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!

     

Dennis Cox & Chris Lea have a point


top dawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shocker said:

Here is my theory…

David Tepper is a little man mentally.  He literally cannot handle another opinion that doesn’t match his own.  
 

The problem with this is that he doesn’t know the first thing about football.  Nothing.  He was in the group of people in Pittsburgh that wanted to fire Tomlin.  He is a disease 

This all the way.

He was just looking for someone that agrees with his vision. That's all, and that guy was Morgan.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tr3ach said:

Fans and media alike think they deserve more answers than they do and also read way too much into the generic answers we get.

Well, I'm of the opinion that fans do deserve answers because we're the ones supporting the teams. If a GM can't answer---however generic--how he'll be different than a failed GM, then fans have a right to voice criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Well, I'm of the opinion that fans do deserve answers because we're the ones supporting the teams. If a GM can't answer---however generic--how he'll be different than a failed GM, then fans have a right to voice criticism.

Because it doesnt really matter what they say.   It matters what they do.  What good does asking him how hes different than the previous failures actually do?  If he gives a perfect answer or a horrible answer none of that really matters.  What matters is he knows what the failures of the past are and hes learned from them.  I dont expect them to open up into some deep philosophical answer.  Actions, not words.  If he answers the question perfectly with some totally understandable excuse of why things went badly that everyone understands and feels compassion towards, but then does a terrible job in the future, how much does that question about the past actually matter?

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, L-TownCat said:

Why are we making this harder than it is?  With Tepper in the building can you really evaluate the people he hires?  He just overrules their decisions with his own, unless they do what he was already planning to do.  Does that mean Dan will be good or bad?  Who knows? But how can you blame him?  We have no idea what decisions he’ll actually be allowed to make.

I’m fine being optimistic because it’s hard to see the point in letting sports entertainment make you too miserable. It’s just internal vs external.
 

How can we justify keeping anyone from the front office that was building the team?

Just feels like we picked someone with no potential. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Donald LaFell said:

I’m fine being optimistic because it’s hard to see the point in letting sports entertainment make you too miserable. It’s just internal vs external.
 

How can we justify keeping anyone from the front office that was building the team?

Just feels like we picked someone with no potential. 

I won’t argue the optics of hiring a person involved with the worst FO in franchise history.

I just don’t understand getting upset at Dan for accepting the job offer.

IMO Tepper could hire the resurrected corpses of Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry and Chuck Knoll and they’d still fail b/c Tepper is cancer.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, L-TownCat said:

I won’t argue the optics of hiring a person involved with the worst FO in franchise history.

I just don’t understand getting upset at Dan for accepting the job offer.

IMO Tepper could hire the resurrected corpses of Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry and Chuck Knoll and they’d still fail b/c Tepper is cancer.

Definitely happy for Morgan. It’d be great if it works out. 

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 was watching a YouTube and it was said that scout and GM insider types were saying the NIL had killed rounds 4-7. I don’t know that I buy it, seems like it might for a year or maybe two but then those guys have to move on.  NCAA is apparently about to give 5 years of eligibility. It is gonna skew those entrants older maybe.   
    • Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
×
×
  • Create New...