-
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!
-
-
-
-
Topics
-
-
-
-
Posts
-
By cardiackat88. · Posted
Teams do some super stupid stuff with mid-fairly good QBs. I think they are just absolutely terrified they will be stuck with a QB that is not the quality of the QB they have now, even if its someone like Daniel Jones. Lots of trash QBs go in the first round. I encourage you to take a look at the sad, sad list of first round QBs in the last 15 years. -
No, it will be a raw 6'7" 17-year-old European who just played basketball for the first time in March and who the idiot GM "had first on our board." He'll play the whole G-League season, get in 42 games for the Hornets and average 1.1 ppg on 35% shooting. Been there, seen that. -
We missed on Burns at his peak value. That’s the problem with trading for picks 2-3 years away (which people were convinced the Rams would suck by now and these would be higher picks btw). Each year away the pick is the further in value it drops. Fitt was clearly hired based on turning us around quickly. It’s one of the many reasons tanking isn’t really a thing as our player JJ is telling you in this original article. It would take the whole organization from the owners down admitting they aren’t winning soon with Burns and picks 2-3 years away having more value because that’s when we are still rebuilding. It would only make sense if Fitt had a longer leash and would more than likely be the ones making these picks anyway which you wouldn’t want. The question is would you rather have those Rams picks with the strong possibility of Fitt still being here or would you rather Fitt try to “win now” like he did and expedite his firing? Altering the timeline would affect more than just the Rams picks.
-
-
(1).thumb.jpg.39d47488da35eba0b4aca548ded58784.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.