Shefter: Cleveland considering Trubisky at #1 overall

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

I'd give my left nut to be able to revisit this thread in 9 months after Hackenberg's broken out and we finally have the QB we've all been dreaming about (handing off to Fournette, to boot)

Lets see.....be wrong, and have a franchise QB.

Or be right, and not.

I'd much prefer to be wrong.  And it's not a competition.

[Paradis]

Instead, Macc would potentially be betting his job, income, mortgage and grocery bill on....Hack.  

It's a gamble for Macc either way.  Any claim on your part that Macc is safe going with Hack is pure conjecture.  You don't know that, neither do we know he'd be less afe drafting a QB now.  Only Mr. Johnson knows, and he's not saying.

 

You've yet to produce one semblance of a reasonable rebuttal about the GM picking for his job argument. You could easily shut me up by saying something of substance beyond "we need to keep trying...". No duh. Quantity and quality are at war here.

 

Macs not betting anything on Hack in 2017 that he hasn't wagered already. If Hack flames out (very likely), he still has the "I haven't been able to take a 1st round franchise qb" card he hasn't played yet. Hack red shirting in 2016 already did all the damage it could and put him on thin(ish) ice.

 

If I had 1 kick at the can, I wouldnt spend it on Trubisky or Kizer. Probably not Watson either. He's in year 3 of his regime and QB is arguably worst shape than when he got here. Better believe he's doing more than adopting "just gotta swing" battleplan.

 

This is the part where you usually exit the conversation

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Warfish]

32 minutes ago, Paradis said:

You've yet to produce one semblance of a reasonable rebuttal about the GM picking for his job argument.

Your claim that one way means his job, the other doesn't, is your personal speculation only.  It carries no weight beyond the opinion that it is.  And as stated, I clearly disagree it's as black and white as you seem to think.

Quote

You could easily shut me up by saying something of substance beyond "we need to keep trying...". No duh. Quantity and quality are at war here.

And your entire argument seems based on the idea that we'll get quality next year.  Which is clearly no sure thing.  Beyond that, bad teams need to look at both quality and quantity given how many QB's do not pan out despite every belief that they could.  

Quote

Macs not betting anything on Hack in 2017 that he hasn't wagered already. If Hack flames out (very likely), he still has the "I haven't been able to take a 1st round franchise qb" card he hasn't played yet.

And an owner who could just as easily reply "they you should have taken one when you had a chance".  Your way of looking ta this situation is not the only possible way the owner may choose to evaluate things my friend.  

Macc has so far made very few defenadable QB decisions.  He retained Geno, which didn't work out.  He drafted Petty in the 4th, which didn't work out (yet, if ever).  He over drafted Hack in the 2nd, which hasn't worked out (yet).  And any positive he got from his lucky signing of Fitz for 2015 he lost with his massive flub of the resigning for 2016.  If we throw McCown out there this year, and then Hack, and both look bad/unproductive, it's no sure thing that Macc gets a 2018 draft to worry about.

An argument can be made that drafting a QB now, and then playing that QB later in the season (if he plays well-ish) is a far better job-keeping defense than watching Hack and McCown and Petty be ineffective all year long.

Quote

If I had 1 kick at the can, I wouldnt spend it on Trubisky or Kizer. Probably not Watson either. He's in year 3 of his regime and QB is arguably worst shape than when he got here. Better believe he's doing more than adopting "just gotta swing" battleplan.

Well, we'll find out what he's thinking on Draft Day.  He might just surprise you (and me as well tbqh) and draft a QB after all.

I'm far less concerned with which QB he selects, he's the supposed expect (Hack nonwithstanding) and he certainly knows college QB's better than I do.  

I only care we have another prrospect in the pipeline for the seemingly inevitable 2018 camp where Petty has been let loose, Hack is a continues bust-to-be, and McCown is off to his 49th team.  

Quote

This is the part where you usually exit the conversation

One day you'll get that this silly style sh*t talking just makes you look like a tiny little guy puffing up his chest real big and trying to look more impressive than he is.  

Perhaps we could simply have our exchange without that stuff, eh?

[HighPitch]

Hmmm quite a lil war brewing.

please continue gentleman

[sourceworx]

2 hours ago, Paradis said:

This is the part where you usually exit the conversation

You know, I don't get why you need to resort to this. Even though I don't always agree with you, I always felt you were a solid poster (both here and on JI back in the day).

But this type of sh*t doesn't make you look smart or knowledgeable. It just makes you look like an a$$hole.

[Paradis]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Your claim that one way means his job, the other doesn't, is your personal speculation only.  It carries no weight beyond the opinion that it is.  And as stated, I clearly disagree it's as black and white as you seem to think.

And your entire argument seems based on the idea that we'll get quality next year.  Which is clearly no sure thing.  Beyond that, bad teams need to look at both quality and quantity given how many QB's do not pan out despite every belief that they

Macc has so far made very few defenadable QB decisions.  He retained Geno, which didn't work out.  He drafted Petty in the 4th, which didn't work out (yet, if ever).  He over drafted Hack in the 2nd, which hasn't worked out (yet).  And any positive he got from his lucky signing of Fitz for 2015 he lost with his massive flub of the resigning for 2016.  If we throw McCown out there this year, and then Hack, and both look bad/unproductive, it's no sure thing that Macc gets a 2018 draft to worry about.

 

Our problem has never been a discordance in assessing the situation. Both us see the same issues, the same trail of dead. Clearly there's a division in solution based thinking however.

"And your entire argument seems based on the idea that we'll get quality next year."

I feel like you don't listen.

You periodically present like the guy in the room who you're talking to - but you know he's just thinking about what he's gonna say next. It's a mixture of selective hearing and a dash of self-righteous bombasity. It tends to be correlated to individuals not knowing the prospects (intimately) but knowing what they want to see happen as far as strategy. It would also behove you to work a little harder to make others feel heard.

I GET the notion about why selecting a QB could make sense. All you have to do is look at our roster. There is rhyme and reason to drafting one -- at this point only in the 1st though. I think you're inherently wrong about getting another relief pitcher in the pen. It's go for broke on the blue chip. Take another swing at mid level guys is just poor management in our situation. 

The problem is the prospects and situation don't line up. The prospects are mediocre, and the situation with management is volatile. 

"And your entire argument seems based on the idea that we'll get quality next year"

Back to this. Drop it. It took us 4 threads for you to stop handling me as a "Suck for Sam" acolyte, but you're still debasing my position on the issue into some half-baked agenda about next year's propsects. Next year's crop IS better, but i've outline auspiciously on a much larger scale why there's reasons tomorrow is better than today -- or atleast more likely concerning our GM's employment. 

[Paradis]

4 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

You know, I don't get why you need to resort to this. Even though I don't always agree with you, I always felt you were a solid poster (both here and on JI back in the day).

But this type of sh*t doesn't make you look smart or knowledgeable. It just makes you look like an a$$hole.

see above for a more calibrated response -- but essentially your post captures the antithesis... I don't like resorting to that stuff, makes me feel like a jackass... In his case, i meant it literally as much as figuratively. We've been swing dancing this past month, and when we reach the climax, he literally just exits the conversation at the same point.

Im giving his perspective due process and reverberation. He chooses the narrative that fits his argument and then leaves the saloon when i've parried.

[Paddywagon]

The Browns should be considering Trubisky with the #1 pick. Garrett is a very good prospect but he's not the surefire superstar that people are hyping him up to be. His stats look good on paper but last season he racked up 4 sacks alone in one game against a smaller school. He also got pretty badly dominated in the one game I saw against Cam Robinson. Don't think I'm hating on Garrett though. I think that who they should take with the #1 pick but I also don't think he's as good as Bosa was last year.

[bitonti]

5 hours ago, Tinstar said:

 Hack Has that ability, and so does Trubisky and Watson . 

 

1

nothing in that statement is truly a fact. they are all opinions.

From what we've seen from Hackenberg he's absolutely worthless. 

As for the new crop, some scouts like Mahomes better. The draft is all about upside. 

[Tinstar]

8 minutes ago, bitonti said:

nothing in that statement is truly a fact. they are all opinions.

From what we've seen from Hackenberg he's absolutely worthless. 

As for the new crop, some scouts like Mahomes better. The draft is all about upside. 

And that is why folks call it a crapshoot . Football players help teams win championships while athletes get folks fired .Danny Woodhead  signed with the Jets out of a tiny college where he set all kind of records . He outplayed every RB that was on the Jets roster, yet they cut him only to watch him star with the Pats and then the Chargers . We kept players with upside, but cut a football player who proved he could play .

The regime that cut Woodhead would have also cut Robby Anderson .

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Paradis said:

Our problem has never been a discordance in assessing the situation. Both us see the same issues, the same trail of dead. Clearly there's a division in solution based thinking however.

"And your entire argument seems based on the idea that we'll get quality next year."

I feel like you don't listen.

I understand you do not see yourself as a "Suck for Sam" guy.  

What you appear to be ignoring (IMO) is that you simply cannot have it both ways.

1. You argue that Macc will do whats best for Macc, which is not draft a QB now (ok) and......wait.

2. Macc waits.  Till when?  Presuming Hack does not bust out (which I believe we both doubt will happen), Macc will be facing a 2018 season with no legitimate QB prospect on the roster.  He would thus be required to draft one or face being fired on the spot.

So the "wait" option is, logically, a "we must get a QB in 2018 no matter what" option.  There is no circumstance where Macc can wait again in 2018 and say "i'll handle it in 2019" and stay employed.

The TLDR:  If you say wait, you ARE saying "we will draft a QB in 2018, period, end of story".  Unless Hack busts out, of course.

1 hour ago, Paradis said:

I GET the notion about why selecting a QB could make sense. All you have to do is look at our roster. There is rhyme and reason to drafting one -- at this point only in the 1st though. I think you're inherently wrong about getting another relief pitcher in the pen. It's go for broke on the blue chip. Take another swing at mid level guys is just poor management in our situation.

I think a logical argument could be made that Mahomes in the 2nd would be acceptable, given his supposedly Favre-meets-Big Ben like potential and that we do have 2017 to waste (er, invest) in Hack, allowing a clearly-unready Mahomes to sit all or most of 2017 and be ready and available for 2018 (thus lowering the pressure to draft one in 2018).

1 hour ago, Paradis said:

The problem is the prospects and situation don't line up. The prospects are mediocre, and the situation with management is volatile. 

And the problem is a fickle owner may not care.  Or his newly appointed dogsbody (while he's off in London) may not care.

They may say "look, we clearly had nothign at QB, it was obvious, you had "insert guy X" staring you in the face, and passed, and look at him now.

Be assured, if Trubs or Watson or Mahomes or Mr. Notre Dame is available at our spot, and we pass, and they have in any way a good rookie season.....Macc is finished here.

No GM gets to draft a 4thR QB who busts, then draft a 2ndR QB who busts, and then skip a 1st round QB he had sitting in front of him who busts out.

As I say, Macc's job is on the line no matter how he plays it out.

And that's the case no matter how correct you are that this group of prospects is dangerously uncertain as to elite Pro potential.

1 hour ago, Paradis said:

"And your entire argument seems based on the idea that we'll get quality next year"

Back to this. Drop it. It took us 4 threads for you to stop handling me as a "Suck for Sam" acolyte, but you're still debasing my position on the issue into some half-baked agenda about next year's propsects. Next year's crop IS better, but i've outline auspiciously on a much larger scale why there's reasons tomorrow is better than today -- or atleast more likely concerning our GM's employment. 

Covered above.  There is no logical circumstance where Macc passes on a QB in 2017 and is allowed to pass on a QB in round #1 in 2018 as well.  None as i see it.

[bitonti]

11 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

And that is why folks call it a crapshoot . Football players help teams win championships while athletes get folks fired .Danny Woodhead  signed with the Jets out of a tiny college where he set all kind of records . He outplayed every RB that was on the Jets roster, yet they cut him only to watch him star with the Pats and then the Chargers . We kept players with upside, but cut a football player who proved he could play .

The regime that cut Woodhead would have also cut Robby Anderson .

 

finding gems is awesome but that almost never ever happens at the QB position.

Any QB with half a chance to start goes round 1. Heck even Tim Tebow went rd 1. 

That's why I never saw the appeal of 2nd rd "bargains" like Geno, Hack and Clemens.  There is no bumper crop at QB. 

There is no Danny Woodhead or Robby Anderson at the QB spot. I guess Tony Romo or Kurt Warner but it's one in a million. 

[Matt39]

Chances Maccagnan has a post-it on his desk that says Trubisky no matter what....

[T0mShane]

6 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Chances Maccagnan has a post-it on his desk that says Trubisky no matter what....

If it's Woody writing the note, its for Watson. If it's Bowles writing the note, Maccagnan should burn the note. If it's a note Maccagnan wrote himself, he should show it to a therapist and find out why he likes to hurt himself.

[Tinstar]

49 minutes ago, bitonti said:

finding gems is awesome but that almost never ever happens at the QB position.

Any QB with half a chance to start goes round 1. Heck even Tim Tebow went rd 1. 

That's why I never saw the appeal of 2nd rd "bargains" like Geno, Hack and Clemens.  There is no bumper crop at QB. 

There is no Danny Woodhead or Robby Anderson at the QB spot. I guess Tony Romo or Kurt Warner but it's one in a million. 

What round was Derek Carr drafted . Russell Wilson, Dax Prescott, Drew Brees, Cousins,. QBs are developed, not drafted .The Eagles drafted Wentz,the Rams drafted Goff and the Broncos drafted Lynch  all in the 1st round .  Would you consider any of them finished products . Peyton Manning is considered one of the best of all time, and he had a Geno Smith type 1st year as far as interceptions are concern . Matt Ryan was League MVP lasy year but was garbage the prior year. Cam Newton was league MVP in 2015 and utter garbage last year .

The 2 biggest problems in the NFL are the firing of coaches combined with the hiring of coordinators and the lack of player/coach availability as a result of the CBA .

[Matt39]

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

If it's Woody writing the note, its for Watson. If it's Bowles writing the note, Maccagnan should burn the note. If it's a note Maccagnan wrote himself, he should show it to a therapist and find out why he likes to hurt himself.

This is all true. The sad thing here is I'd go with Woody's advice. Watson is a guy we should all get behind. There's nothing to lose there...

[T0mShane]

Just now, Matt39 said:

This is all true. The sad thing here is I'd go with Woody's advice. Watson is a guy we should all get behind. There's nothing to lose there...

I kinda agree. I know he's not ideal as a talent, but I think he'd keep us watching for the next two seasons and wouldn't outright humiliate the fan base.

[T0mShane]

2 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

This is all true. The sad thing here is I'd go with Woody's advice. Watson is a guy we should all get behind. There's nothing to lose there...

Plus, he might be appealing to the next coach when they fire Bowles. 

[Matt39]

Just now, T0mShane said:

Plus, he might be appealing to the next coach when they fire Bowles. 

If he gets brainlocked in the pocket at least he can run. There isnt anyone in the current top 10 mocks that we'd be upset about not drafting. Mayyybe besides Howard.

[T0mShane]

Just now, Matt39 said:

If he gets brainlocked in the pocket at least he can run. There isnt anyone in the current top 10 mocks that we'd be upset about not drafting. Mayyybe besides Howard.

Good point. All I want at six is either sacks or TDs. If they draft the DB at six, it'd really cause me to forget about the Jets until the current regime leaves. And I'm 99% sure they're going DB.

[T0mShane]

Added Bonus with the Watson pick: it might induce Maccagnan to trade Hackenberg, even at a loss.

[joewilly12]

7 hours ago, shuler82 said:

I'd give my left nut to be able to revisit this thread in 9 months after Hackenberg's broken out and we finally have the QB we've all been dreaming about (handing off to Fournette, to boot)

Then again, my left one is the smaller, misshapen one of the two.

Id give both my nuts for a Jets Super Bowl victory and then maybe my sack wouldn't hang so low either. 

Win win!

[joewilly12]

1 minute ago, T0mShane said:

Added Bonus with the Watson pick: it might induce Maccagnan to trade Hackenberg, even at a loss.

Who the hell would trade for an unproven NFL QB COME ON MAN is this the alcohol talking. 

[T0mShane]

3 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Who the hell would trade for an unproven NFL QB COME ON MAN is this the alcohol talking. 

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but there are idiots all over the NFL that the Jets haven't hired yet.

[joewilly12]

4 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but there are idiots all over the NFL that the Jets haven't hired yet.

Ok then lets start entertaining offers for a 9th round pick 

[Paradis]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

I understand you do not see yourself as a "Suck for Sam" guy.  

What you appear to be ignoring (IMO) is that you simply cannot have it both ways.

1. You argue that Macc will do whats best for Macc, which is not draft a QB now (ok) and......wait.

2. Macc waits.  Till when?  Presuming Hack does not bust out (which I believe we both doubt will happen), Macc will be facing a 2018 season with no legitimate QB prospect on the roster.  He would thus be required to draft one or face being fired on the spot.

So the "wait" option is, logically, a "we must get a QB in 2018 no matter what" option.  There is no circumstance where Macc can wait again in 2018 and say "i'll handle it in 2019" and stay employed.

The TLDR:  If you say wait, you ARE saying "we will draft a QB in 2018, period, end of story".  Unless Hack busts out, of course.

I think a logical argument could be made that Mahomes in the 2nd would be acceptable, given his supposedly Favre-meets-Big Ben like potential and that we do have 2017 to waste (er, invest) in Hack, allowing a clearly-unready Mahomes to sit all or most of 2017 and be ready and available for 2018 (thus lowering the pressure to draft one in 2018).

And the problem is a fickle owner may not care.  Or his newly appointed dogsbody (while he's off in London) may not care.

They may say "look, we clearly had nothign at QB, it was obvious, you had "insert guy X" staring you in the face, and passed, and look at him now.

Be assured, if Trubs or Watson or Mahomes or Mr. Notre Dame is available at our spot, and we pass, and they have in any way a good rookie season.....Macc is finished here.

No GM gets to draft a 4thR QB who busts, then draft a 2ndR QB who busts, and then skip a 1st round QB he had sitting in front of him who busts out.

As I say, Macc's job is on the line no matter how he plays it out.

And that's the case no matter how correct you are that this group of prospects is dangerously uncertain as to elite Pro potential.

Covered above.  There is no logical circumstance where Macc passes on a QB in 2017 and is allowed to pass on a QB in round #1 in 2018 as well.  None as i see it.

All this is intellectually relevant if you think one of these QBs have a better than good chance of panning out... which i don't. There was a time when Watson was a thing, then I saw him struggle in ways that raised concern. Legitimate concern. Kizer has failed every test thrown at him since being crowned with NFL-potential, Mahomes is a white buffalo who's shtick has 50/50 chance of translating to the NFL -- and Trubisky is too small a sample size to feel reasonably confident. 

I know you can't wait around for the next bus forever. But if you have as much concern as I do, then my whole "perspective" about forcing the issue takes on a whole new level of merit. I think we can be in a better place next year, than we are this year. It's not about next year being the holy grail as much as this year offers a chalice of malice.

You've also brushed over the posts i made about how drafting (lets say Trubisky) makes for a powder keg of risk for Macc when it comes to handling snaps this year. His job would of course hang on some display of success at QB. This is less of an issue for you and me, but for him, he has to be reeeeeeeaally sure they'll get some positive reps in front of fans if he drafts said QB in the first. He can't leap frog Hack, unless you plan to never play hack. Ever. And if he does leap frog Hack he has to look good when he's on the field. The whole thing is just rife with risk IMO. I just don't see it happening. 

 

[Paradis]

double post

[HighPitch]

Oh it's risky but y not try

[HighPitch]

No qb=no success=no future.

doesnt matter how good you hit on other draft positions

[thadude]

14 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Added Bonus with the Watson pick: it might induce Maccagnan to trade Hackenberg, even at a loss.

We might be able to get a bag of dog feces in exchange for Hackenberg

[Big Blocker]

I haven't said anything on this subject since about a month ago, but nothing in the interim has changed my mind.  Says here if Trubinsky is available at 6, the Jets will take him. 

Macc doesn't want to repeat the error Idzik made when he stood pat with one year's performance from Smith and did not draft Carr.  Looks so far like Hackenberg is even less of a prospect than Smith was.  Not playing him at all last season leads some to say how can you move on when he's not taken a single snap in a regular season game.  It leads me to say they did that because they've already determined he's not going to pan out as the starter. 

They've got Petty and Hack on board to see who might be the backup in 18, so they still need a starter.

[Warfish]

15 hours ago, Paradis said:

All this is intellectually relevant if you think one of these QBs have a better than good chance of panning out... which i don't. There was a time when Watson was a thing, then I saw him struggle in ways that raised concern. Legitimate concern. Kizer has failed every test thrown at him since being crowned with NFL-potential, Mahomes is a white buffalo who's shtick has 50/50 chance of translating to the NFL -- and Trubisky is too small a sample size to feel reasonably confident. 

I know you can't wait around for the next bus forever. But if you have as much concern as I do, then my whole "perspective" about forcing the issue takes on a whole new level of merit. I think we can be in a better place next year, than we are this year. It's not about next year being the holy grail as much as this year offers a chalice of malice.

You've also brushed over the posts i made about how drafting (lets say Trubisky) makes for a powder keg of risk for Macc when it comes to handling snaps this year. His job would of course hang on some display of success at QB. This is less of an issue for you and me, but for him, he has to be reeeeeeeaally sure they'll get some positive reps in front of fans if he drafts said QB in the first. He can't leap frog Hack, unless you plan to never play hack. Ever. And if he does leap frog Hack he has to look good when he's on the field. The whole thing is just rife with risk IMO. I just don't see it happening. 

I believe the risk for Macc exists in either scenario is somewhat equal measure, and is not the deciding factor in any Macc-led QB or no QB in this draft decision.

If we go into 2017 after two years of what look like very poor management of the QB position and two poor and fading draft picks, and we play McCown (at all).  We play Petty and he fails (or gets hurt again).  And/or play Hack and he plays like sh*t.  Macc, in such a circumstance will almost assuredly be fired, specifically for his mishandling of the QB position over three years as GM.  

A GM who swings five times (Geno, Fitz, Petty, Hack, McCown) at the most vital position and fails badly every time does not get retained, especially if the Head Coach is also likely fired.

If he is in fact NOT at risk under the scenario above, then he is no more at risk going down the "draft a QB every year" route and rationalizing it to his owner the same way I've rationalized it to you:  most drafted QB's fail, we must get one as often as reasonably possible till we find one that sticks.  The risk rises somewhat if he goes QB at #6, less if he goes in the 2nd or 3rd or lower....

Personally, I believe you are overly optimistic about Macc's future after a 2017 campaign where we remain amongst the league-worst at QB and with no clear direction or development going forward.  

In such a case, Macc's only salvation is a break-out, top ~20 QB season by Hack.  Anything less....

We'll find out how Macc sees it soon enough.  If he passes, and he most certainly might, he may see the risk as you do, and the prospects as you do, or he may know (as opposed to our speculation) that his job is secure.

[Fantasy Island]

On 4/12/2017 at 1:41 PM, section314 said:

Not even the Jets are dumb enough to take a guy at #6 who will at best be Hack's backup for the next 13 years.

Oh they are dumb enough to pick DL at 6 and it will happen because our FO are morons.

[BurnleyJet]

46 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I believe the risk for Macc exists in either scenario is somewhat equal measure, and is not the deciding factor in any Macc-led QB or no QB in this draft decision.

If we go into 2017 after two years of what look like very poor management of the QB position and two poor and fading draft picks, and we play McCown (at all).  We play Petty and he fails (or gets hurt again).  And/or play Hack and he plays like sh*t.  Macc, in such a circumstance will almost assuredly be fired, specifically for his mishandling of the QB position over three years as GM.  

A GM who swings five times (Geno, Fitz, Petty, Hack, McCown) at the most vital position and fails badly every time does not get retained, especially if the Head Coach is also likely fired.

If he is in fact NOT at risk under the scenario above, then he is no more at risk going down the "draft a QB every year" route and rationalizing it to his owner the same way I've rationalized it to you:  most drafted QB's fail, we must get one as often as reasonably possible till we find one that sticks.  The risk rises somewhat if he goes QB at #6, less if he goes in the 2nd or 3rd or lower....

Personally, I believe you are overly optimistic about Macc's future after a 2017 campaign where we remain amongst the league-worst at QB and with no clear direction or development going forward.  

In such a case, Macc's only salvation is a break-out, top ~20 QB season by Hack.  Anything less....

We'll find out how Macc sees it soon enough.  If he passes, and he most certainly might, he may see the risk as you do, and the prospects as you do, or he may know (as opposed to our speculation) that his job is secure.

Tank, tank, tank!

[thadude]

1 hour ago, Fantasy Island said:

Oh they are dumb enough to pick DL at 6 and it will happen because our FO are morons.

I guarantee we end up with interior DL or a mediocre DB.  We are the jets