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!

     

Do we need to worry about #2 WR


Zod

Recommended Posts

I understand the concern but I will say no.

Moose looked as good at the end of the season as he did at the start so I think asking one more year from him as the #2 is reasonable.

I think Jarrett is pretty good but he just can't get the touches partially due to Jakes eyes always eyeing Smitty and Moose and Fox's loyalty to Hackett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the more pressing matter would be rebuilding the D. While he isn't going to set any records anytime soon, I think I saw a glimmer of promise in Jarrett this year. Moose ought to be good for another year, which will buy us time for Jarrett to come along even further, and also to see what next year's crop of talent will offer at the WR spot. In the meantime, I'd say cut Hackett (which should also help the cap), and keep an eye out for a good bargain WR in free agency. Of course, if we stumble across a diamond in the rough in the draft, it might be worthwhile to pick him up. But I think our most urgent concern should be shoring up our less than stout defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible").  I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.
    • So if one of the parents wants to buy the theatre group or the band lunch they should get banned?
    • OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought. 
×
×
  • Create New...