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!

     

If this isn't the year...


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, CarolinaNCSU said:

You're mad we might throw our chips in the middle this year, but then it's okay the next year based on the hope we draft well this year? Then we trade in 2022 coming off a better record, and higher cost to get a rookie QB?  The Chiefs went from 27 to 10 at the cost of an extra first rounder and 3rd.  Imagine the cost if they would've had to get into the top 5 in a QB heavy draft like this one. 

This year, for us to go from 8 to 3...it might cost an extra first rounder and a 3rd? What's it matter if we do it this year or next? If we have a guy we like, go get him. In your same scenario ala Kansas City on a better team, we could still draft Darnold or Daniel Jones (at a higher cost) and lock our 9-7 team into mediocrity or worse.  Whether this year or next year, the team is going to have holes. How many teams are "set", have drafted well for years, AND THEN go draft their QB like the Chiefs did?  Not exactly a blueprint we can follow anyway when all we would have to do is draft one of the most talented QBs of all time that others pass on, sit him a year, and have him come in throwing no look TDs.  The Chiefs are an outlier, not a plan. 

 

Because if we trade a bunch of picks this year and miss, we're doing it with the base of a 5-11 team and the future picks we give up will be much higher value with no hope of improving anytime soon. If we invest our picks in players we are confident can contribute at positions of weakness and build a complete team with fewer deficiencies, we can get to the position where we're effectively one piece away from true contention and can afford to sacrifice a few picks. And it doesn't actually have to be draft picks. We can sign a free agent qb or trade for 1. Sure, doing what the chiefs did exactly is not common. But building a complete team and then finding your franchise qb isn't that rare. That's exactly what Tampa did. And seems to be what the Rams are trying this year. And to a less successful extent, what the 49ers did that launched them to a super bowl in 2019 (and what they might end up doing again this offseason). It's honestly incredibly rare to think of teams with a lot of holes giving up valuable draft capital moving up to the top of the draft and ending up happy with the decision when all is said and done. The Redskins with RG3, both the Rams and Eagles happily dumping their qbs (and yeah the Eagles won a super bowl.. with Nick Foles) and the Jets probably not far behind with Darnold.

  • Beer 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

It shouldn't be. He cannot help us win games. It is the one thing he has proved.

This to me is the biggest strike against Bridgewater.  I don't care how far he throws it, as long as he wins.  I don't care who he throws it to, as long as he wins.

Bridgewater had eight opportunities this year to show me that he's a WINNER.  He failed to accomplish it . . . EIGHT TIMES.  You can't go on a Super Bowl run with a guy who can't come up big in big situations.  This is the problem with Teddy.

Imagine Teddy managed to get it done four times out of eight.  Again, I don't care how.  Had he done so, this team would have been 9 - 7 and we would have all been amazed at how quickly the franchise turned.  We would have gone into late game situations with the mindset that "We have a chance".

Nope.  We have no shot with TB5.  Even the locker room at this point has to see it.  He just didn't get it done, and you can't go to war with "that guy" leading the charge.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Let's say we don't get a true franchise quarterback this year but we do get somebody who's decent and an improvement over Bridgewater...

Will that be enough to hold you until we can try again next year or in the near future?

Or will it be torches and pitchforks time?

Pitchforks.  A semi-decent QB brings us back to Delhomme style mediocrity where a top-tier QB just never seems to fall in our laps.  After suffering through this dumpster fire of a team the past few years it's time to get a franchise-altering signalcaller.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mage said:


Same ish with Cam.  I 100% understood releasing him.  The problem was replacing him with Teddy.  Why not just stick with Cam at that point?

Same thing here.  Don't get rid of Teddy just to replace him with another mediocre QB.  You either go after a guy like Watson or someone in the draft who you think can be a franchise QB, or you stick with Teddy.  

They got rid of Cam because this was Cam's team. There was no doubt about it, any new coach coming in would either be beholding to Cam's wishes or he'd have to move him away. Cam's diminishing capabilities on the field (his charisma was completely unaffected by injuries) only made the decision easier.

For a complete rebuild, Cam had to be shown the door. New coach had to be the biggest dog in the yard, just like Steve Smith had to be moved out to let Cam take the leadership role.

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we decide that there isn't a franchise QB at our pick in the draft, then we pick the best player available and continue the rebuild. If that means Bridgewater gets another season, I'm not upset with that. 

There is a chance with better protection and another year as a starter we would see some improvement with Teddy. It would be a better move than investing big in a reclamation project like Darnold, Carr or someone of their stripe. In the end, Teddy would have a year's head start on upgrading and we'd only have his contract to deal with rather than two contracts of that level to pay at once.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping Teddy:

Sit where we are in the draft, especially if a top LT falls.  Take him, and tag or sign Moton, I prefer to sign.  Draft centered around the offensive line and secondary.  Take a shot at an older MLB, if the money is right.  Let Curtis walk, but maybe bring in a decent possession WR or TE.  Continue to cut the fat and keep the contracts manageable.

In other words, continue to smartly build a football team.  Be ready to swing for the fences at QB when the moment arises.

 

I'm not big on giving up multiple 1st for any player....ever...but I would do that for Trevor, but that ain't happening.  I wouldn't blow a gasket if we moved a player and a 1st for Wilson, but not two 1's.  I'd move two 1's and CMC for Watson.  No other QB's are worth a trade up IMO, too risky.

 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's do away with the narrative that there's little chance to find a qb in 2022. Most people agree there are at least a couple college qbs that are on a similar level as Fields or will be after another year like Howell and Rattler. Every year a fringe prospect or 2 launches up draft boards, like Wilson this year or Burrow last. So there's a good chance we'll have another top 3 or 4 on par with this year (minus Lawrence). Now add veterans that teams might move on from or make available for trade: Aaron Rodgers, Carr, Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, and even possibly Watson if the team stands firm this year. Possibly others: who thought Watson might be available this time last year. And even if some of those names aren't long-term answers, they could put us in immediate contention with good drafts and free agency and buy us a couple more years to find the long term answer. 

Don't get me wrong; I'm totally fine with drafting a top qb prospect at 8 if available. Or you could even sell me on trading 8 and a 4th to move up to 6 or 7 to get one. But if neither of those is a realistic option, I'd much rather sit tight, draft Slater or Sewell, cover other critical positions of need like CB and IOL in the 2nd and 3rd and figure out qb later. To me that's much more likely a recipe for success than sacrificing that much for an unknown that will be asked to play behind a patchwork offensive line with limited resources to upgrade. 

  • Pie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, thefuzz said:

I'm not big on giving up multiple 1st for any player....ever...but I would do that for Trevor, but that ain't happening.  I wouldn't blow a gasket if we moved a player and a 1st for Wilson, but not two 1's.  I'd move two 1's and CMC for Watson.  No other QB's are worth a trade up IMO, too risky.

McCaffrey isn't cap practical.

If I recall correctly, our resident movie Shogun suggested two firsts and Brian Burns. Would you be on board with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

McCaffrey isn't cap practical.

If I recall correctly, our resident movie Shogun suggested two firsts and Brian Burns. Would you be on board with that?

For Watson?

That would be highway robbery.  Texans would never accept that.  Well maybe if Bill O'Brien returns

Edited by Mage
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mage said:

For Watson?

That would be highway robbery.  Texans would never accept that.  Well maybe if Bill O'Brien returns

He didn't think they would either.

He did say that was as much as he'd offer though, with the rationale being that throwing Burns in there essentially makes the deal equal to three first round picks.

Link to post
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.


  • BELIEVE!!!

    jimmy-clausen.jpg

     

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Dylan Moses    Paris Ford   Quinn Meinerz   Alaric Jackson  Pete Werner  Ben Cleveland   Marvin Wilson   Jaylen Twyman   Jacoby Stevens   Shaun Wade   Walker Little    Kenny Yeboah  Dazz Newsome  Jaelon Darden   Damar Hamlin    Shaun Beyer   Tuf Borland   Tarron Jackson
    • We don't have a clear picture on which positions will be premium, which middle of the road, and which scrubs. We don't know Rhule's/Fittere's blueprint, so we can't anticipate what we'll will do in the draft and FA. I do know some thing about Fitterer and Rhule. They both love fast roster churning at the bottom. So our scrubs will likely be pushed hard to overachieve, and when they don't they be sent packing quickly for the next scrub. Churning the hell out of the bottom of the roster is way of trying to find overachieving gems asap. The drawback is that the burden is placed on the coaches to always be dealing with inexperienced new guys, and more so than the typical NFL team. We also know that Rhule loves balance, so he wants to be able to run and pass very well. He places a premium on being able to run in cold weather late in the season and during playoffs. In the past things were simple. We knew our scrub position on defense were the safeties. We had a system that didn't require the safeties to be high quality. Now we really don't know what is going on yet. The defense is still up in the air, so who knows what we're going to do in the future.
×
×
  • Create New...