CurseReversed
-
Posts
1,309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Articles
Downloads
Posts posted by CurseReversed
-
-
9 minutes ago, UK Skins said:
What have I missed? Why do you think he is a bust already?
I really have no idea. I thought it would be funny if everyone else in the class succeeded except for the long snapper. I chose him because he is the only player that you really dont have enough information to feel one way or the other about. I got nothing against him.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I am having problems deciding which one of these rookies has a high chance of being a bust. Is it possible that the entire class turns out to be quality starters or depth? The statistics would say its highly improbable, but besides one of the 7th round picks or the long snapper, I wouldn't bet against any of them. I really wouldn't want to bet against the 7th rounders either, but Dax might not succeed here just be because there is too much depth at WR.
It would be funny if the Long snapper ends up the only one who busts completely.
-
2
-
-
I love Riveras press conference. Got real pressed on the covid stuff and gave some truly classy answers that I think we can learn a lot from. It does not matter how much we disagree with someones personal medical choice or the reasoning that they use to justify it, we should try to respect it. Everyone has their own circumstances and their own reasoning on what is important to them, and however much we disagree, there is a fine line between being critical and disrespectful and i think it goes a little to far sometimes. There might be a lot of players that feel the way he does and Rivera is not worried if it might affect some protocall in the future. They can make their own choices too and the team will make it work.
Thats sounds good enough to me
-
4
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:
Apke is going to make this roster at CB4 and STs and it's going to be huge for us.
Maybe there is something to be said for that theory. Would the 4-2-5 Be more consistent against the run and short passing game if the most of the DB's are hybrid types who can cover and hit and tackle? Maybe that is what they are trying to build here, and if so, I like it. They can still have one or two traditional type cover corners who can play man and are light and agile enough to stick with the elite offensive guys, but the rest of the DB's are all bigger hybrid types that can cover and play tough at the point of attack if need be. Cant wait to see how it plays out.
-
2
-
-
Its not just about the teams, it's about the situations. Its a very clever way to hide bias in a league of supposed parity. It seems to be more then a coincidence that small differences in scheduling has negatively affected the WFT so consistently over such a long period of time, but that is just how it looks to me. If I was WFT, I would have someone do a real deep dive in the numbers and try to prove through probability that there was likely a deliberate intent on the part of schedulers. Then sue.
1 hour ago, Reaper Skins said:Taken from various posts in The Conspiracy Thread
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2015)
According to SB nation we are tied for first with the giants for hardest schedule in the division, followed by the eagles, then the cowboys with the easiest.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/4/21/8459471/2015-nfl-schedule-strength-steelers-falcons
on top of that, we play more teams coming off extra days of rest than anyone in the league except Seahawks (Seattle has 5, we play 4 teams coming off extra rest, while Giants only have to play against one)
On top of THAT, 2 of the teams that get to play us after getting extra rest are within our division (Giants in week 3, eagles in week 16)
So yeah, even though the Giants technically have the same strength of schedule as us, our schedule is much harder than theirs based on the amount of fresh opponents we have to face, both inside and outside our division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked at the Bye Bias also (although I only looked at bye week ..... NOT Thursday games)
I used years 2005 thru 2015 for number of byes
I used years 2005 thru 2014 for win/loss advantage
http://espn.go.com/nfl/schedulegrid
Also
Before this study I would have guessed that the F Giants would have an advantage....results below
But first........
I concur with the previously sited study that it IS an advantage to have a bye before playing an opponent......Out of 10 years;
7 years had teams that played after a bye win more games than lose
2 years it broke even
Only 1 year (2014) were there more wins for the "victim" of the bye
So I agree it is an advantage
Now WHO has gotten this advantage?
Teams getting the LEAST amount of games vs a bye (over 11 years) are;
Panthers
Bengals
Cardinals
Vikings
Teams getting the MOST games vs a bye are;
Falcons
Texans
Bills
and of course you guessed it....my beloved Skins
It doesn't end there
As teams are segregated into divisions....I looked at our NFC East....and guess what I found?
The Giants are the ONLY team that had a positive balance! (less than 11 games vs Teams with a bye in 11 years)....they had 9
Both Dallas and Philly had 13 games......and of course we had the most at 15
F Mara
Some additional facts;
2011 is the only year no team had more then 2 games vs a bye team...But in 2009 5 teams had 3 or more (Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, Jacksonville and Tennessee)
3 Teams have had a year that they played 4 bye teams (Philly 2012 - Atlanta 2009 and San Diego 2005) not counting Seahawks this year.
5 Teams had more than 1 season that they played 3 Bye teams (Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Tennessee and of course....Your Washington Redskins. (Seattle will join this club this year)
Carolina has gotten 7 years out of 11 that they had ZERO games vs a bye team.
and
The Giants have only had 1 year in my study that they had over one game vs a bye opponent (they had 2 in 2008)
5 games played against rested teams..WOW....I'm not sure you could even accidently pit a team against 5 opponets with rest in one season...LOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also worth noting is that we have 3 primetime games this season (2015)
Since Gibbs left we are 3-17 in Prime Time games.
Guess who we play in prime time this season? That's right ALL 3 are against NFC East opponents.
In addition to that, 2 out of the 3 (Eagles and Giants) are away games, and BOTH of them come on short weeks (Giants in week 3. Eagles in week 16)
The only home prime time game will be against the Cowboys in Week 13. And even this advantage is minimized by the fact that it will be when they have Hardy, who no one else in the division has to play at all.
Smells fishy to me. From a scheduling standpoint I have a hard time seeing how we're not starting out at a disadvantage compared to ALL 3 of our divisional rivals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2016)
Schedules for the 2016 season released today...
Rich Tandler @Rich_TandlerCSN 16s16 seconds ago
The Cowboys play an early Sunday home game prior to hosting the #Redskins on Thanksgiving. Washington plays Sunday night.
Late night Sunday finish plus Wednesday travel day vs. Sunday afternoon finish and home field advantage.
Odds tipped in Dallas' favor?
In addition, we also get one less day of rest prior to playing Dallas in week 2 after hosting the Steelers on MNF. And we play the Giants in week 17 after they get extra rest.So 3 of our divisional games are played against opponents with extra rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redskins' Gruden not happy with schedule-makers for extra-short week
"We've already done a lot of work on them," Gruden said. "That's a good thing. But we're talking about possibly playing a 9-1 team that we'll get about 10 hours to work on."
http://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1159552?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the strength of schedule theory:
Past 5 years, the combined records of the teams in our division:
Cowboys: 37-27
Eagles: 34-30
Giants: 30-34
Redskins: 24-39-1
Hardest schedule within division for past 5 years:
2017: Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles
2016: Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants
2015: Giants, Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys
2014: Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants
2013: Redskins, Eagles, Giants, Cowboys
For the last 5 years, we have been the weakest team in the division. Despite this, in 5 years we have NEVER been given the easiest strength of schedule within our division. We have also NEVER been given the second easiest strength of schedule within the division. In fact, 4 out of the past 5 years we have been given the HARDEST schedule in the division, with the one year exception being the second hardest in 2015 (1 place lower than the Giants).
That sounds about right. Still happening too.
-
18 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:
14 isn't that bad when you think about it. Most teams are in 3 WR sets now so you gotta figure there are 96 starting WRs essentially. 14th out of 96th is damn good, around 85 %ile. And that's playing with arguably league worst QB play the last two years.
WR talent across the league is just ridiculously high right now.
I thought it was a little low but your right there is so much talent out there, its hard to say until he has a true breakout year that he deserves to be much higher. I think on pure ability he is a top 10 at least. He is number one in the league in my book for his ability to make people miss in the open field.
-
5 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:
Fitzpatrick is acting like the presumptive starter but Heinecke isn't going away. Fitzpatrick needs to clearly outplay Heinecke in training camp.
This offense is going to be all about distribution. Play within the system and let the playmakers make the plays. Its great that fitz is going to air it out, but mckissic needs to eat underneath. Who is going to get the ball out efficiently and quickly? Might end up being more Heinicke's game then Fitzpatrick. Have to wait and see.
-
4 hours ago, skinny21 said:
You know, I thought about this a bit through the draft process. Was picturing them (the general ‘them’, not specifically Penn State) chalking the lines a tad short, lowering the bar on the vert machine a bit, etc. Probably not the corners you were referring to, but... doesn’t seem like it would that hard to tinker with some of those things (I could be way wrong). At the least, it’s certainly important to note those were Pro Day #s vs Combine, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
that stuff is all possible too. I felt like it was pretty obvious they were short arming the 3 cone drill but im not an expert so idk. figures they would do a lot of little things if they could get away with it.
-
1
-
-
On 5/12/2021 at 10:11 PM, skinny21 said:
Don’t know if this was mentioned, but I just read that if you put Toney’s RAS numbers into the linebacker group instead of DEs, it’s a 9.92. Top 1% of linebacker’s since 1987.
Comparing Jamin Davis/Toney (eerily similar)
HT: 6034/6024
Wt: 234/243 (now down to 235)
Bench: 21/23
40: 4.48/4.51
20 yd split: 2.61/2.63
10 yd split: 1.53/1.58
Vert: 42/38
Broad: 11/1008
I really like Toney and think he will be good, but these numbers were almost too good for a 7th round pick. I went back and looked at the penn state pro day video on youtube because I was curious. IMO they let those guys cut a few corners here and there and while I still think he would be an elite athlete, there might be a little number fudging to reach that percentile. Parsons and Oweh's numbers are probably a little inflated too, if I had to guess.
-
1
-
-
I dont understand this Tebow situation, but maybe I havent been paying attention and don't know th details. Is he is only making the team because he knows the coach? They don't actually expect him to play? If he makes the team because he knows the coach but still plays well, is it still a mistake? Or is he guaranteed to fail, so it's already predetermined to be a mistake and that's why people are upset? Not sure what is inherently unfair or incorrect about it until it actually fails miserably, no matter how likely that might be. But, again maybe I am missing something.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:
I say inflated because I think your true draft value should be based on your tape. If you visualize a player's cost like a stock price, there will be peaks and valleys and the true value will be the average factored over time. For me that average should match up with what they put on tape. Jamin's cost shot up after his crazy pro day even though it came after the season was over and didn't pertain to his actual play. We had to buy him at his peak.
It's ok, you still own a valuable security buying stocks near their peak if the stock is fundamentally good. I think we "made money" buying low on Cosmi, you could swap their draft slots and I would feel that we got good value at both picks. And we perhaps bought a little low on Dyami Brown too. And I'm not sure, but think we may have bought super low on Shaka Toney, his film has surprised and impressed me like Cole Holcomb and Khaleke Hudson did the previous two drafts. Kind of feels like he's the type of player you look back on and can't understand why he made it to the seventh.
I don't disagree with the idea that tape can be the most important indicator. I am sure there are a lot of scouts who would agree with you. Honestly I have no idea what is the best indicator, I just try to add all the pieces up and see where it takes me. I think you can argue a hypothetical inflation of value from that perspective, but the true value or cost of the player can only be determined by NFL performance. So its just an opinion, no matter the spin. NFL performance does not naturally proceed from college tape, like a stock continuing to follow its past chart path. It can, but its far from reliable. Someone might choose to value a stock purchase using this method, but its just one method of valuation, and while some others might share it, its still yours. Really you are just valuing somebody else's stock purchase relative to your opinion of value. However accurate you might end up being, there is no way to word it as anything other then conjecture.
-
1
-
-
On 5/12/2021 at 1:01 PM, stevemcqueen1 said:
Scouts 3 and 4 from that Athletic article were more ambivalent about the Jamin Davis pick @Skinsinparadise: https://theathletic.com/2576916/2021/05/10/scouts-discuss-washingtons-draft-jamin-davis-dyami-brown-have-highest-upside/
The picture I get from the scouts is that Jamin's film is second round caliber but that his Pro-Day workouts inflated his draft stock into the first round.
Inflated, interesting choice of words but I understand. Maybe propelled would be better. Either way it was likely the third part that made him really ascend deep into the first. i like that word even better. That third part being attitude and intangibles. Military background, work ethic, etc...
-
23 minutes ago, evmiii said:
Regarding Scherff I think the next month will tell the tale. If he plays this year on the tag I believe it will be his last year with the WFT. If he really wants to stay he will sign a longer term contract. He’s a good football player with some injury issues. It will cost him this year but he can get more guaranteed. Somebody will surely pay him next year, but nothing near the tag money. If it all about money, get your tag money this year and sign your multi year deal next year somewhere else.
Best case scenario is some aspiring superbowl team looses a few Guards early in training camp or the season and makes a desperation trade for him. I am not sure how it works with the franchise tag if you can eat some of the salary to make the trade feasilble, but I would think it would be the only way to make it work unless a team had a lot of cap room or an expensive player to trade back.
-
7 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:
This is were we get screwed just about every year.
I wish somebody would do a study about the disparity in these stats over the course of the last 10 or 15 years. It seems we are always getting screwed with scheduling of opponents in disadvantageous situations. If there was a consistency in the disparity over the long term, it could probably be pretty easy to prove, although I am not the one with the skills to do it.
-
16 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:
He knows what pretty much all of us should know, there's no way an UDFA is going to make this roster.
He also knows there are going to be a lot more cuts coming and they want to sign more FA guys on one year deals. I like this strategy because it provides more quality depth on a football team, and allows you to develop players in later stages. It is a little more expensive to have a lot of your depth as cheap FA"s on short deals but if you do not like them you can cut them quickly and start over next year. I don't think RR and co like they idea of having too many rookies on the roster that can't be relied upon to play quality snaps at any position. If one developmental guy has to start and isn't ready to play, it can derail a whole season. Like when Rudolph went down one year in Carolina and they had a backup TE who was not ready. I really don't know if that's how they think but it seems likely to me that resiliency is a key aspect of their strategy.
-
Colt was the quintessential embodiment of the intangible known as moxie. Not to be confused with the more austere and steadfast intangibles, moxie has a magical, almost fairy-like quality to it. It can appear miraculous at times and bewitch and dazzle its viewers but can also disappear in a flash leaving a cloud of smoke. A double edged sword if there ever was one, but impressive nonetheless. I was lucky enough to be dazzled by Colt once before and it was a wonderful ride. RIP Colt.
-
2
-
-
Any pick that seems to differ from perceived or consensus value is either insightful or a reach. Its impossible to know for sure until it plays out. It does not matter how much verbal judo one might use to pre-judge value its all subjective initially. Even in hindsight it is still somewhat subjective. All those things that you say happen to prove out the skill of evaluators and players still has a ridiculous amount of luck and timing involved. I don't think you can make a science no matter how hard you try. I do really enjoy the insight that looking at these metrics brings and appreciate the conversation about their implication but I am not willing to concede a team has made a mistake before the mistake has actually been made, and that any measure of success in the past will be destined to repeat.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:
Are you guys really questioning whether it's possible to know if some players are better than others?
This stuff isn't impossibly subjective or relativistic. It's football.
Also bifflog, teams value traits and types differently and some evaluators are better than others. Evaluation and projection of prospects is difficult and leads to a wide divergence in conclusions.
If your methodology were accurate then a team could in theory just operate their draft boards in tandem with the consensus and always achieve more favorable results then if they diverged from common perception. In other words, if they reached. The problem is that you take statistical correlations from the past, whether in judging what constitutes a reach or a QB's potential based on draft location, and draw preemptive conclusions about the propabilities of the same things happening in the future. You might be able to say that history shows that something is more likely to happen, but you cannot say for sure that those are the exact same odds for something to happen or else every team could literally just follow the percentages for past success for every decision and expect to achieve the same results.
They can't assume that, and neither can you. If a team decides to draft a player at a certain spot it is not a reach until it is proven to be one. And a QB selected in a particular spot in the draft is not a radical statistical long shot until they actually become one. All a team can do is accumulate information, both statistical and otherwise, to try and predict the future as best they can. Comparing a QB's draft position to others in the past, like comparing an opinion on a players draft value to the consensus, are just two of many models a team can use to try and predict results, but they don't operate in a vacuum. And there are plenty of other ways of modeling and scouting that show different results for different reasons. I wonder what the odds of success for draft picks are based on school source? If a statistic said that Players from a particular college have a drastically lower success rate, could you expect any player drafted from that school to have that same chance? This logic can go on forever.
There are tons of other factors that alter chances for success and nobody has the consensus recipe or the statistical source code to predicting it. Its still a guessing game, and if you make a decision and guess right, you didn't beat the odds of one particular metric, you just better accounted for all the others. Its not an statistical outlier, its just doing a better job. Its cathartic to try and reverse engineer everything that happened and then try to model success out of the results like money ball, but its only going to be informative not predictive. There is a big difference.
-
1
-
-
On 4/30/2021 at 11:15 AM, Thinking Skins said:
Yeah I'm a mathematician. One thing is that the numbers tend to lie, depending on what you're looking at and what question you ask. That's one of the reason I'm not a fan of pure analytics (and I'm a guy who has presented on NFL analytics stuff at the MIT Sloan conference). But just because an analytic says that teams that go for it on 4th down tend to make it 65% of the time, it doesn't mean that THIS 4th and 1 in the 4th quarter of a playoff game against the number 1 defense in the league at the 46 yard line, down 3, against an MVP level QB is the right decision. And when the analytic is wrong, the coach will get fired if he just says "but the analytic says to go for it in this case" just like we laughed at Rivera for going for it on the 2 point conversion against the Giants where stats say that its advantageous to go for them.
But for the QB stuff, QB is never in a vacuum. Its a question of building the best team. If we had all pros at all the other positions, sure we should draft a QB in the first. But if we can get a game changing LT or LB or CB or WR, then its a cost benefit analysis of who is more important. And some of these same stats that say how much better the QB is in the first vs other rounds say that other positions (particularly OL and LT) are much safer picks than QB. In fact QB is the LEAST safe pick in the first round. So we are not going to build a team if we keep wasting valuable capital on QBs who are not successful. LB / TE / OT / S / C all have a bust rate thats half that of QBs. (40% bust rate for QBs vs about 20 for the other positions).
And you mention above that the draft isn't the only option. We can also just sign a QB in free agency. Its unlikely to be an all pro, but FA QBs have been guys who have gone from one team to another either as proven vets, or young QBs whose first contract expired and these are much safer options to build around than a risky first rounder. Sure they may not have the upside of a Lawrence or Burrow, but they also don't have the risk of a Darnold or a Daniel Jones or these other QBs who are taken in the first who may have it all or may not. Plus if we sign a FA qb (like Fitz and Heinicke) and draft a lower round QB (like Mond or Mills or Trask) we can just have a competition in camp and nobody's mad if their favorite guy doesn't win. That's not true if we draft a first round QB and he's not the starter (see Haskins).
The 4th and 1 decision is a good analogy for why people keep overemphasizing these statistical models and why they lead to faulty assumptions. It is simply not possible to be in a 4th and 1 situation and think that you can just pick any play, run it, and you will automatically have a chance of success equal to all the teams that went for it on 4th and one before you. It is equally impossible to select a qb in a draft slot or round and expect them to automatically have the same chance of success as every qb chosen in that slot or round before them. Every 4th and 1 is different. Different players, different schemes, different weather, different play calls and different referees. Every draft pick is different. Different draft classes, different coaching, different opportunity, different scouting, and different circumstances.
Using the Russell Wilson Analogy, It is not accurate to think of a 3rd round pick as nothing but a Russell Wilson lottery ticket. The chances of you drafting Russell Wilson are based solely on your ability to scout a Russell Wilson and the ability of others to scout him in the slots before your pick. No more and no less.
I think it is easy to believe that there is a choice a football team makes regarding the necessity of a franchise QB, then just has to do what it takes to get them, but this is a fantasy. The success rate for QB's in any round or slot is just very low. The success rate for great QB's is astronomically low. Yes it helps to have first pick at them and to try and find the good ones early, but you still have to play the long odds no matter what. Every team is in the same boat, they have to scout as best they can and try to find the best QB value in the best draft slot and put them in the best position to succeed. You might be a little more aggressive but aggression is not a substitute for ability, and draft slot is not a substitute for scouting or developing. There is no magic formula and there sure is not proof at all that you can predetermine your chances of success just by picking in a certain spot. You have to put a lot of pieces together to make it work.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Ball Security said:
My May 3 stab at the 53:
(3) Fitz, Heinicke, Allen
(4) Gibson, McKissic, Barber, Patterson
(3) Thomas, Bates, Reyes
(9) Cosmi, Schweitzer, Roullier, Scherff, Moses, Lucas, Charles, Flowers, Ismael
(6) McLaurin, Samuel, Brown, Humphries, Cam Sims, Harmon
(9) Young, Sweat, Allen, Payne, Ioannidis, Settle, Toney, Bradley-King, Smith-Williams
(6) Smith, Holcomb, Hudson, Bostic, Mayo, Harvey-Clemons
(9) WJIII, Fuller, Roberts, Moreland,
St-Juste, Curl, Reaves, Collins, Forest.
(4) Way, Hopkins, Cheeseman, Carter.
Jarmin isn't making the cut?
-
1
-
-
A+
First time they have had a plus full sized draft class in as long as i can remember. Finally they get a chance to really flex what I thought was a sneaky good scouting dept even before Rivera. And I think they hit it out of the park. I am not a big draft guru so I don't know most of the guys they picked but when you look into them, they all seem to make perfect sense. They all have a story that checks out when you look at it through the lens of what we see as the overall WFT philosophy/strategy.
Its going to be fun to see who pans out and who doesn't because there are se many possibilities.
I honestly don't see a bust in any of the picks off the bat, but If i had to guess one for fun It would be Dax milne but that one is the obvious choice. Maybe Cosmi never figures it out or can't make it at LT at the minimum. Its tough to be a consistent LT.
My guy for steal of the draft is Toney. He looks ridiculous for a 7th round pick, I would have thought 3rd round all day.
The other 7th rounder, Bradley-King looks good too, I would have guessed 4th-5th for him.
Davis is the guy I really am excited about though. He is the Trey Lance of the defense. Prototype centerpiece player with all the intangibles.
-
2
-
-
So much depth. So much versatility. So much potential. Such a different look for this franchise. 🤤
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:
ill, the conversations were rarely about football. Rivera leaves X’s and O’s to his assistants, who often meet with prospective picks several times in March and April. He wants to know what motivates the players, what they care about and how they might fit the culture of his franchise.
“I want to give them an opportunity to let their guard down and show you who they really are,” Rivera said. “If you give a player the opportunity, they will tell you who they are.”
In these interviews, he has come to love players such as Luke Kuechly and Shaq Thompson, who became top linebackers for him with Carolina. It’s how he became enamored with Davis this year, admiring his intelligence and backstory of growing up as a military child, and he insisted the team keep the 19th pick to take Davis instead of trading to another spot.
These interviews also are where other players fall off his list, such as the philosophy major whose answers made Rivera wonder how much he cared about the game.
“How important is football to you?” Rivera asked.
“It’s up there,” the player replied.
Rivera told the front office to pick someone else that year.
Many of those who have been around Rivera say he likes to build relationships. “He treats people like people,” a Washington assistant said last year while speaking privately about the coach. Several times during news conferences last fall, he lamented the pandemic restrictions that kept him from face-to-face meetings with the reporters who cover the team. He likes personal conversations. He is especially happy when he learns a player is from a military family or is the son of a teacher or a coach, believing they have a different understanding of learning and responsibility than many others. But mostly it’s a bond he is seeking, a way to connect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/05/02/ron-rivera-draft-picks-bonds/
Great description here. There are so many subtle things you can learn about a player when you can hear them talk and answer questions. Its hard to explain, but just as a casual fan, I felt like I received major insight into Jarmin's personality after just listening to his pro day interview. There were tones of confidence, command and discipline in everything he said. He see,s to have that humble leader personality, just like McLaurin, but with a little more command to it.
I cant wait to see what Rivera is capable of building with a whole team of guys like this. It is and exciting prospect overall and Davis is an exciting QB of the defense prospect. The Trey Lance of our defense.
-
22 hours ago, mistertim said:
I don't think either of them are going to even consider extending until after this season, because of the 2022 cap increase. That's one of the reasons so many big FAs were apparently looking for 1 year contracts. It's going to be an interesting situation because while I think Scherff is probably worth legit top 3 money, Allen is definitely not. Don't get me wrong, he's a great team guy and a good player, but he's not even close to a top 3 DT. But I'm curious what they'll do if he asks to be paid that way.
If they pay him like a top DT then they probably just expect him to play like one. He doesnt have to become Cox overnight to do it either, he just has to do what they want him to do and do it well. Remember this D only had one shortened season to get on the same page with a new scheme and a lot of new technique. Allen could still have a lot of room to grow.
The Official Roster Thread or similar ;)
in The Stadium
Posted · Edited by CurseReversed
I agree and I that as long as American citizens are still legally allowed to choose whether or not they want to get injected with hastily constructed experimental medical treatments from billion dollar mega corporations with no liability, then the decision is personal and the continued discussion of this is political. I know some people think they are super duper right about everything they see on the news this time and that this isnt political because anyone who disagrees is ignorant and a danger to society, but until its illegal to refuse, all this talk of moral superiority and medical necessity is just ramped up rhetoric. If half of the WFT team has opted out and they are not breaking the law, or violating the NFL rules, then this should not be a point of continuous Stadium discussion IMO.
Missed that last post sorry. ok I guess i will get banned. I tried to ignore it for a long time and got impatient.