Jump to content

isired

Members
  • Posts

    1,086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by isired

  1. The thing is, in today's NFL the same play call can be executed differently depending on the pre-snap defensive formation and even the in-play reaction of the D. So the QB really does have to know every players role, and most will have 2-3 roles depending, and other skill players may have to know what everyone else around them is doing. Not saying its rocket science, but it is complex, and much more complex than it was 25 years ago.
  2. Yeah there's like 4 plays there where he's really under pressure in the first 3-4 seconds.
  3. This only makes sense if they love one of the QBs in this draft that's available at 2. And if they love one of the QBs in this draft that's available at 2, they're going to take him. That's for sure. And if they don't take a QB at 2, then they didn't love one of the QBs that was available at 2. That's for sure.
  4. That's funny, my son's HS runs the single wing - they're generally undersized, and run their O in a very disciplined manner such that usually their backs are through the hole before the DL and LB have a read on where the ball is. The fact that every other team is running a modern, poster-board and wristband spread offense only helps them because the Ds their opposing are trained to defend the spread and aren't used to making a read vs 4 run possibilities every play. They throw about 4-5 passes a game, and most go for big gains.
  5. No, but it's gotten a lot more complicated, at HS and even youth levels let alone college and pros. Some HS in the 80s were still just numbering backs and gaps and running "32 dive" and "28 toss sweep" etc. Nobody's doing that anymore.
  6. I played in HS and college in the 80s, and I don't understand half of what they say regarding offenses until I look it up. The language, the strategy, it's all changed so much. And we ran a 'modern' offense for the time in HS, lots of what we called sprint-outs and waggles, wasn't just guards pulling, etc. Defense is more similar, obviously a lot more DBs in the game nowadays and teams running blended base Ds but we had those packages we just never really used them. They're running Ds all game that we only used to protect a sizeable lead.
  7. Eh. Even when healthy I think he's more like the guy that leaves you in 'it's not a priority, but aid love to upgrade the positions territory. Add his injury history to that, he's not a FQB. The 9ers are smart if they move on. I've listened to Moving The Chains for years- it used to be the most fact-based, level-headed shown on the air. Even then,, they'd get wacky with the mocks once they allowed trades.. But I think somebody told them they need to be more controversial in general, because the segments they've added and the tone of the show has changed significantly in the last year or so, more hot takes, more shouting, etc. And the mocks seem to be even more wacky.
  8. Anyone can bust. All that matters for a team like ours that doesnt have a FQB right now is: do I think there is a FQB available in this draft other than Lawrence? If so, I take him at 2. If not, I'm open to trade downs. For me personally though, if I'm trading down and not getting a FQB this year, I'm going to need future #1s so I can get a QB next year if I need to.
  9. I mean, knowing that it will significantly better the team and make next year have endless possibilities, what more needs to be said?
  10. I dont know if that will leave him 'covered' - he'll have wasted a second round pick as we watch some of the WR, Pitts, Sewell, etc star in the league.
  11. I'm not dismissing him. If they like him as potential FQB that they would take in any circumstance (other than maybe having the ability to draft Lawrence at 1) they should take him at 2. Point is, saying 'if he's great and they passed on him' is not different than saying 'if he's a bust and they drafted him' at this point. One statement is no more valid or based in fact than the other at this point. Same for saying that Wilson improved a lot in a year and right now there are no QB prospects as good in next year's draft. Because Wilson wasn't deemed worthy at this time last year and someone else could take the leap, too. Those are 2 of the few facts in the discussion. I can agree that Wilson improved A LOT and still not be sure that he's an Andrew Luck prospect like Lawrence. But I can 100% respect that JD or any FO that studies his film etc. and thinks that he is a FQB can and should take him if possible. It's their job to do just that if that's their opinion of him.
  12. A year ago it was Trevor Lawrence and a handful of maybes, and Wilson wasn't even on the list. Here's Mel Kipers take from a year ago. No Wilson. Tanner Morgan and Jamie Newman were higher ranked on other boards I found. The 2022 draft is a long way away. And if they don't and Darnold is Drew Brees and Wilson is Josh Rosen or Mitch Trubisky? Same deal. That's why you have to base it only on how much you like the QBs in a vacuum. DW may be playing and available next year, but if Russell Wilson remains unhappy he's much more tradeable next year than this.
  13. If I'm them, I hitch it to a draft pick if I believe in that QB. I don't draft a QB if I believe in Darnoldm if neither is true, I build around Darnold and see what he does this year - though I'd bring in some competition. Hopefully I get most of the pieces in place so I'm either set at QB or I'm drafting a QB with a solid team in place. But either way my decision is focused only on studying all of the QBs. It's not based on resetting the clock, it's not based on what I think the owner or fans or anyone else thinks.
  14. I think the theme behind vs. is more true to her story than Lady's romanticized version (it's hard to stomach a film based around BDW's Louis as the saintly, doting husband - they knew better in 1972, and we know better now). But they just didn't execute on that in the story/dialogue well at all. And the singing and look of Andra Day for Billie vs. Diana Ross makes that aspect much better in the current version. But nobody's made a good version of a good story yet, IMO.
  15. I think that's less true this year- with a big expansion salary cap coming, if a player wasn't going to break the bank, many wanted a 1 year deal, from what's been reported. But I like the 2 year deal as well.
  16. #15 is bad for Watson... https://sports.yahoo.com/the-lawsuit-that-is-most-problematic-for-deshaun-watson-014827728.html
  17. Glad it wasn't just us. We wanted to like it, as your said it's a compelling story, she's a great artist, and it was terrible.
  18. I don't know, they're a bumbling organization. It probably went more like: McNair: Yes! He's ruined! We did it! Jack go tell Watson he better play ball! Easterby: Ermm... shouldn't we have gone to Watson before we went public with the lawyer? Nick, can we still get 4 firsts for him? Caserio [sighs, head in hands]: That's not how The Patriot Way works...
  19. I'd bet he knew exactly what went wrong - seems like something that wouldn't be unheard of in that line of work. Which lines up with the second time she saw him - she says she didn't realize it wa she same guy until she saw him, which led to the discussion / him admitting he was being inappropriate, and her telling him she was a lesbian. She didn't leave because she didn't want to get the manager mad at her.
  20. Doesn't it also require that the already-wealthy lawyer is willing to coordinate their stories and suborn perjury, risking his career?
  21. Yeah, if the woman who described him locking her head between his thighs and telling her to spit on it and kiss it is lying or not believable... She's also the one who went to her manager about getting shorted the first time - if she discussed Watson's behavior with him, or if he or anyone talked to her after the second incident and noticed her visibly upset etc. it would still be hearsay but would take another step towards corroboration.
×
×
  • Create New...