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!

     

Other NFL Games Thread


kungfoodude
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If we had a promising rookie NOW we wouldn't be pounding the take for a QB in April. We're probably gonna either have to swing a costly trade up or reach big because I don't see any way that Young or Stroud is there at #9.

What makes you so sure those 2 are the only qb's who have a chance to be "promising" young rookies?  Wait, don't answer that. I'm sure you have an analytical rant built up to explain why. I'm an idiot for even asking. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

What makes you so sure those 2 are the only qb's who have a chance to be "promising" young rookies?  Wait, don't answer that. I'm sure you have an analytical rant built up to explain why. I'm an idiot for even asking. 

I don't think that. I think they're the only two that wouldn't be reaches at #9.  I'm on record wanting Anthony Richardson despite that I think he's a reach at #9.

Calm down. Panties all in a bunch for no reason. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I don't think that. I think they're the only two that wouldn't be reaches at #9.  I'm on record wanting Anthony Richardson despite that I think he's a reach at #9.

Calm down. Panties all in a bunch for no reason. 😂

I'm not even a bit irked much less upset.  I was honestly curious to why you are so sure it has to be 1 of those 2 for it to be a promising qb is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

I'm not even a bit irked much less upset.  I was honestly curious to why you are so sure it has to be 1 of those 2 for it to be a promising qb is all.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that if we currently had a promising rookie QB then we wouldn't be so desperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that if we currently had a promising rookie QB then we wouldn't be so desperate.

Well hell that's just about every team that doesn't have one. We are no different. I don't think you're understanding me.  But I'm tired and bored with this conversation so carry on. 

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

    • I’m not suggesting that tanking is the right thing to do every time. I do think that if you have guys like Burns and Moore that you will trade anyway, then you should think about tanking and getting max value, especially if you want to grab a QB that might go 1st overall. We tried to do both. Trade CMC for picks but don’t take 3 1sts and a 2nd for Burns and Moore. Instead, we won a few games and then threw in Moore on a trade because we didn’t tank and we gave Burns away for a 2nd. Can you honestly say that fully tanking, by trading away all our best guys who weren’t in future plans, in 2022 wouldn’t have made our team better now? We wanted a rookie QB and we didn’t extend the main guy we didn’t want to trade. We were 100% in full tear down and we could have been a playoff team last year if we used the 4 extra 1sts or 3 1sts and 2 2nds (counting picks saved on Young by being pick 3 or 4 not 9) on D. Culture building is funny. It took three coaching changes to seemingly get there. Morgan and Canales weren’t in charge when we “protected” our culture. We still traded Burns and Moore, we just lost 3 first round picks in the process. Also, do you think the Eagles are in a bad place because of their coach clearly tanking a game for a draft pick? Remember that? It was obvious and the coach was fired. The funny thing is that this is something teams do all the time but they add their stars (like Cam in 2016, CMC, Burns, etc.) to IR or rest them in week 16/17. Pederson was just dumb and made it obvious. He could have just sat his starters to start. Anyway, did that incident tank risk their credibility? Did Barkley decide to not sign with them? Seems like their SB win and other SB visit say they are just fine. Winning makes culture, picking the right coach makes culture, trading away guys who are on other teams in a year for top picks and keeping more picks by having a better starting pick to trade up, does not impact culture. If it helps you win, culture will be fine, ask the Eagles.
×
×
  • Create New...