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!

     

Nathaniel Hackett fired


 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

There were people on this board who were not for Hackett before the Rhule hiring 

whoever made the Wilson decision is the culprit 

Wilson has never been a system Qb, he is improvisation, not precision

hackett is precision.  Rodgers greater than Wilson  

Hackett has also struggled at just about every non-Green Bay stop(save for one out of three years in Jacksonville).

I think people gave Hackett way too much credit for something he deserved very little of in Green Bay.

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ladypanther said:

I think Wilks is too smart to want to jump into that mess.

I'd hope so, but if that's the best offer he has as a head coach and there's a pile of money there, he should take it. 

They've got a lot to work with on the field as it stands now. The cupboard is a bit bare for down the road, but the Broncos are a team that needs motivation and cohesion more than anything. Wilks can provide that with room to spare. He could go a long way just by simply finding the right guy to work out a game plan that Wilson can make good use of.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent interview with the New York Post, Payton had this to say when asked about Wilson’s pronounced struggles in 2022: “Well, there’s a lot of things that they’re not doing well, and there’s probably a lot of mud on a lot of people’s hands, including himself.”

That doesn’t exactly sound like someone who is chomping at the bit to coach a 34-year-old quarterback who bears little resemblance, at least right now, to the worthy NFC adversary Wilson was to Payton’s Saints during the quarterback’s days in Seattle. 

https://theathletic.com/3986428/2022/12/26/broncos-coach-candidates-nfl/

Because the Saints own Payton’s rights through 2024, a team wanting to hire Payton would likely have to surrender draft compensation.

Do the Broncos even have enough draft picks left to do something like that?

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

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...