megared

Members
  • Content Count

    1,152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About megared

  • Rank
    The Field Goal Team
  • Birthday 06/12/1982

Profile Information

  • Location
    VA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,105 profile views
  1. What's the distance? What's your ISP's advertised 'up-to' speed? Is the router dual band (2.4 and 5 gHz)? Were all devices on the same network at time of testing? How old is your ISP-provided router? (If ~2 years would recommend replacing/requesting new one) Easy steps you can take: reset router to factory default (chance improper router config is doing it). Forget the network on each device, reconnect and retest. (chance that network config has changed, but not picked up by device) More advanced: Disable extra functionalities of router (monitoring, security features, guest networks, etc that increase router computing overhead) Set devices to prefer 5 gHz network on router* (provided you have a 5 gHz network) Set priority to preferred devices on router (if available) Bottomline, most ISP routers have subpar routing capabilities to what's commercially available. If you have problems with wi-fi range, connectivity, or a large space to cover, many people save themselves the rental fee and spring on something better.
  2. Hopefully they have the good sense to buy it outright. Last time they tried RIK, they got fleeced with dubious quality oil, with light end problems. And a bunch of environmental issues to move it. Theoretically you'd have to go to Cushing, OK and pick it up. The reason why the price went negative, is that the traders (like USO ETF) who never had the capability to take deliveries, are dumping their futures contracts that had a settlement date of yesterday (May futures). Because no one wants the oil, they're paying for the delivery and storage. Good article summing it up: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/upshot/negative-oil-price.html
  3. Why are we obsessed with dealing him to Cleveland? It was Bruce that effectively wouldn't deal him anywhere else and narrowed the market to a couple of teams. As long as we can get a decent return, I wouldn't care if he ends up with a star on his helmet (although they don't need a LT). Just get it done.
  4. Yep, and it looks like they're pushing now for maximum dysfunction. I think that's why they're trying to jam it through before teams begin OTAs. I know Aaron Rodgers represents a marquee guy...but as a player rep he expressed disappointment that none of his guys seem to care. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28851848/aaron-rodgers-unsure-players-really-looking-cba Then again, Rodgers is obviously in a unique situation relative to the average NFL player.
  5. Definitely a bluff. If no one from their side feigned outrage, it would seem as if the owners have more to give. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners passed the CBA at the minimum vote threshold level intentionally to manufacture dissent. Their true motivation to get this done ASAP is to secure TV rights next. They know that the cord cutting trend, and declining viewership isn't changing anytime soon, so they're losing leverage and money the longer THIS takes.
  6. Honestly, it's a dumb system that artificially restricts movements and impedes trading guys in the last year of their contract. It rewards teams for not actively managing their roster and discourages them from replacing guys in free agency. And for what? Other than Dak Prescott, there's probably 100 guys that never contributed to every Mike Daniels. I mean Pernell McPhee makes a short list of greatest all-time comp picks...and he's been useless pretty much ever since he got his payday.
  7. San Fran would beg to differ. And if that was the case, they would've gone BPA and not have become affixed on only one edge rusher. The reason they felt they HAD to go get a DE, was because they let P. Smith hit free agency. If we're talking long term goals, they didn't have to start him from day 1, when he missed a chunk of training camp/preseason. I think you're attributing a level of long term planning to an organization that has not exhibited that kind of foresight in a long time. I mean, what's the chances that the BPA happens to be at the position you coincidentally don't have a starter to pencil in? 1/10? 1/20?
  8. Sometimes you can take the wrong route to arrive at the right answer. The fact that the FO got Sweat's value off by almost half of a round doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy about how they're building their draft boards. We can talk about where Sweat was projected in mock drafts, but he was the 6th DE taken in actuality. And I don't think you can fault the organization for taking Haskins because of what Gruden was or wasn't going to do. You'd expect a professional to do their job, regardless of situation they're placed in. Had Jay put a little time and effort into developing Haskins, instead of making him an expensive practice squad player, he possibly could've salvaged his job. The fact that Haskins was the backup, dressing on gamedays, and woefully unprepared to play, is squarely on the coaches' shoulders. And that was a fireable offense in of itself. Let me ask, if we held the #26, primed to take Sweat and a team (that you suspected would be terrible) offered you a two seconds, one of which you knew was the #46 pick that year, would you have taken it? I wouldn't have hesitated knowing that Sweat wasn't the final puzzle piece to a championship team.
  9. Again, not to say he won't ever be a really good player, but it was borrowing from the future to benefit the present. That's the problem I had with it. There's no guarantee he stays healthy. I'd rather have that risk spread amongst two starters, than one guy. It'd be another story if he came in instantly pro ready, but he wasn't. We drafted him because we had a hole at his position, and we fell in love with his combine numbers. It'd be hard to argue him as a BPA, when we drafted him for a need we immediately stuck him as a starter to fill.
  10. But that wasn't the option you gave me. You said choose between the two. I already said I didn't want a QB. We're wasting his most valuable years (rookie contract) with probably the highest payroll in the league, allocated to the position. I don't necessarily believe Haskins WAS the BPA at #15, but at least he's closer to one, than Sweat would've been.
  11. Haskins. His upside was worth the gamble. He could've been reasonably viewed as the BPA there. Even the Redskins didn't think Sweat was worth the #15.
  12. With the benefit of hindsight, I'm saying no way Sweat was worth the #15, taking into account where he is, and where he needs to get to. As much as the scheme may have hindered him, he still wasn't winning very many 1-1 situations. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Rivera picked up a vet (or kept Nate Orchard) as a challenge to him, much like I'd imagine him pursuing a competent backup QB. At #15, I'm fine with Haskins, because Sweat didn't change us going 0-5 being an opening day starter. And at that point in the season, he was overmatched. At least we had Haskins to turn to, once we quickly realized that Keenum was the answer to no one's prayers. The only reason you could possibly justify going Sweat with the #15 (knowing no one else was interested in him there) would be because you are in love with his measurables, and therefore potential. I haven't heard anyone describe him as a 'steal' at #26, or someone that was a BPA at the #15 pick.
  13. I wasn't on board with Haskins only because it didn't make sense in the context of Alex Smith's status being uncertain (and his contract being unmovable). Even if he busts, you could argue he was a reasonable pick at #15. And he doesn't represent an opportunity cost to future years. To me, they were both similar in that neither one was ready to play from the get-go. They both came on strong to end the season, and showed flashes of potential. Beyond that, what we gave up to get Sweat (now knowing it was a 2020 #34 pick, in addition to 2019's #46) makes him the larger gamble. As happy as I am to be in a position to draft Young, I'm equally disgusted that no one had the foresight to think about what the value of that 2nd round pick could be if we had a down year. If we go by a draft board, the #26 pick was worth ~700 points. The #34 (~560) and #46 (~440) we gave up combined is 1000 points, which is equivalent to the #16 pick. Maybe we thought we'd be somewhere in the #50 pick range which would've then represented us yielding 880 points (~#19 pick). This doesn't take into account the value of future year picks (they'd probably be less at draft time). Hopefully we get back to going BPA. At least we can look at this trade (whether Sweat works out or not) as the last terrible artifact of a horrible management structure. Instead of taking Jay's equally terrible advice to draft Sweat at a place no one wanted him (#15), we ended up giving up similar value to get him in the back of the first. And the majority of that collective value comes from this 2020 #34 pick.
  14. You're talking about measurables. The combine's over. Having 4.4 speed doesn't mean anything if you're easily absorbed by blocks, or don't have the strength/technique to beat your guy. I'm not saying he won't develop these things, but suffice it to say, he was not good at winning 1-1 matchups. Throughout the season, he was mostly at, or near the bottom of the league of PBWR (rate pass rusher beats blocker within 2.5 secs). Most of the plays he made as a pass rusher were on plays where he was unblocked. He largely avoided criticism, because of how poorly the defense played as a whole. It's not some crazy idea to question the wisdom of trading picks possibly representing two future starters away, for one guy. I doubt if the front office knew that pick would be the #34 for the 2020 pick, that they would've made that trade. Their arrogance in thinking they were close, probably meant they thought they were going to be giving up the ~#50 slot.
  15. That's no consolation when we would've been essentially sitting on two first rounders this year because of how poorly we finished. Not that we'd want to, but right now we couldn't get two seconds back for him. Which means the team gambled on his potential. Whether he lives up to it or not, remains to be seen.