Darth Tater

The scariest thing is that he was available for so little. There are competing narratives as to why but that is really the only FACT we have. Everything else is speculation, post-event claims and statements that could be just interpreted as just the way you should talk about a guy you hold no personal animosity for.

Not just that it would be a weak return. Terry is one of the few good WRs we have picked since the 1980s.

The only excitement from fans comes from those who are of a similar opinion as yours. The people who support Wentz only realize that it was the best we could do and may be excited by the upside while taking little downside risk.

The whole NFL is moving towards that model. If trends continue (and the NFL doesn't die because of it), you'll soon be seeing teams made up of guys with 4 or fewer years because they found their franchise guy and are paying him 50% of the true cap.

Thing that is real "funny" is that the Browns will get all sorts of media praise if it works out even for just a year. If its a fail, just 'same ole browns, they should have known it was a crap maneuver'.

Belichick has a history of success with those high risk moves (keeping 4 QBs on the 53 back in Tom's rookie year was his biggest). Reid has had success (McNabb, Smith, Mahomes) with risk moves at QB. Steelers don't really have that rep but are generally media darlings (although they have had some bad and mediocre seasons, they have not truly sucked since 1971, no Steeler fan less than about 60 really knows what suck is). Browns have no such history. The last time such a high risk signing worked for us for the long term, I had no gray hair and, in the last 20 years, we have had notable fails in such a maneuver.

In the case of these trades, cutting the guy before salaries are guaranteed for the season means you made a really bad trade or got very lucky (like finding you had Tom Brady 2.0 on your roster). So I don't really see relevance. My biggest issue with Kirk was that we really needed to extend him after the 2015 season but had only one good season to go on. I like that with Wentz, we'd still have up to two season to evaluate him after 2022 before we have to fish or move on. With Ryan, you really only have this season and next, Finally, a QB in at 32 can be expected to play for 5-6 more seasons, a QB in at 38 can be expected to play for 2-3.

Doesn't matter whether its the coach's fault or not, the reason is not relevant. The best predictor that a HC will fail is one that doesn't have a winning season in his first three years, If the HC has 10 or more losses in his first two years, the likelihood he will never be good for the that team, unless he has huge success in his third year, approaches certainty.

Thing is, if the Panthers don't at least go deep in the PO, Rhule probably should be fired.

Another thing is that you usually have just 1 guy at QB taking nearly 100-percent of the snaps, so you can afford to pay him without robbing the rest of your team. Usually your going to have 2 or more WR with significant snaps and even your elite bell-cow RBs often get less than 70-percent and most teams have an RBC (though one back may be the lead dog).

No, because if we'd somehow had gotten Wilson without giving up our 1, Rivera should be saying the same thing.

I suspect a good strategy would be to get two number 1s for 2023. If Wentz is a bust, you got draft capital to fix it. If Wentz shows something, you use those 1s to get him better support or, if you are still nervous about him, kick the can down the road another year. Wentz is not a bridge, he is either going to be the man for the next 4-5 years or he's gone after one or two.

If we aren't competing this year, we won't be competing in 2-3 years, at least not with Ron.

Trubisky was always my basement choice and the basement choice of many. Never liked Watson as he has shown on multiple occasions that he must have tools to be a winner and, while fun to watch, would have left us bereft of the tools we needed to have to build around him. Wilson worried me because a 70 year old coach/personnel guy probably does not want to be part of a rebuild so trading him may mean Carol thinks he is done (there are more positive scenarios, though) and we'd have to hope he was our starter for at least 5 years (if our offer was to be believed). Carr was WAY too expensive (a single 1 and a swap of 2 should be max). JimmyG probably would have cost more than he was worth. All this was before they apparently rejected us (Wilson and Watson were the only ones who publicly said so BEFORE we had the deal for Wentz in place). Once I did my research on Wentz, he was obviously the best scenario for us after Wilson and Watson. Never thought Rodgers because he would have been WAY to resource intensive for a guy who probably only gives you a year or two. Does Wentz have a more significant probability of fail than Carr? Yes, but if Carr was a fail, that would hurt even more than if Wentz is a fail. In fact, the Wentz move puts us in position to minimize downside risk. Further, if Wentz is a minimum win, he's Kirk Cousins with support. Wentz has also shown that he can carry a mediocre team and his high end is better then anything we've had since Sonny (and Sonny would have had multiple bites at the ring if he had a better team/coach surrounding him in the 60s).

That is exactly why I said it that way. I'll try another way, if we are out of the playoff race before he hits that trigger, you bench him no matter if he is playing good or not.

What is funny is that if the 3 converts to a two, it likely means that the 2 is on the back-end and that the trade was good for us. Yes, the FO may not have covered the downside risk as much as most would like but we've eliminated almost all the upside risk. If he is a fail, the worse we gave a couple of 3s and some sugar (swapping 2s), got a big cap hit in the current year (though, we could lower that by increasing the backside costs) and will be in the market again (but no matter who the team got, that would be true). If he succeeds, at a MINIMUM we have our best QB since Kirk (but with a defense and a run game this time) who is in our control and cheap.

Looking at some of Brown's film, I really think he may be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Wentz. Not a number 1 but I do believe Wentz could hit him in stride and throw fewer hospital ball his way. Terry will benefit from that but Terry also pretty consistently handled hospital balls.

The last time the Jags lost to Indy in Jacksonville was 2014.

You should be nearly undefeated when the defense allows net 21 or fewer points. A return for a TD is on the offense or teams and the defense only gets tagged for 4 max if the other guys take over inside the 30 and get a TD. 8 times last season our defense achieved this and we went just 5-3 as such games are defensive wins (whether you actually got the win or not). Of the games where our defense allowed more than 21 points, we went 2-7. Of the two wins, one included a KO return for a TD (offense scored net 27) and a botched pass that gave the Giants 3. Further, if your defense gives up less than 350 yards, you should win almost every time. We went just over 500.

Watson is a fun watch but the only time he had no tools and no defense, while he put up stellar numbers himself, the team only won 4 games. In the best year the team had with Watson, they went 11-5 as much because of their defense (it was JJ Watt last all-pro year). One win was due to a fumble for a TD (v. Indy) and another because of a 101 yard interception return (v. us). Good QBs were our nemesis in 2018 and Watson was the only one we really shutdown. The next year, the defense dipped but Watson did have an all-pro WR to work with but the team only went 10-6. To get Watson, we'd have to gut our team of the tools to maintain and build that he has proven he needs.

Only thing I could think of is Houston has something else we want so by helping them drive up the Watson price, they'll give it to us for cheap.

More of a prayer. Watson came onto a loaded team and he only improved them slightly. In his one chance to show that he could be the man, he couldn't carry the team. Further, in 2018 our defenses biggest problem came when we faced good QBs. We shut down Watson that day and would have won it had it not been for Reid's 101 yard int return (along with the 7 they got, it cost us at least 3) or an admitted non-call.

Wentz is coming into a team that would have been a WC team minimum with slightly better QB play, possibly even the division. TH was primarily responsible for 21 points missed in GB. Arguably, 21 in Denver. 10 points Dallas put on us in the first game were actually on TH. Arguably 18 were missed in the second Philly game

In my life, no Washington coach that swept New York Giants in a non-playoff year came to a good end: Allen swept them in 1975 Pardee swept them in 1980 (OK, he was out anyway) Turner swept them in 1996 Shannahan swept them in 2011

After doing some research on Wentz, my new order of QBs that were actually available to us has Wentz at the top.