Jump to content

NFL next- The Superb Owl you hate


DireWolfSpirit
 Share

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, grozeng said:

I probably would still rather have Carr and the pick.

Carr is a middling QB at best and looking at his nine year career, he's only had three really good seasons. The other six are average and his last two seasons were rather disappointing for him. Not sure pursuing him is the move that will make the Jets even close to contenders. Rodgers, assuming last year was a blip and not a trend, raises your ceiling a lot more, albeit for a short amount of time. That sounds more enticing to me.

If I was you though I'd want the Jets to give up several picks for Lamar. Now that would make the team a real threat for several years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If I was you though I'd want the Jets to give up several picks for Lamar. Now that would make the team a real threat for several years. 

Lamar would be my first choice.  I just don't think Rodgers' salary and demeanor are good for the Jets.  I am hoping Carr would have a Jets career like Testaverde.  Testaverde really didn't do anything before he got to the Jets and then somehow he worked.  I just think Rodgers brings too much garbage with him.  Carr could also help get the next QB ready.  Rodgers has too much of an ego to do that.  I don't think any of the QBs out there, besides maybe Lamar, make the Jets a Super Bowl contender, so they just need to get someone to be a competent QB and get them into the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, grozeng said:

Lamar would be my first choice.  I just don't think Rodgers' salary and demeanor are good for the Jets.  I am hoping Carr would have a Jets career like Testaverde.  Testaverde really didn't do anything before he got to the Jets and then somehow he worked.  I just think Rodgers brings too much garbage with him.  Carr could also help get the next QB ready.  Rodgers has too much of an ego to do that.  I don't think any of the QBs out there, besides maybe Lamar, make the Jets a Super Bowl contender, so they just need to get someone to be a competent QB and get them into the playoffs.

The roster around him in NY would be better than the one in GB, so that's something to consider. At the end of the day I don't think a one year rental would be that bad assuming his cap hit doesn't make the Jets have to lose several key pieces in the process.

Curious what the asking price for Lamar would be given Watson command three firsts and Lamar is better without all the off field issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The roster around him in NY would be better than the one in GB, so that's something to consider. At the end of the day I don't think a one year rental would be that bad assuming his cap hit doesn't make the Jets have to lose several key pieces in the process.

Curious what the asking price for Lamar would be given Watson command three firsts and Lamar is better without all the off field issues. 

If teams are willing to say “Just because the Browns are dumb enough to fully guarantee a contract, doesn’t mean we will.”  Then why would they pay that many firsts just because the Browns did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rhom said:

If teams are willing to say “Just because the Browns are dumb enough to fully guarantee a contract, doesn’t mean we will.”  Then why would they pay that many firsts just because the Browns did?

Your team traded three firsts for a mystery box rookie QB and the experiment so far has failed disastrously. Three for Lamar would be a steal by comparing him to that trade or the one the Browns did.

ETA: It should haunt you that you lost all those picks because your Niners could offer the equivalent of four firsts for him (spread out over years and rounds) and you'd instantly be the best team in football by a staggering degree. 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Your team traded three firsts for a mystery box rookie QB and the experiment so far has failed disastrously. Three for Lamar would be a steal by comparing him to that trade or the one the Browns did.

ETA: It should haunt you that you lost all those picks because your Niners could offer the equivalent of four firsts for him (spread out over years and rounds) and you'd instantly be the best team in football by a staggering degree. 

I like Lamar a lot, but I wouldn’t consider him a good candidate to run Shanahans offense.

Your larger point stands, but I still point out it was really two given up and trading places on the third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I like Lamar a lot, but I wouldn’t consider him a good candidate to run Shanahans offense.

Your larger point stands, but I still point out it was really two given up and trading places on the third.

Yeah, and the impression I’m getting is that push comes to shove Kyle will take the less talented guy who won’t swim against the current in his system over the more talented guy he has to build the offence around. I generally think this is bad coaching but his system presents arguments of it’s own so I’m more undecided. I think this in part explains so many flirtations with big names who openly wanted to go to SF and always ultimately passing. I think he knows that better qb = easier game, so he’s always looking, but every fit doesn’t because of the adjustments he’d have to make. Could be wrong, just a sense I get from comments of players, ex-players, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You two are off the wall. They paid all of that for a running QB who has given them nothing. Lamar with Deebo, CMC, Kittle, that run game and line plus a top 5 defense is instantly the best team in the NFL and would actually make Lamar so much more deadly than we've ever seen him. 

WTF are we even talking about here?

ETA:

Quote

but I still point out it was really two given up and trading places on the third.

That's still three for one buddy. Don't try to rationalize it anyway else. 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You two are off the wall. They paid all of that for a running QB who has given them nothing. Lamar with Deebo, CMC, Kittle, that run game and line plus a top 5 defense is instantly the best team in the NFL and would actually make Lamar so much more deadly than we've ever seen him. 

WTF are we even talking about here?

ETA:

That's still three for one buddy. Don't try to rationalize it anyway else. 

I don’t understand. I’m off the wall because I think our coach is a serious control freak who prioritizes system over talent, which 9/10 times in pro sports is a formula for failure? I haven’t even said if I think it would work, if I’d do it, if I think Lamar fits, etc., just evaluating the priorities of the guy who calls the shots? All Rhom questioned was fit, so far as I can see, and that’s always a question with quarterbacks and offensive head coaches. You’re talking like we’re saying ‘great move’ on Lance or we’re super happy about the qb situation. 
 

Anyways, my take on the above: there are ways this can break where the Niners have 2 cheap, controllable young starting calibre quarterbacks, an incredibly advantageous situation. Before Purdy’s injury I’d have put the odds of that much higher than now. Right now I see a lot of moving parts that have to come together for us to even be starting the season with a guy you can confidently call that, and I personally am getting the impression, over time, that the Niners/Kyle have an exceptionally low investment in the longer term values of their players, ie health etc. over what can you give me this week. I think everyone in the NFL has that element, but I am increasingly thinking that Kyle is…borderline sociopathic with that shit.

 

And consequently I would absolutely not be taking medical advice from the Niners if I’m Purdy, but I think in the end he’ll have to, and therefore his career prospects depend a lot on whether the Niners ~ disposable attitude towards players happens to by chance line up with the right call medically. Let’s say I’m not really excited about this situation. 
 

As for Lance, aside from the real time cost of erosion and opp. cost, I don’t really understand anyone whose opinion on him is all that different than it was 3 years ago. And yes, that’s a huge problem. But it doesn’t change the eventuality odds except where the Niners decide, belatedly, that now is not a great time for a test drive. But even there, unless the answer’s Purdy, I don’t see what has happened in a couple seasons where he’s thrown ~ 100 passes and you’ve won zero championships to change your assessment of the need for more from a qb and a surrounding team that almost requires a rookie deal qb to function as some version of itself. Unless it’s an internal eval that he’s just not that guy, which is possible. I don’t think they’ve blown the doors off anyone’s house with their enthusiasm for him recently, but then Kyle doesn’t really do anything but the bare minimum there, and even less when talking injured players, so dunno. 
 

The upside…always forget that part…is that our roster makes qb value as relatively benign as it can get in pro football, so they can go on unbeatable looking runs with a Purdy playing…I mean, great in a lot of ways, how much if that is the talent around him? Or is he just a perfect discount fit for Kyle’s system? If so, do I want to move off that? But I really don’t know where that line is, if I’m betting I’m probably betting against him even without the injury. Upside!
 

On Lamar, yes, of course he makes us a bette team on paper, talking certainties. But if Kyle thinks he’s a bad fit, he’s a bad fit whether that’s true or not. So it really depends on why they were previously not too interested in him. But they’ve been uninterested in several generational qbs who openly wanted to go there, so there’s a lot of form there, is I think our point. 

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

But if Kyle thinks he’s a bad fit, he’s a bad fit whether that’s true or not. 

How many more times can he come up short before you turn on him? Because you're going into next year with a shaky QB situation and if you don't strike gold again, who knows when you'll find another QB...

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How many more times can he come up short before you turn on him? Because you're going into next year with a shaky QB situation and if you don't strike gold again, who knows when you'll find another QB...

We’re not getting each other. You think I’ve been defending him? I will defend him in some ways, but none of those are the things I’ve been talking about, except to wonder if his system might possibly be the exception to the philosophical rule in pro sports. And just wondering, definitely not all in. 
 

That said, I don’t think we can seriously blame him for much this season unless, as i might do, you think his philosophy makes players more expendable, and his usage of them absolutely walks the talk. But that aside I think it was one of the best coached seasons I’ve seen in a long time. He had the Niners the statistical betting odds on (ie home field spread <3) favourite to rep the NFC in the Suoerbowl on his third string (drafted that year as 4th string) quarterback. I…that’s remarkable. And consequentialism doesn't impress me, so outside of that health question, I don’t think we can have a reasonable conversation on the basis that that game wasn’t massively dictated by an injury. So unless you do think Kyle treating players as disposable is the cause there, how can we deduct anything from how it ended. They were tied before the back-up took a snap. 
 

Edit: sorry, forgot to finish my thought. On the health issue I am extremely open to the idea that he’s an extremist when it comes to treating his players as embodiments of Carpe Diem in a way that only has the potential to cost them more than it does him. Otoh he’s amazing at mane the two most important aspects of head coaching: remarkable game planning and excellent assistant coach hiring. And on top of that the Niners have a fantastic locker room, though I’m not sure if that’s a Kyle thing or an organizational refusal to take on people they think might be problems, I don’t know.

 

So to me it’s how do I weigh that great, elite level coaching against a very real possibility that his downside will continue to be injuries because in part because of how little he cares about how well their careers are going in 3 years. I go back and forth on this tbh, but then I consider the Niners remarkable run as the injury outlier goes back several coaches/front offices/stadiums, so…is that just historically bad luck? Or an ownership philosophy? The latter seems extremely unlikely to me, but it’s the best alternate explanation I can come up with. There’s the possibility that it was luck before Kyle and Kyle since, I guess. 

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to my team signing Mr. Carr for the highest-est-est contract ever. Then trading down to take the 3rd best LT off the board. 

Meanwhile, Lamar is worth 3 firsts. But if I was Lamar I would not want to let myself be traded for that. He will get top-top dollar no matter what. Taking all those picks from your new team hamstrings you trying to win SB - nah 

Ravens got lucky. They didn't believe in him. 

Trading 1 first rounder, that seems fair. Otherwise, they can tag him one more time and it's all Lamar's world from there. 

Scorched earth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, briantw said:

The Ravens appear to be imploding, which is pretty awesome to watch.

 

 

 

 

Never saw or heard any of this when Ozzie was running the show, was it hidden while he was there?

Edited by dbunting
asdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rhom said:

If teams are willing to say “Just because the Browns are dumb enough to fully guarantee a contract, doesn’t mean we will.”  Then why would they pay that many firsts just because the Browns did?

If I’m being honest, I don’t really get the big deal with the fully guaranteed contract for a QB.  If you have an elite QB, he is getting all the money in his contract anyway.  Mahomes and Allen may not be fully guaranteed, but there is a 100% chance they see all the money in their deals unless they suffer a career ending injury, in which case they retire and the money doesn’t matter anyway.

Plus, as we’re now seeing, and as I predicted, the Browns offering that contract is fucking another team in their own division and is looking like it will cost them their former MVP QB, and it may fuck the Bengals soon too, as they’re a cash poor franchise that will likely have to borrow money to cover a massive guarantee.  I don’t expect them to lose Burrow, but they may have to sacrifice some of the guys around him to pay him, which is good enough for me. 

Edited by briantw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, briantw said:

If I’m being honest, I don’t really get the big deal with the fully guaranteed contract for a QB.  If you have an elite QB, he is getting all the money in his contract anyway.  Mahomes and Allen may not be fully guaranteed, but there is a 100% chance they see all the money in their deals unless they suffer a career ending injury, in which case they retire and the money doesn’t matter anyway.

Plus, as we’re now seeing, and as I predicted, the Browns offering that contract is fucking another team in their own division and is looking like it will cost them their former MVP QB, and it may fuck the Bengals soon too, as they’re a cash poor franchise that will likely have to borrow money to cover a massive guarantee.  I don’t expect them to lose Burrow, but they may have to sacrifice some of the guys around him to pay him, which is good enough for me. 

That's the big deal. A number of owners cannot afford to fully guarantee contracts over $200M because they have to put all that money into escrow upfront. The Raiders had to trade Mack because Davis couldn't even put up half of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's the big deal. A number of owners cannot afford to fully guarantee contracts over $200M because they have to put all that money into escrow upfront. The Raiders had to trade Mack because Davis couldn't even put up half of that. 

Well then it seems like a smart bit of gamesmanship from a cash rich owner in a division that had two other QBs on rookie deals.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, briantw said:

Well then it seems like a smart bit of gamesmanship from a cash rich owner in a division that had two other QBs on rookie deals.  

Or maybe it's the behavior of a desperate owner, who by the way is a criminal that deserves to be in jail alongside his QB. Handing out the worst contract in the history of the sport is not gamesmanship, it's just another indicator that Haslam is an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Or maybe it's the behavior of a desperate owner, who by the way is a criminal that deserves to be in jail alongside his QB. Handing out the worst contract in the history of the sport is not gamesmanship, it's just another indicator that Haslam is an idiot.

And yet it’s about to cost the Ravens Lamar Jackson.  And will probably cost the Bengals several players as well, even if they do hold on to Burrow.  

If you have an advantage over other teams, you should flex it.  This is no different from certain NBA owners being able and willing to eat huge luxury tax bills to keep a team together when other owners would have to break it up because they were unable or unwilling to do so.  It’s why the Cavs have a championship and the Thunder don’t. 

I also find it hilarious that some of you guys pretend to be pro-player until it comes to guaranteed contracts.  And then it’s, “Oh god, won’t someone think of the poor billionaires.”  As if guaranteed money even really matters in a league where the salary cap barely even exists for a halfway intelligent GM. 

Edited by briantw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, briantw said:

And yet it’s about to cost the Ravens Lamar Jackson.  And will probably cost the Bengals several players as well, even if they do hold on to Burrow.  

If you have an advantage over other teams, you should flex it.  This is no different from certain NBA owners being able and willing to eat huge luxury tax bills to keep a team together when other owners would have to break it up because they were unable or unwilling to do so.  It’s why the Cavs have a championship and the Thunder don’t. 

I also find it hilarious that some of you guys pretend to be pro-player until it comes to guaranteed contracts.  And then it’s, “Oh god, won’t someone think of the poor billionaires.”  As if guaranteed money even really matters in a league where the salary cap barely even exists for a halfway intelligent GM. 

Bisciotti is worth $2B more than Haslam. This wasn’t a financial flex at all.

And as far as guaranteed money goes, I want it for the dudes who play other positions that tend to have short careers and come with more injury risks. They’re the ones who need it. Not QBs like Kyler or Russ who will never be worth a fraction of what they’re getting paid now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...