A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

[Spaceman Spiff]

It would be ****ing hilarious if it weren't so sad that the DEA thing that happened two weeks ago is already water under the bridge and we're two scandals removed from that now.  

 

Seriously, I forgot about the DEA thing.  I totally forgot that happened until I just read that above post.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Rivera inherited an impossible task -- he's not just coaching but also dealing with all the sidebar dumpster fire issues that other coaches aren't saddled with.  I agree.  I am giving Rivera a break for now.  Let him climb out of this hole this season and rework the roster next season. 

I just wish they hadn’t broken the defense by mistake along the way.  
 

The good news is they don’t have a ton of money committed they can’t get out of.  Fitz is on a 1 year deal.  I still think when healthy Curtis Samuel can be a really good piece to the offense.  WJIII is the huge swing and a miss so far. And really the only one in 2 off seasons.  That’s not great, but it’s not unusual for a FA or two not to pan out.  
 

They’re going to have all their draft picks and a lot of cap room to play with this off season.  They need a QB.  
 

The bug question the remainder of the season is how much Davis develops, and if he can be counted on as an every down LB next year, or if they need to find that guy also. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I need to go back and watch that America's Game episode on that Cowboys team.  It was the only one I really could stomach because (if I remember correctly) the players and media folks interviewed basically tatooed the label "Moron" on Switzer's head.  There were some really great stories in it.  It kindof proved that ANYBODY could have won with that team.  Jerry really screwed up, he should have just taken the coach job himself to give himself all the glory.  

 

Eh, I'm not so sure.  Don't forget it was Parcells who found, developed and promoted Romo. Jerry gave him a shot, but Parcells is one hell of a strong personality, and I'm sure he somewhat told Jerry what to do.  If Gibbs had "found" an UDFA, I don't think Dan would have gotten in the way.  

 

Dan has done a ton of stupid, but for the first 12 years of his tenure, the only big-name QB he chased was Geoff George in 2000.  After that, for Marty it was Tony Banks, then Spurrier was a whole bunch of crap ex-gators including Danny W. Then Gibbs brought in Mark Brunnell and drafted JC, which was the opposite of flashy.  Then for Zorn it was JC and Todd Collins, again, not flashy.

 

The next flashy guy was McNabb, then the Griffin trade in 2012.  Dan also allowed Jay to sit Griffin and play Kirk.  

 

The big boo-boo for the contract thing with Kirk was after the 2015 season not coming to a long-term agreement.  Depending on who you listen to, though, Kirk already was demanding a fully guaranteed deal.  And I'm completely fine with the team not paying what the Vikings paid for Kirk.  

 

Then there was Alex Smith, which was not flashy.  

 

 

Well, he ****ed it up with Griffin more than anything.  Because he chose to take Griffin's side rather than Shanahan's side.  Which was so amazingly stupid. 

 

Here's the thing, we have drafted 1st round QBs and tried to develop them 4 times:  Patrick Ramsey, Jason Campbell, Griffin, Haskins.   The best QB we've drafted has been Cousins.  

 

But I'm not sure Dan really screwed up Ramsey or JC.  They were just bad picks and in the end, couldn't play.  Griffin had potential, and he screwed it up. (Though combined with the fact unless he was willing to play the way he was playing in 2012, he couldn't play either.  And I'm not sure his body would have held up, regardless.)  

 

Haskins was a debacle and a half.  That was the icing on the cake of stupid.  

 

You bring up Herbert as a good example, however I'll counter with Tua.  Who was picked ahead of Herbert.  For every 1st round QB which hits, there are those that don't.  You have to be a little lucky to be in position to draft a guy, draft him, and have him pan out.  You also need a coaching staff in place to develop them.  Tua is steaming towards the bust pile.

 

So, I'm not sure if I would pick a QB in the first round and try and develop them.  I might go all-in on a proven top-tier vet if one is actually available.  For this franchise.  Maybe not for all franchises.  

 

These are all very good points.  I'd like to know how much Jerry had to do with Romo and quite frankly I forgot that Parcells was the guy that gave Romo the keys.  Knowing how Parcells operates, probably not much.  But kudos to Jerry for letting a football guy make the moves he saw fit.  

 

The summary is a difficult quandary that this team finds itself in.  Do you trust them to draft and develop a QB?  It's hard to trust them.  Can you go all-in on a proven top tier vet?  Most really good, franchise changing quarterbacks, even a top tier vet, maybe a notch below a Rodgers don't hit the market very often.  And do you trust the WFT to be able to put the correct pieces in place to make that QB successful here?  I don't.  

 

 

[Conn]

25 minutes ago, ananoman said:

Exactly.  People keep forgetting that neither Doug Williams nor Mark Rypien were franchise quarterbacks.  They were decent quarterbacks who were capable of doing their part on great teams.

It’s been 30 ****ing years since that worked for us. Let. It. Go. It’s irrelevant. Very very few teams in the modern era win or even make it to SB’s without a long term franchise QB…and even the ones that luck out and do that, don’t find consistent success. Nothing that happened in 1991 here matters . At all. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by ConnSKINS26

[ThePackisback]

2 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

These are all very good points.  I'd like to know how much Jerry had to do with Romo and quite frankly I forgot that Parcells was the guy that gave Romo the keys.  Knowing how Parcells operates, probably not much.  But kudos to Jerry for letting a football guy make the moves he saw fit.  

 

The summary is a difficult quandary that this team finds itself in.  Do you trust them to draft and develop a QB?  It's hard to trust them.  Can you go all-in on a proven top tier vet?  Most really good, franchise changing quarterbacks, even a top tier vet, maybe a notch below a Rodgers don't hit the market very often.  And do you trust the WFT to be able to put the correct pieces in place to make that QB successful here?  I don't.  

 

 

We can give you Jordan Love?

Just now, ConnSKINS26 said:

It’s been 30 ****ing years since that worked for us. Let. It. Go. It’s irrelevant. Very very few teams in the modern era win or even make it to SB’s without a long term franchise QB…and even the ones that luck out and do that, don’t find consistent success. 

You guys had the best team of all time.

[Conn]

3 minutes ago, ThePackisback said:

You guys had the best team of all time.

I think that’s definitely arguable, even probable. And I don’t care at all. It’s 2021. I was barely alive for the dominant 1991 team, and wasn’t alive for the earlier SB squads. I respect history, but this modern WFT organization has done nothing but make the glory years look bad while dragging them through the mud for a feel-good moment every few years when it’s needed. It’s played out. I don’t ever want to hear about it again until we’re good enough to warrant the comparison. We have been losers and afterthoughts for 3 decades, nobody else in the NFL cares about our glory years, it’s a sad joke to even bring it up in 2021. Might as well be a different team and fanbase entirely. 

[Conn]

They took the Sean Taylor Road pictures in front of a row of porta-potties.

 

They had visitors stand on the commemorative 21 on the sideline. 
 

Just shut the whole organization down. Fire it into the sun. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

14 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

It’s been 30 ****ing years since that worked for us. Let. It. Go. It’s irrelevant. Very very few teams in the modern era win or even make it to SB’s without a long term franchise QB…and even the ones that luck out and do that, don’t find consistent success. Nothing that happened in 1991 here matters . At all. 

 

You've gotta have a ****ing amazing team otherwise if you're going to win without the franchise QB.  1991, we were loaded everywhere.  Rypien finally put it all together but we were stacked at WR for him.  Great running backs.  Dominant O-line and a great defense.

 

Thinking about other teams that have done it, the '85 Bears was all about the defense, so was the early 2000s Ravens.  They could get by with mediocre play at QB because their strengths were off the charts.

 

Even though this franchise has failed miserably in doing so, it's easier to find a franchise QB than win that way.

[Wildbunny]

42 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

It’s been 30 ****ing years since that worked for us. Let. It. Go. It’s irrelevant. Very very few teams in the modern era win or even make it to SB’s without a long term franchise QB…and even the ones that luck out and do that, don’t find consistent success. Nothing that happened in 1991 here matters . At all. 

In fact, it's probably the last time a team won a SB without a long term answer at QB. If you check at the list after this year, it's quite telling:

Aikman, Young, Brees, Manning (both), Brady, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Warner, Favre, Rodgers, Elway...

 

Brad Johnson is probably the one exception to this list. And Flacco, though not on par as the others was the QB for the Ravens for quite some times...

 

Since 1991, it's clear that you better have a good franchise QB at the helm if you want to have a shot at winning it all. Otherwise, Cap has done the job at leveling things.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, ThePackisback said:

You guys will be fine. Trust me.

No we won’t.

[Indi1988]

The fact that Rivera and Del Rio, both known for some pretty awesome defenses in the past and are established defensive minds, have somehow found a way to field the worst defense in the league is pretty unreal.

 

I know the coach isn’t ever going to get on the podium and say he has no idea what’s going on with the players come game time but the “I like what we’re doing” thing just gives off extremely delusional vibes at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, ThePackisback said:

Kind of like Jim Mcmahon was with Chicago.

So you want to see me suffer through terrible times after this year😆😆

 

We'd trade your verson of misery for ours any day of the week.  Embrace the winning.  

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I just wish they hadn’t broken the defense by mistake along the way.  
 

The good news is they don’t have a ton of money committed they can’t get out of.  Fitz is on a 1 year deal.  I still think when healthy Curtis Samuel can be a really good piece to the offense.  WJIII is the huge swing and a miss so far. And really the only one in 2 off seasons.  That’s not great, but it’s not unusual for a FA or two not to pan out.  
 

They’re going to have all their draft picks and a lot of cap room to play with this off season.  They need a QB.  
 

The bug question the remainder of the season is how much Davis develops, and if he can be counted on as an every down LB next year, or if they need to find that guy also. 

 

I know you were a fan of the Rivera hire as was I.  Their plan in the 2nd year crashed but they made progesss on some fronts especially the O line.  The reason why I am not in a panic about it is:

 

A.  I don't think Ron is a dolt.  I think what's obvious to us is more than obvious to him.   Some want him to wear that on his sleave publicly but its not his style.  So that doesn't bother me at all.  This season really exposed their weaknesses in an over the top way, i think that bodes well for them to fix it. 

 

B.  I think its all hands on deck at QB.  Judging by rumors they had the right targets at QB this off season.  This time I'll trust they pull off the right targets again but actually pull the trigger.  I think his tenure will sink or swim based on what they do here. 

 

C.  I do put stock in this schedule being a bear.  Look at Carolina for example, they look invincible playing the Jets and Texans but all of a sudden they got the Vikings and Cowboys and look vulnerable.  I think we would have beaten the Jets and Texans too.  this schedule is a nightmare -- the "easier" teams on the schedule have winning records like the Chargers, Raiders, etc.    Next season doesn't loom nearly as tough.

 

D. Playing off of C.  I think they might be set up for the kill next season -- easier schedule and more loaded roster.  Count me as one of those guys that think this team benefits in the long run more from a 4-13 season this year versus a 7-10 one.  Even though a 4-13 season provides more emotional angst. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I know you were a fan of the Rivera hire as was I.  Their plan in the 2nd year crashed but they made progesss on some fronts especially the O line.  The reason why I am not in a panic about it is:

 

A.  I don't think Ron is a dolt.  I think what's obvious to us is more than obvious to him.   Some want him to wear that on his sleave publicly but its not his style.  So that doesn't bother me at all.  This season really exposed their weaknesses in an over the top way, i think that bodes well for them to fix it. 

 

B.  I think its all hands on deck at QB.  Judging by rumors they had the right targets at QB this off season.  This time I'll trust they pull off the right targets again but actually pull the trigger.  I think his tenure will sink or swim based on what they do here. 

 

C.  I do put stock in this schedule being a bear.  Look at Carolina for example, they look invincible playing the Jets and Texans but all of a sudden they got the Vikings and Cowboys and look vulnerable.  I think we would have beaten the Jets and Texans too.  this schedule is a nightmare -- the "easier" teams on the schedule have winning records like the Chargers, Raiders, etc.    Next season doesn't loom nearly as tough.

 

D. Playing off of C.  I think they might be set up for the kill next season -- easier schedule and more loaded roster.  Count me as one of those guys that think this team benefits in the long run more from a 4-13 season version a 7-10 one.  Even though a 4-13 season provides more emotional angst. 

 

Here's the issue: I think Rivera sees all of this. And I think when it comes time to fix it Snyder will get involved.

 

I have gone from thinking Snyder is out of the picture to believing he is the whole picture... I'm convinced Collins is on the field because of him. 

 

*IF* Snyder weren't involved I'd be in agreement with 97.5% of this. But that if is quite large and ominous. 

[kingdaddy]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

In fact, it's probably the last time a team won a SB without a long term answer at QB. If you check at the list after this year, it's quite telling:

Aikman, Young, Brees, Manning (both), Brady, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Warner, Favre, Rodgers, Elway...

 

Brad Johnson is probably the one exception to this list. And Flacco, though not on par as the others was the QB for the Ravens for quite some times...

 

Since 1991, it's clear that you better have a good franchise QB at the helm if you want to have a shot at winning it all. Otherwise, Cap has done the job at leveling things.

Eli Manning, Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles are a few that come to mind off the top of my head who've won Super Bowls and were hardly franchise QB's....and i don't buy that Eli is one cause he had great defenses when he won and didn't have to do much. 

There are two sides to this argument and both are not wrong. Is it easier to win a SB with a franchise QB? Of course. Can you do it without a franchise QB? Yep. The Eagles are the best example of this. Nick Foles managed the team and had great play calling with a very good offensive line and solid defense. The Niners nearly won a SB three years ago with very limited QB play and a lights out defense and great running game. They destroyed Aaron Rodgers, a franchise QB, along the way that year. Teams go DECADES without finding a franchise QB yet it doesn't mean they can't win the SB. Tennessee went far with Tannehill and the beast at RB, Derrick Henry two years ago....

 I think our problem is that we WAY over valued our roster this year. For example, many of us worried that Gibson would break down and a lot of us figured he would. He doesn't seem to be a workhorse RB yet the coaches didn't see his breakdown coming and here we are. There are several other things that haven't worked out including the QB situation with Fitz lasting barely a half of football. 

For those of you calling for a franchise QB I'm with you but who's to say the guy you roll the dice on really becomes the answer? Trading up and mortgaging your future is very risky .... we took our shot at Stafford, do we go after DeShawn Watson next? I doubt it but this desperate team better figure out something. 

We are all frustrated and near the breaking point with this team as a fan base....I honestly don't know who can really turn this thing around but I'm having my doubts in the staff we have right now based on our play thus far this season. 

[DCSaints_fan]

With regards to the lack of a legit franchise QB, part of the WFT problem has been that they simply don't hire quality offensive minded coaches often enough and allow them latitude to pick and develop a QB.

 

And I know I'm going to get pelted with tomatoes for saying this, but I think the WFT had a chance with Cousins, but didn't want to pay him for some reason.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's elite (as in top 5) but could consistently be in the top ten and might have a where he's borderline top five if the rest of the team around him is talented enough   Basically his ceiling being Eli Manning.  But Eli Manning won two Superbowls so ...   But even if Cousins wasn't the ultimate answer, I think they still should have stuck with him, established a winning culture then maybe transitioned to someone else.  Kind of like the Steelers did with Kordell Stewart.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Here's the issue: I think Rivera sees all of this. And I think when it comes time to fix it Snyder will get involved.

 

I have gone from thinking Snyder is out of the picture to believing he is the whole picture... I'm convinced Collins is on the field because of him. 

 

*IF* Snyder weren't involved I'd be in agreement with 97.5% of this. But that if is quite large and ominous. 

 

You won't get me to defend Dan so yeah everything you say is possible.

 

I do think Ron's only shot to pull it off here is to nail the Qb spot in the off season.  We've had some glimmer of success even with Dan under that context.  Otherwise, i think it will go south in a big way. 

 

 

 

[FuriousD]

2 hours ago, ananoman said:

Exactly.  People keep forgetting that neither Doug Williams nor Mark Rypien were franchise quarterbacks.  They were decent quarterbacks who were capable of doing their part on great teams.

I would agree regarding Williams the '87 squad but "decent" doesn't quite do justice to Rypien and his efforts in '91.  Of course it's a team effort, and the O-line & receivers were stellar, but Rypien was certainly no detriment to an offense that torched through the opposing defenses that year!   Yeah, he was overachieving and perhaps the whole squad was but damn, they put up some ridiculous numbers..

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Eli Manning, Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles are a few that come to mind off the top of my head who've won Super Bowls and were hardly franchise QB's....and i don't buy that Eli is one cause he had great defenses when he won and didn't have to do much. 

There are two sides to this argument and both are not wrong. Is it easier to win a SB with a franchise QB? Of course. Can you do it without a franchise QB? Yep. 

 

The common denominator though is these QBs got red hot.  Foles was a monster in the post season.  Ditto Flacco and Eli.  All of whom were SB MVPs.  They didn't game manage their ways to a victory but instead went toe to toe with the opposing QB and killed it. 

 

So if you take name that QB and they hit lightening in a bottle and play like Brady in the post season its possible but it doesn't happen often so I wouldn't count on it.  Flacco and Eli in their heyday were borderline franchise QBs, not elite but good QBs.   And they both were gamers-clutch players. 

 

Trent Dilfer did it in another era.  Yeah back then it was rare yet doable.  the NFL has changed since. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[The Rook]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Gruden may have been symptomatic of systemic racism within the White-owned NFL and, given that much of his digital disparagement came when he worked as an ESPN analyst, the majority-White sports media as well.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/16/jon-gruden-daniel-snyder-investigation/

 

The lack of coverage of the emails and the WFT report by ESPN has been deafening.  I saw more coverage on SNL.

 

How many present and former ESPN personnel are wrapped up in this ****show?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[kingdaddy]

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The common denominator though is these QBs got red hot.  Foles was a monster in the post season.  Ditto Flacco and Eli.  All of whom were SB MVPs.  They didn't game manage their ways to a victory but instead went toe to toe with the opposing QB and killed it. 

 

So if you take name that QB and they hit lightening in a bottle and play like Brady in the post season its possible but it doesn't happen often so I wouldn't count on it.  Flacco and Eli in their heyday were borderline franchise QBs, not elite but good QBs.   And they both were gamers-clutch players. 

 

Trent Dilfer did it in another era.  Yeah back then it was rare yet doable.  the NFL has changed since. 

Just for arguments sake, Heinicke went toe to toe pretty good with Brady in the playoffs but our defense couldn't stop TB. Minnesota thought they got their franchise QB in Cousins and that has turned out to be a poor investment. In fact, they were better the year they had Case Keenum as their starter with that very good defense they had. Keenum was very good that year but lost to Foles in the NFC championship game. 

We need this defense to be better or it won't matter a whole lot who our QB is. We can't even stay healthy. Guys dropped picks, guys dropped passes, Gibson fumbled, etc....

All I'm saying is that TH has had a LOT go wrong all around him and he's too inexperienced to be expected to make up for all of it. Kirk Cousins wouldn't have helped yesterday given all of the ineptitude across this roster. 

I hope we find a franchise QB...in my lifetime the closest we've had was Theismann and before him Sonny. RGlll was the great tease. We deserve one badly. But good God, when I saw our corner hang back and just allow the WR to get 5 yards and move the chains yesterday it tells me that we have serious issues with coaching and talent evaluation. That was disgusting to watch.

[dyst]

I don’t think some people understand just how real bad aura is. Snyder has it in spades. He just corrupts everything.

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Just for arguments sake, Heinicke went toe to toe pretty good with Brady in the playoffs but our defense couldn't stop TB.

 

Tampa's defense wasn't good that game either.  Why did Tampa win?  Brady > Heinicke. 

 

16 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Minnesota thought they got their franchise QB in Cousins and that has turned out to be a poor investment. In fact, they were better the year they had Case Keenum as their starter with that very good defense they had. Keenum was very good that year but lost to Foles in the NFC championship game. 

 

 

Keenum though fell off a cliff since.  He somewhat makes my point, you can catch some temporary success with QBs who can have a career year out of nowhere but it doesn't last if they aren't that good.  Jimmy G looked good for a spell.  Ditto Matt Cassel, Nick Foles.  The mark of greatness is consistency.   If the goal is a one off season, then yeah it can happen with a lot of different QBs.  But if you want to play with the big boys and be good almost every season, you need that QB. 

 

16 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

 

We need this defense to be better or it won't matter a whole lot who our QB is. We can't even stay healthy. Guys dropped picks, guys dropped passes, Gibson fumbled, etc....

 

 

KC has a terrible defense yet they remain dangerous.  GB had bad defenses with Aaron Rodgers.  Seattle with Wilson.   I am not saying you win every game but you have a good shot.   It's ideal to have a good defense and offense.  But its hard for me to think of teams with "meh" QB play but win every year thanks to good defensive play.

 

16 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Kirk Cousins wouldn't have helped yesterday given all of the ineptitude across this roster. 

 

 

Compared to most, I like Kirk.  But I don't think he's a winning example for you.  Kirk is a good QB ala what Eli was and Flacco in their prime.  He's not elite.  He's not Aaron Rodgers.

 

A guy like Kirk will keep you competitive.  The Vikings are never a joke just like we weren't a joke when he was here.  He played well last year even though the Vikings defense was terrible. He actually helped them win a playoff game which is the equivalent of a SB win under Dan the season before.   A player like Kirk gives you a chance but I don't see him as deserving to be mentioned among the great ones -- I think he fits perfectly with two of the QBs you mentioned were the exceptions to the rule like Eli and Flacco. 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[SoCalSkins]

2 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

In fact, it's probably the last time a team won a SB without a long term answer at QB. If you check at the list after this year, it's quite telling:

Aikman, Young, Brees, Manning (both), Brady, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Warner, Favre, Rodgers, Elway...

 

Brad Johnson is probably the one exception to this list. And Flacco, though not on par as the others was the QB for the Ravens for quite some times...

 

Since 1991, it's clear that you better have a good franchise QB at the helm if you want to have a shot at winning it all. Otherwise, Cap has done the job at leveling things.

Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Flacco, Foles and retread Peyton with Denver and Brady with Tampa is a huge chunk of SB winning QBs since the 1990s that don’t fit the franchise qb developed in house model. Some journeymen types and a some free agents at ends of careers.

 

So I fully expect us to go all in on Rodgers. They will need a splash to announce the new name and for Ron to lower the heat. 

[kingdaddy]

4 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Flacco, Foles and retread Peyton with Denver and Brady with Tampa is a huge chunk of SB winning QBs since the 1990s that don’t fit the franchise qb developed in house model. Some journeymen types and a some free agents at ends of careers.

 

So I fully expect us to go all in on Rodgers. They will need a splash to announce the new name and for Ron to lower the heat. 

Yep, and look at the team Manning had around him. I'd be shocked if Rodgers came to DC just because we are not built to win yet. Ditto for Russell Wilson unless he wants go come home. 

Vets choose where they want to go and we can't be high on many vet QB's list. I would absolutely bring in Trubisky if I thought he learned this year from how Josh Allen plays. He has a big arm and can run. Who knows, if McDermott tells RR that Trubisky was just really poorly coached in Chicago and has really grown in Buffalo then he's a guy I'm really intrigued with. Sometimes it takes a few years for guys to really learn the league and Buffalo, being the #1 offense in the league, might be the perfect place for Trubisky to revive his career. We've seen other guys do it. 

I would also draft or sign a bellcow back and work on running the ball more. If you don't have a franchise QB you can dominate in other facets of the game. That's what Tennessee is doing. We can do that too while we find a QB. Just my thoughts.