woodpecker

23 hours ago, Howie411 said:

 

 

I almost rather the Club level still be a ghost town.  Its almost as bad as the LL concourse now.    Its so crowded,  the smell of weed and smoke watfs through it.  The bathroom are disgusting and dirty and have long lines now.  (used to be constantly cleaned and no lines).  And the Gold Lounge lines are long!

 

I only ended up renewing 1 of my seats in the Club Level (front row)  curious if they sold the second one.   But I still get my free parking, which helps offset the cost.  (Club Level seats are starting to go back up in price)

Well crap. We decided to “upgrade“ to the club level this year, so that’s definitely concerning to hear. Was hoping to get away from long lines and dirty bathrooms. Guess it’s going to be a one year stay if that’s the case. 

2 hours ago, WashingtonRedWolves said:

Still hoping for Ekeler on a team-friendly deal. Someone on the junkies mentioned Swift too which I thought was interesting

Jacobs would be my choice of the RBs.
 

HTTRW!

1 hour ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

This is really not directed at you, just the idea/logic behind this post. 
 

Every year, we want high quality guys on team friendly deals. You can’t have it both ways. If we want really good FAs, we’re gonna have to pay them good money to play here. 
 

I still think free agency can be balanced, but I’m tired of signing the lower tier guys for reasonable contracts while we sucked on Sundays. 
 

We need to be prudent, but I’m ready to break out the check book this year. Especially since we will have a rookie QB and a ton of cap space. No more garbage bin shopping. 

Agree with this in general, but with the running back market so depressed, that may be the one position where we can in fact get a high quality guy on a team friendly deal.

2 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Being bad at posting. Be better.

Admittedly, you’re not wrong 😁

1 minute ago, illone said:

 

 

He was being sarcastic.

 

Extra thick 😂

 

thanks but nobody really cares what you think!
 

😜

6 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Your opinions are bad, and no one likes them.

Wtf. Love to know what I said to trigger this childish comment.

4 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Im sorry.  I’ve restrained myself for a full 2 days.  
 

You DO listen to Jay Gruden and try to convince me he has a valid opinion on anything.

 

So why does Jay get an image reclamation project and Ron is looked at as a clown?

 

Both of them are clowns and neither one of them is worth listening to.  
 

And I don’t care that McLoughan, who’s also not in the league, said Jay was good at evaluating players.  He was a bad coach, and a bad play caller. He wasn’t entirely blameless, and failed only because of Bruce and Dan.  He failed plenty on his own.

 

Ron goes up and we laugh at him.  Jay gets a weekly segment on Sheehan and other places, and we’re like, “yeah, you’ve got a point.”

 

Jay might be more likable.  But he’s no more qualified. 

 

 

Apples to oranges. Jay was never in a position to select players like Ron was. Jay has a reputation for being very good at player evaluations, and it doesn’t just come from McClouhan. Ron, on the other hand, is coming off authoring one of the worst draft/off-season performances by a GM we’ve ever seen. If you want to talk coaching, sure they’re both mediocre at best. But for evaluating talent, give me Jay all day long over Ron.

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I admit I am not a big Barkley guy from watching almost every one of his games.   He has two really good seasons.  But he wasnt hot last year.  He plays great against us for whatever reason. He might have another season or two left in him but he doesn't get me juices going.

 

There are a bunch of IMO decent RB prospects in that third-4th round range which could complement our RB room well.  I am very high on Robinson and Gonzalez.

No doubt, there are always good RB prospects in the middle of the draft, and I’ve seen you identify plenty of them over the years. Pretty sure though that there are players you like at other positions that those picks could be used for as well, should we say sign a Barkley or something 😁. Anyway, glad to hear that you’re high on Gonzalez. I’ll definitely take your word for it because all I know is he’s considered somewhat one-dimensional, and was drafted by Ron Rivera. If you believe in Gonzalez, totally understand why a veteran running back would not be on your radar.

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Granted its just a small number of people.  But I am surprised how many are good with mediocrity as an option.    We've had two regimes (Bruce and Ron) which seemed to embrace that mindset.  I got a strong vibe that Peters does not. 

I don’t think anybody is embracing mediocrity. I agree we should take the swing at a QB, but I don’t agree that cashing in for the draft capital haul is a one-way ticket to mediocrity. If you want to judge it against the clown show we’ve had here the last 25 years, then sure. But there are many ways to skin a cat, and with a great GM like an Adam Peters and no more Snyder to meddle, it is possible to find that franchise QB another way. I think we need to get out of the mode of thinking our team is too dysfunctional to keep all options open. Again, I’m all for staying at 2 and taking a QB, but at some point there is a price where I would trade down. I don’t see it as embracing mediocrity, I see it as embracing a properly run organization. But just to flip it around, could one not argue that not going all in on a trade up for Caleb is embracing mediocrity?

7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I see talk about the Pats trading down, but what exactly are they going to do about QB? I guess they could make a play for Kirk or Wilson, but that's still just kicking the can down the road for a couple of years at best. Mac Jones is not only a poor QB but he's apparently a bit of a jackwagon and on the outs with the team from a personal standpoint as well so I have a hard time seeing them run it back with him.

Similar situation to us, but the big difference is they don’t have their choice of two guys like we do. They are stuck with which ever of the three falls. So if there’s one of the three that they don’t think is good, it wouldn’t be the craziest thing in the world to trade out and collect the draft capital bounty. Build up the roster, bring back Brissett as a stopgap, and draft a 2nd tier QB to develop like Nix. One things for sure… Mac Jones is NOT the answer.

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The difference with RB is they fall off a cliff typically in their late 20s.  Not the case for safeties, LBs, etc.

Agreed. I’m only advocating for a short term deal with an RB. Two years max, at which point you can replace them with somebody else, also on the cheap. Safety or LB, I agree it’s more appropriate to make a longer-term offer for the right player.

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Facts. These positions are where the good deals are in free agency. Premium positions are better left for the draft for the most part. It’s more important to have those Rookie salaries at the premium positions. This is why I keep saying it’s not the worst idea to sign a vet RB, even though I mostly get blasted when I say it.

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

I think there are specific rules based on snap counts for how player positions are defined for this purpose. It’s not just a choice the Cowboys can make.

 

It’s just ‘most snaps’ I think. So if Parsons lined up more at DE than backer that’s how he is viewed. It gets blurry though with stand up DE versus hand on the ground etc. But there are rules around this.

Well, that’s no fun. Don’t you realize we’re trying to create a narrative where Parsons has a falling out with the Cowboys and decides to follow his favorite coach to DC??? 😎

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

 

There's something weird with the salary numbers. I think they need to re-adjust what salaries go into which group.

 

There's no way that $24 million should be the cost for LB, for Micah's tier it's supposed to be the average of the top 5 LB's. But $24 million is way above that. Likewise, the $21 million for DE seems like 7-8 million lower than it should be. The contracts for the Top 5 Edge rushers and the Top 5 LB's are not being used for the salary calculations. So the league must view Edge rushers and LB's differently than the positions we know of? This is all confusing.

Yeah, same here, I would’ve thought DE more than LB?? Guess not. Either way, I’m surprised Dallas is screwing with Parsons like that over 3 million, although it’s fair to say that DE is in fact his predominant position.

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

This is actually exactly why I prefer Maye over Daniels. At just 21 yo he has more upside for growth mentally and physically.

Somebody said this as a General philosophy, I don’t know who, but I agree:

Spend your FA money on the non-premium positions where you can get better value… safety, RB, LB, TE

Save your draft picks for the expensive premium positions QB, OT, WR, CB. Need guys on Rookie deals at those spots as much as possible.

PS looks like we signed Ertz while I was typing—guess that fits so 👍👍

1 minute ago, skinsmania123 said:

Noah Fant would be a good addition. He is 26, and although he did not really catch on in Denver, he brings decent enough upside. While he may not bring the receptions/yards, he is a solid blocker, and we could use that in the run game, and for additional help on the O line.  It boils down to how he is used. He is a decent receiver, just not targeted in Denver's offense and rarely for Seattle. 

Yes give me the 26 yo who still has some upside instead of over the hill Ertz! I don’t mind a midly receiver at TE if he’s a good blocker.

Just now, CommDownMan said:

 

I was curious to see an example of other running backs to get a gauge of a say a 3/30 deal and if year 3 wasn't guaranteed if we could work it lower than a 2/20 in theory.  

 

So many rookie deals, franchise tags, 1 year deals and a few top guys.  I knew RB was deprioritized, but hadn't really noticed just how short term most of these deals are.

A de facto 2/20 for Saquon yeah I’d do that. Other good RBs available even cheaper too. Everyone understands that running backs have been devalued in today’s game, it is baked in to the pricing at this point. Find me a blue Chip talent that we can get any cheaper, and I’ll be all in. 

Ertz is way too old for my taste, but he would buy some time to find a long term solution if they don’t see one available now. Same for LT Tyron Smith. Both injury prone but can still play well when healthy. Problem is both probably would prefer more of a win-now destination.

2 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

There are 10 humans on planet earth who can play QB at an elite or close to elite level any given year. Their ages range from 20 to 40. Given that age span, the amount of players who spend their entire lives from a young age with QB coaches and day after day of training, all that money available and yet only 10 people can do it well. 
 

It is far more likely a QB in a draft will be a bust than not. My preference is to trade up for Caleb because to me he is the most likely not to bust. I would give him a 15% chance of success. Maye would be my plan B. I give him a 10% chance of success. Daniels I believe is already a bust. He’s a train wreck waiting to happen and I have zero interest in that disaster. 
 

Fields is a proven bust in my opinion and Howell is 98% there. 
 

My option C would be if Peter’s doesn’t have a high grade in Maye is to trade back with a team for 2 future 1s plus their 1 this year, preferably a team that has a decent chance to end up with a top 5 pick. I don’t think this will happen because I believe Magic made some assurances to Kingsbury about what we will do to get a qb when he poached him from the Raiders. So most likely scenario is Maye.

 

 

Thanks. Pretty pessimistic I’d say, but not unreasonable. Seems like option C would be best if you think Maye is a 90% bust. And trading up at the probable cost of at least next years first seems like a terrible idea if you really think Caleb is 85% bust. Agree most likely scenario is Maye, which I will be happy with.

6 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

His fifth year option is 25 mil next year. If you don’t give him a deal prior to 2025, he will pull a Cousins. Franchise tag for a qb is 38 mil and will be well over 40 in 2026. 
 

Regardless, the guy simply sucks at playing football. Howell has way more upside. 

We don’t agree on JF vs Sam but that’s cool. Curious what you would do at QB? Seems like you think they all suck and the rookies are all busts.

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

We got shredded by Desmond Ridder and Tommy Devito too. Doesn't mean jack. Our D was historically trash.

Ridder had two TDs and three picks. Put up 16 points in a loss against us. Yes, 307 yards isn’t bad, but they were playing catch-up. 

Fields 4 TDs zero picks. And 57 yd rushing. 282 pass yards playing with the lead where they ran most of the 2nd half.

only one of those would I call “shredded”

53 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

You trade for field you have to give him a contract extension that averages 35 mil or more a year. You are out a draft pick and you can’t cut him unless you pull a Denver move like they did with Russ.
 

I don’t think you do. You have him for two years, for the cost of a low third round pick. The Russell Wilson situation was very different because of what they gave up to get him. 

18 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

He is absolutely bottom 5 as a passer. You can’t sustain offense with a guy who is consistently bottom 3 in accuracy. There is a reason the Bears are struggling to even get a 3rd for him. 

Bottom five as a passer does not equal bottom five QB. He’s running has shown to be elite. His leadership is not in question. His passing yes, while definitely better than the bottom 5 imo, is still a work in progress. To me, he gets some benefit of the doubt for having played with bad OL‘s, bad receivers other than one year of DJ, and bad coaching.

If fields, Howell, and whatever lower tier QB we draft this year all bombed out, well then at least we have a better roster and plenty of draft capital for AP to work his magic and find us one. If Maye or Daniels is a bust, then we are nowhere and will have squandered an opportunity to add several top end players on Rookie salaries for the next couple years.

Again, I’m just saying it’s an option. You don’t like fields at all, so I wouldn’t expect you to be on board. Taking May is still probably the move, but these discussions should be had since we know it’s out there that AP is considering all options.

11 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Good lord stop the madness. Fields sucks. Why trade for a bottom 5 QB when we have one on the roster already?

Fields bottom 5? No way not even close imo. If that’s how you feel, no wonder it seems like madness. Fields is clearly unpopular on this board, but I don’t think anyone has him that low. For me he’s an easy upgrade over Howell. 
Maybe I’m just higher than most on JF, but kingdaddy’s proposal sounds reasonable to me. All that draft capital for Peters to work with for the next few years sounds really enticing to me. 
Totally get that the opportunity to pick a top end QB prospect comes once in forever, but so does the opportunity to grab an insane amount of draft capital. I’m still with the chalk pick of just take Drake Maye and hope he’s great, but the trade down idea (Fields or not) would not bother me one bit, and it would make the next few drafts a lot of fun. 

5 minutes ago, ThatNFLChick said:

 

He took less sacks than Williams and Maye last year.

 

I don't think most people understand what pressure to sack ratio actually means. 

No, I think everyone understands the concept of sacks per pressure. It’s not the the same as total sacks, so not sure your point fits here.
 

And I think it’s pretty well documented that a guy like Maye faced a lot more pressure, and a lot faster pressure on a regular basis. 

28 minutes ago, mac8887 said:

 

In my opinion, Jayden’s pressure to sack ratio would carry more weight as a negative against him.

 

Agreed. Elite pass protection and elite speed to escape… So why does he take so many sacks?

8 minutes ago, Conn said:

We pretty much agree then, I also see the old name going as inevitable, and hate the new name, and prioritize Snyder being gone. Maybe they’ll get it right this time around 

We do. May not be possible to get it right per se where everyone is happy, but it will be easy to improve on the current situation! (I am a little worried they’ll decide it’s not worth the trouble though)