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!

     

Breer talks about Gase (and Tannehill; oh, and Darnold)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bigdog10 said:

This is precisely it. He’s 23 years old, so it wouldn’t hurt to baby him for a half a year and not put too much on his shoulders. 

with that said, his price tag is going to get awfully steep in a short period of time. We’re going to need to know at years end whether he is worth staking the future of the franchise on. 

The team can restructure his deal so that it's basically a little over eleven and a half million per year for the next two seasons.

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The team can restructure his deal so that it's basically a little over eleven and a half million per year for the next two seasons.

Yeah, I’m talking about an extension. We better know for sure after these 34 games whether he can play before giving him a 4-5 year bank buster deal. 

Edited by bigdog10
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bigdog10 said:

Yeah, I’m talking about an extension. We better no for sure after these 34 games whether he can play before giving him a 4-5 year bank buster deal. 

We will absolutely know the answer by the end of the season.

  • Pie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bigdog10 said:

Yeah, I’m talking about an extension. We better no for sure after these 34 games whether he can play before giving him a 4-5 year bank buster deal. 

I don't necessarily think next offseason is the deadline. I do believe you can give him two years.

Might even be wise to do so. Suppose he looks good after the first year but not so good after the second one?

  • Pie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Oh sure, those are easy to find. Hell, most successful teams just get the best quarterback they can find and don't bother putting jack sh-t around them.

I mean if they need stuff like receivers, offensive linemrn and a run game to be good, are they really worth it?

They are not easy to find, that’s why you keep drafting them and not settling for reclamation projects. That’s why the jets got rid of Darnold, why the Niners are getting rid of Jimmy, Rams with Goff, Cards with Rosen and so on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

They are not easy to find, that’s why you keep drafting them and not settling for reclamation projects. That’s why the jets got rid of Darnold, why the Niners are getting rid of Jimmy, Rams with Goff, Cards with Rosen and so on. 

We call that the Jon Gruden approach.

Quick Tip: It doesn't work.

See Also: The Cleveland Browns

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 4
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

They are not easy to find, that’s why you keep drafting them and not settling for reclamation projects. That’s why the jets got rid of Darnold, why the Niners are getting rid of Jimmy, Rams with Goff, Cards with Rosen and so on. 

Teams that constantly recycle quarterbacks are often teams that draft bad or hire poor coaches. That is why the grass is greener, quarterback recycle doesn't always work .

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

We call that the Jon Gruden approach.

Quick Tip: It doesn't work.

See Also: The Cleveland Browns


wrong

Actually the Jon Gruden approach is signing castoff QBs, Gruden has only drafted 3 QBs ever and all have been after the third round.

try again though

 

Also since drafting Baker in 2018 the browns have had a better record then us and way better offense then us. So don’t be throwing stones living in glass houses

The Browns have their franchise guy, we are out here with Teddy and Sam

  • Poo 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KatsAzz said:

Teams that constantly recycle quarterbacks are often teams that draft bad or hire poor coaches. That is why the grass is greener, quarterback recycle doesn't always work .

I call it the lottery approach because it's a lot like trying to get rich through buying lottery tickets.

"Maybe this quarterback's a winner. Oh wait, he wasn't? Well let's get another one and maybe that one will be a winner."

  • Pie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GoobyPls said:


wrong

Actually the Jon Gruden approach is signing castoff QBs, Gruden has only drafted 3 QBs ever and all have been after the third round.

try again though

Also since drafting Baker in 2018 the browns have had a better record then us and way better offense then us. So don’t be throwing stones living in glass houses

The Browns have their franchise guy, we are out here with Teddy and Sam

Gruden kept shifting quarterbacks rather than sticking with one and developing them. That's basically the approach you're advocating.

And seriously, if you want to emulate the Browns, you'd best be prepared for this:

this-browns-jersey-sums-up-clevelands-wo

 

  • Pie 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KatsAzz said:

Teams that constantly recycle quarterbacks are often teams that draft bad or hire poor coaches. That is why the grass is greener, quarterback recycle doesn't always work .

And teams that sign castoff end up in nfl purgatory with 5-11 record lingering around being irrelevant never finding a true franchise QB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fan base is still butt hurt about Watson, I get that. I think it would be wise to keep building and try with Darnold than give up picks. This team still has a bunch of holes and positions that need upgrading. 

Edited by jackson113
Bologna
  • Pie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

And teams that sign castoff end up in nfl purgatory with 5-11 record lingering around being irrelevant never finding a true franchise QB

Yeah, like that Brees guy. What did he ever win?

Same with that guy the Packers picked up that had a funny last name. Brett something...

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Gruden kept shifting quarterbacks rather than sticking with one and developing them. That's basically the approach you're advocating.

And seriously, if you want to emulate the Browns, you'd best be prepared for this:

this-browns-jersey-sums-up-clevelands-wo

 

You also get in a perpetual loop by tanking in football.  I don't really think its like the NBA where you can get 1 stud in the lottery and you're in much better shape.  If you draft a good QB prospect on a dumpster fire of a team, he could easily get killed from no protection or not perform very well ever.  You could be looking at decades of poor play before you get something going.

Instead of trying to find someone that can develop and win on a decent football team, you're looking for someone that shows flashes in a dumpster fire.  Not the best approach in my opinion.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...