• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Warfish last won the day on October 27 2014

Warfish had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15,636 Ready For Flight

About Warfish

  • Rank
    A Scanner, Darkly
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

7,651 profile views
  1. What it means is they haven't hired anyone yet. Anything beyond that is pure speculation/conspiracy theorizing and a palate for the speculators own preconceptions and biases. That's the problem with this kind of thing. There are no facts, it's all just an excuse for various posters to vent their spleens on the team based on a totally made up and artificial idea of when they "should" have hired an OC. For example, I could now say Macc is a total and complete failure and Bowles the worst unpopular HC in the NFL because "no one wants to work for either of them" because we haven't hired someone yet. Is that a fact? Lol, nope. At least give the organization till the day after the Super Bowl before we start this kind of false-pressure-criticism thing.
  2. Why are people in such a hurry? The season isn't over yet. Does naming one today vs. two weeks from now mean we get a free extra 14 points per game next year? They'll hire one when they hire one. Hopefully a good one. The timing of when they hire is meaningless.
  3. http://www.newyorkjets.com/news/article-9/Dennard-Wilson-Joins-Jets-Defensive-Staff/1ef2bcab-b976-433b-b1b5-c64d3b0a4784 Former LA Rams DB Coach.
  4. This team-building idea only works when you have an all-Pro Franchise-level QB. If you don't...
  5. Planning on replacing all 26 or so players on the Defense eh?
  6. I am reasonably excited about Anderson, and Marshall the Younger as well. Peake too. Not enough to cut my #1 WR. Not yet. Or he could be Dedric Ward, a similar one-trick-pony. Agreed. Decker won;t stay healthy, he never does. And if we're going to suck, and we want to play the future, why are we keeping Decker then? And worse, why would we play a clear-cut #2 WR as a #1? Agreed, dear lord agreed.
  7. Hope everyone cheering this remembers their position when we suck fat ballsack at WR in 2017. Decker can't carry as a #1 (and is fragile frankly, there I said it). Enunwa, ok. After that, unproven kids who get far too much hype gere for what they actually did thus far. First time one of you posts about "needs weaponz" I swear, seriously, just don't.
  8. Given your posting history, don't you mean Geno Smith?
  9. I'm not in that group (my plan is Petty, Hack and a new Draft Pick). My risk plan is that it's ok to be bad at QB if you're cycling through QB's till you find a good one. If, hypothetically, Petty and hack look like poo next year.....so what? If we've cycled through them both, and found both wanting, we have a bad year, and we cut both that next offseason, and try, try again. Personally, I'd carry three QB's and a Prac. Squad QB every year going forward. Two fail, next two up. Rinse and repeat till we find one that sticks. Nothing about this says future QB picks cannot be #1 picks, or the like either. Obviously, the higher the pick, the longer the test period window when they stay on our roster.
  10. No doubt, I just want a good QB. I have my doubts that Glennon, and especially Tyrod, will ever be legitimate good starting QB's. The point I was making is that trading for failed QB's doesn't have a great history of leading to titles. But t does have a great history of large contracts, some famously so, for QB's who were "hyped" backups or the like elsewhere, who when given a boatload of cash failed completely in their new homes. As you say, Favre did it. Is Glennon or Tyrod a Favre? I don't think so based on what we've seen. And Favre, unlike either Glennon or Tyrod, was a total unknown, having near never played at all. He was not a big-dollar Free Agent signed based on "potential".
  11. Certainly a possibility. Maybe we just need to give him.....wait for it.....a fair chance. With Weaponz. So he's a successful starter then? Is that why Tampa dumped him, drafted a guy asap after seeing him play, and now will let him walk? Till he proves otherwise (by, you know, starting, and succeeding/winning) a failure and a backup QB is exactly what he is. If we do sign him, I'll most certainly be hoping he changes that. Especially if we overpay (which I fear we'd have to do, given the market). I don't hold Lovie in any particular regard. Sorry you feel I'm being unfair to a player you clearly have warm feelings for. As for Geno, no need to whine. He, and Fitz, are history. That's a battle of the past. A battle both sides lost. I'm far more interested in our future.
  12. Bohannon and Amaro are, IMO, still better than the TE and #4 RB we had on this team in 2016. I think we cut bait on both too soon because neither fit the (sorry) dumb-ass Offense than Chan ran here, that never used pass-catching TE's and rarely (correctly) used a blocking RB. Not saying either were great or even above average, but they could and should have been retained longer than they were, and I blame Chan as much as the players themselves for their failure here.
  13. Based on evidence to-date, agreed. He certainly appears fragile, but the sieve-like nature of last year's O-line was a factor. Reasons for doubt and fear. How many of them won Super Bowls? Honest question. In taking risk, I prefer home-grown risk to once-failed-other-team-castoff-risk. Generally speaking. I would be happier (emotionally) if we draft a QB in the first than if we sign a Glennon or a Tyrod. But I freely admit, both Glennon and Tyrod have some record of production success and production metrics that bear a thorough examination by Macc and Co. As I say, if the price is reasonable for the risk (and make no mistake, these tow are nearly as risky as a draft pick despite their minor successes thus far) then I would not overly bemoan their signing. Well....maybe Tyrod, as I simply don't see him as the type of pocket-passer QB I prefer.
  14. I'm going to IGNORE this thread, and REPORT this silly guy name MAX.
  15. Amazing isn't it? Next we'll need a "safe space" forum when no one is allowed to reply directly to another poster, only on-topic, non-specific replies of a general nature will be allowed.