find out they want some ridiculous price than find out on Twatter or TV that you could have improved for a much cheaper price than you ever thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

I am happy we are in on those deals. What better way to test the market out? I'd rather call and find out they want some ridiculous price than find out on Twatter or TV that you could have improved for a much cheaper price than you ever thought. 

I get that, and I agree with investigating all possibilities.

I just really don't wanna see us do either of those trades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

You can’t look at it like this. What could we have done to “lose” that game without being painfully obvious like the Eagles did (which lost the locker room and got their coach fired). We played Teddy and kept CMC out. That’s about as far as you can go without obviously benching your starters Washington handed us that game with Haskins. We still had several games left in the season to play.

Don't try to use logic with these people. They will never give up crying over that one win. They have beaten all the dead horses about it. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I get that, and I agree with investigating all possibilities.

I just really don't wanna see us do either of those trades.

Understandable. I am just glad to have a front office that seems proactive. 

TBD if they end up making great deals or not. I will say that I am very encouraged to see how close we apparently were to getting Matt Stafford at a very reasonable price. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I think that is the reason I would focus on that draft right now while the other teams scramble around for QB trades.

Ultimately I hope the asking price to move these guys gets so ludicrous that everyone decides it's best just to stick with current QB, at least for this year.  Who does that help in the draft?  The Panthers.  If the draft order stays as is, we should be a lock to pick one of the 'big 4' without having to move up ourselves.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Understandable. I am just glad to have a front office that seems proactive. 

TBD if they end up making great deals or not. I will say that I am very encouraged to see how close we apparently were to getting Matt Stafford at a very reasonable price. 

It's not Marty.

No idea how good Fitterer will (or won't) be, but the fact that we're not going into yet another offseason with Marty at the helm feels like a reason for optimism.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...