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!

     

Will Anderson v. QB


CPcavedweller
 Share

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

Here is the question, did the Lions take Aiden Hutchinson or reach for Kenny Pickett? They took Hutchinson. Why. Because if you took Pickett or Willis you were reaching and over paying massively.

That's what we are looking at for 2023. Any QB taken at number 1 you are massively over spending for. That's a position for a generational, sure fire talent. Anderson is that.

Now you pair Burns with Anderson for three years, let Corral develop his mind to match his physical tools, and you may have a championship window if you play the markets right and draft well.

The Lions had an NFL QB on their roster. We don't. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CPcavedweller said:

Just Fields says hello with his Ohio State pedigree. 

You'd rather have that, or Dwayne Haskins, than Will Anderson? Anderson is the closest thing to Micah Parsons out there. You don't pass on that for Will fuging Levi's or CJ Stroud.

Especially if we hold on to Burns.

Pretty much this. Fields sucks, and so does literally every QB from Ohio St. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CPcavedweller said:

Just Fields says hello with his Ohio State pedigree. 

You'd rather have that, or Dwayne Haskins, than Will Anderson? Anderson is the closest thing to Micah Parsons out there. You don't pass on that for Will fuging Levi's or CJ Stroud.

Especially if we hold on to Burns.

Haskins had substance abuse issues. Not really sure that’s a reasonable comparison unless you know something about Stroud we don’t 

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

    • The difference is about how much player input is allowed and encouraged in the decision making process. Top down teams tend to dictate to players how everything is handled. Disagreements are handled by the coach and players are expected to do what they are told regardless of what they think or feel.  Players are perceived as commodities to be used until we find better. In player led teams player input is encouraged and valued. Players and especially leaders are expected to settle their own disagreements and be accountable to the team but mostly to each other. Players are family to be appreciated and supported in their growth. Is the reality of football the same in both? Yeah there are limited positions, football is a business and winning is the bottom line. Coaches get final say and run the program because that is their job. But in player led teams they feel valued, appreciated, part of a larger whole. Most people who have worked at multiple jobs know exactly what I am talking about. When players try to run the show and don't value  coach input that isn't a player led team, that is a circus which we surely are familiar with in our past.  
    • For our pics and trades tonight and tmrw.  Remember, Aho was a 2nd rounder and Slavin was a 4th rounder. 
    • Seems to be the consensus from the talking heads. I really wish we had double dipped at center in the 2nd round. Sion will never play in the league. 
×
×
  • Create New...