Warfish

Members
  • Content count

    5,737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Warfish last won the day on October 27 2014

Warfish had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16,143 Ready For Flight

About Warfish

  • Rank
    The Master Debater

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

8,115 profile views
  1. Teams that move should be required to leave the name, logo, and team history behind in the city they are leaving. Want to play in Vegas? Fine. Pick a new name, Raiders (and Raider history) gets to stay in Oakland. JMO.
  2. Where would Hack have "provided good value". 6th round, or 7th? Better to see failure for what it is and fix it, than stubbornly refuse reality and keep plugging in McCowns and Fitzs to hide your mistake.
  3. Well, at least you've come round to admit your speculating. Till now you've been rather aggressive in the "you're all dumb retards, and I am right" vein. We're making progress. Well....we were, for a moment. You'll forgive me if I redact all the usual childish fluff and get right to the meat of the debate. I think that skipping an opportunity for a winner like Watson, for some as-yet-unknown 4th option in the 2018 class is a mistake. The smarter play, as I see it, is to take now, presuming we have an opportunity, and give us SOME legit prospect insurance behind Hack. Because right now we don't have a single real, legit, NFL Starting QB prospect on our roster. We have Hack, a vastly over-drafted developmental project pick that was more suited to a 4th or 5th round selection, and Petty, a late-rounder of no great shakes and established fragility. i.e we ain't got sh*t. If 2017 plays out perfectly as you and other think it might, we lose 15 games (fun!), the worst thing you end up with via my preference is having both Watson and Darnold at QB. What a shame that would be, right? Who would want to be in that situation, eh? We go your route, and win a few games more than you think (with McCown on the roster, a real possibility) we could be looking at a looming 2018 season with a failed or still-never-started Hack and the 4th best prospect in a draft class that (like so many before) may not be all it's hyped up to be a year+ in advance. End of the day, no amount of 1st round Safeties or Tight Ends will make this team a legit contender. Only a QB will do that. A team as sh*t as ours at the QB position does not have the luxury of passing on legit prospects, no matter how good some future draft class supposedly might be. We can agree to disagree. If Mike M wants to keep his job, he better do something at the QB position to show he's not a fool whose only attempt to fix our most fatal and glaring weakness is to vastly overdraft Hack, or to sign nobodies like Fitz and McCown. You don't get unlimited time in the NFL to ignore the QB position, and thus far, Macc has either missed widely or ignored the need there.
  4. Be patient, in a year we'll have people here screaming that Darnold is a bust-to-be, that we must wait because the class of 2020 is REALLY the class of the century, and that we can't get in the way of teh development of Hack after his one great start (10 for 20 for 87 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT before he got hurt) in the last game of 2017.
  5. No need to be sorry. Truth is, Macc is already on the hot-seat of QB-picking incompetence for his picks of Petty and Hack. If Hack doesn't rise up and show something, anything, this year.....well, Macc looks more like a misguided buffoon for making that pick when and where he did, and failing to address the QB position in any form over three years on the job, literally the most important position on the field. Do any of us want a buffoon picking ANY QB for us in 2018? So aye, failing to properly pick QB's over several seasons is indeed a serious form of incompetence. Sadly, we're already well on the way with Petty and Hack in that vein. Well, we should probably also pick up Peterson in the 4th. Draft all the QB's from Orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
  6. /shrug There are few folks here I have more intellectual respect for than Doggin. But YMMV I suppose.
  7. Telling one of the most intelligent guys we have to shut up, makes you look kinda silly. Just FYI Gramps.
  8. You have a Crystal Ball you forgot to tell us all about? First, there is every possibility Watson is taken by San Fran. They're working him out. They've shown interest. A few Mocks out there have him going at this slot. Second, Cleveland at #1 and #12 is going to take a calculated risk. Go with the elite #1 overall talent at #1, and hope (pray?) Trubisky is still there at #12.....or they might trade up to get him, they certainly have the pick-ammo to do it. We won't know if they pass till draft day. Speculating they will is like speculating they won't. Just speculation. Is Watson better than the 4th best prospect next year? Because that might be the best one we can draft next year. Getting a #1 overall pick isn't easy, no matter what the Colts did in the Luck Draft. Footballs bounce funny that way. What I fear is we sit, do nothing (well, draft a Safety! Yay Safeties!) and muddle away 2017 under McCown and perhaps a brief snapshot of Hack. Then we miss out on the top QB's in 2018 and where are we then? Yep, drafting a 4th prospect and searching for FA Vets again and hoping maybe Hack has come round. What some of us want to see is more than one legitimate prospect now, not in some unspecified might-never-happen future. It's fine to want Darnold (or whomever replaces him by the time next year rolls around, a la Kizer this draft) and to even take him if we're lukcy enough and he's still they guy. But thats betting the whole farm on a longshot. Someone has to be the #1 and #2 QB's in the interim. Till we draft another DLineman because "BAP" right?
  9. I don't want to have to spend ANY more picks. I want Hack (or Petty) to show up and be a Franchise Elite QB. But I'd rather over-spend and get a long-term guy and have the "problem" of trading one away, than underspend and lower my chances. Just think how bad the Redskins would have been last year if they went the cheap route
  10. Because you simply HAVE to have a "Veteran QB". It says so in Ye Olde 1945 NFL Management Almanac, docha know!
  11. I think... 1. Hack Should Start 2017 2. We Should Draft a QB to be Our #2/#3 for 2017. Where? Wherever you like/think best. 3. If we go 1-15, we should draft a QB #1 Overall in 2018. 4. We should never have signed McCown. This is my opinion, and honestly, I'm darned comfortable with it.
  12. DRob. Nuff' said.
  13. Was curious as to your previous views (like going into last years draft). So I went and took a look. To your credit, you've been consistent. You've been down hard on Watson (for example) from the beginning. You talked up Trubisky at one point, but not with any passion. What I do see if you've been a solid supporter of Hackenberg since well before we drafted him. You (like me as well) liked Cook as well it seemed. So I suppose if you believe Hack can be "the man", you'd logically not want a QB this year at all. You imply you watch alot of college ball, I'm curious what you see in Hack (today) that makes you think he's a legitimate guy those of us who doubt he'll ever come round shold believe in. Seems this years crap all mostly have better college resumes, far more success, and far less excuses than Hack had last year, but you were (and still are it seems) solid behind Hack. Why is that?
  14. I'm not usually one to give two sh*ts where/what ex-Jets do. But if this is true, I'm glad Nick may get to finish out his career in New York, even if it's not with us. Giants are clearly making a push to get over the hump and win another title. We're not. Best of luck to Nick if the Giants make a run.