Darth Tater

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Since when do a bunch of  people on this site assign value to media reports about player personnel behavior problems. Even when there are reports of issues again... and again... and again...

 

Half waiting for people to waive it away as nonsense.

People reject a media report when it denies their desired narrative and accept them with little criticism when it supports their desired narrative.

3 hours ago, mistertim said:

I was concerned both with Wentz's play at the end of the season as well as reports of personality issues. However, after reading more and getting more information I've changed my mind and I'm better with it now. It doesn't mean there are zero flags at all, but I'm not as worried as I was. Irsay looks like a goddamn lunatic.

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.

4 hours ago, markmills67 said:

I really want McClaurin to be a Redskin for a long time, but what if Green Bay offered one of there 1st and a 2nd round pick, how many of you all would take the picks? 

 

Just looked at the draft order an the Packers top picks in round 1 and 2 are 

22 and 53?

 

 

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

4 hours ago, Skins199021 said:

I mean how are people excited for this? All this means to me is our FO (and fanbase apparently) cannot stop themselves from trading draft picks for other teams trash (QBs here).

 

McNabb-Smith, now Wentz. Like 2 teams already gave up on this dude, and the Colts did after 1 year, with a coach who loved him going in. So we dropped a bit in the 2nd round, gave up a 3rd, and more than likely a 2nd as well. For a guy with a big contract. Coming to a team with a lot of holes, and more holes created to make room for Wentz.

 

Here is how this plays out we go 8-9 or 9-8, no playoffs. We lose a 2nd, and realize we don't want to pay him that contract or any big contract and he is gone.

 

What is this like the 10th rendition of this scenario in the past 20 years?

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.

57 minutes ago, Captain James said:

Exactly. Just as another poster said- cutting him will set a terrible precedent that we're not a team to have a career with. We would be a stepping stone and nothing more. 

 

I understand the thought of it from a business perspective, but if we don't extend TERRY, then who the eff will we ever extend again? He's the exact dude you want in a locker room.

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.

1 minute ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

 

This just proves my point.

 

Media decisions on whether something is a good or bad transaction are based more on the PERCEIVED previous success or failure of the decision maker and organization involved than anything else.

 

The question then becomes simply one of "who made the trade or acquisition?"

 

Eliminating the time effort and expertise required to do the much more nuanced task of analizing what was actually traded for, what was received in return and measuring what the short and long term probabilities of success are.

 

What talking head has the time or desire to do all that when you it's so much easier to simplify things by saying "team x did good things in the past" so this must be a good trade fir them today.

 

Which essentially means that some folks have license to do almost anything with no fear of criticism based solely on their perceived reputation around the league.

 

 

 

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'.

13 hours ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

I hadn't even considered this as a possibility but I think you may be on to something.

 

One thing is certain, if DeShaun had gone to Belichick's Patriots, Tomlin's Steelers, or Andy Reed's Chiefs (yes I know none of those teams were interested, that's not the point) there would most certainly have been near universal approval for the "risky but brilliant move" by management to sign him.

 

I can't imagine any scenario in which one of those teams would receive the same level of negative criticism that the Browns have over the last 24 hours or for that matter that the Commanders have since trading for Wentz.

 

Speaking of which, if the Commanders had somehow acquired Watson the cross country talking head uproar would have been of historic proportions. It might even have led to the ouster of Snyder himself-- we can only dream lol.

 

The Browns, despite their recent turnaround as semi-contendors are still not far removed from being a universal league punching bag the so called "factory of sadness." Piling on against them is an easy story that almost writes itself and it's loaded with plenty of tasty clickbait.

 

Yeah, you just might be onto something Simmsy.

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.

10 minutes ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

 

He's has zero QB's to work with.  If Darnold truly is worse than Heinicke (he probably is), and the decision to trade for and do the 5th year option on Darnold was all Rhule, then yeah.  Otherwise it's hard to fault a coach when you've got a disaster at the most important position that's the FO's fault and not yours.

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.

14 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I meant the Panthers would take a QB in the first round.  

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

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

Im not too far from treating the WR position like RB and refusing to pay top dollar. The idea of giving a WR 10% of the cap just doesn’t make a lot of sense. I lean towards being neutral to bullish on signing Mcclaurin  and good portion to do with his intangibles. 
 

 

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).

1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

I wonder what it would be like for a coach to trade a few picks for a guy, then say "he is our QB 1 going forward but I hope to see this be a very short tenure and I really mean that." Would the QB be in the corner of the room crying? Jared Goff would have the closest experience to it, but he also has wads of $500 bills to wipe his tears with.

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.

5 minutes ago, wit33 said:

2-3 years is a lifetime. Ron and company are attempting to open the window this season. The time to contend is the next 2-3 seasons. Not saying it will happen, but the vibe I get is Ron is ready to compete and no longer will we hear about rebuilding and all that. Time to perform. 

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).

5 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Not so sure about that. The trigger is playing 70% of the snaps, it's not based on performance.  He reached the trigger in Indy too and they shipped him out of town.  

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.

41 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Since when did a 3rd that MAY convert to a second become nearly the same as a 2nd that DID become a first?  1st round picks are far more valuable than 2nds.  I actually thought the deal itself was fine given their other options.  

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.

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I actually think we have him in Logan Thomas, if he's healthy.  I hope they go after Ertz, who would also fill that role. The "move the chains" guy does not have to be a WR. Could easily be a TE.  

 

McLaurin, Samuel (if healthy), some combination of Milne and Brown provide a ton of speed and shiftiness on the outside.

 

Gibson is also a sub 4.5 guy who has a ton of experience as a WR.

 

And this is all assuming they don't bring back Hump or McKissic.  Or draft/sign somebody.  

 

I think the pieces, if healthy, are already there for the most part.  

 

We lacked a QB last year who could exploit any of this because Fitz went down in the first half of the first game, Samuel spent the entire year on IR basically, Logan Thomas was out of the lineup most of the year, and McKissic missed the last 6 games of the year.

 

I'm not going to fall into the "Bruce Allen" trap to think all of these guys are going to come back and stay healthy the entire season.  But I do think some will, and I think there's a lot there to like already.

 

I really want to see them go bombs away this year and really try and stretch the field. Wentz has the arm to throw the ball to every spot on the field, drive it or launch it.  Use it.  He has the best arm we've had here since Griffin, and it's not close.  He might have the best arm since Sonny.  AND he's really accurate on deep passes.  It's a good combination. 

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.

1 hour ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

Hopefully God tells him to play better against the Jaguars next season.

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.

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

Watson is a top 5 QB in this league. You pay for him and then you win.

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.

14 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Not sure how we'd be entering the fray for a guy who has final say over where he gets traded and who, according to multiple reports, does not have Washington on his short list and is pretty strict about who he'll waive his no-trade clause for.

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.

12 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

That would suck. I'll be stuck only rooting for this sorry team again. 

 

They just publicly endorsed Hurts last week too.

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