MasterAwesome

Yeah most everyone on these boards. I wish we could stick to merit-based evaluations rather than "Rhule's nepo-baby"..."Rhule's wife's favorite player"..."New York Jets reject" (Luvu)...etc. It must suck to have your reputation be stained by something that you had no control over.

The news flash down at the bottom about us putting Christian McCaffrey on IR is pretty poetic lol. Definitely a much brighter outlook this year.

I agree with your position: I wasn't speaking on my personal philosophy, I was saying it's too early to say that the league is devaluing running backs. Value is tied not only to contract extensions, but to draft investments and teams taking running backs at 8th and 12th overall just a month ago is quite the costly investment. On the money side, three teams may very well be getting ready to sign their running backs to big deals at the end of their rookie contracts: Giants (Barkley), Pollard (Cowboys), and Jacobs (Raiders). Oftentimes the franchise tag is a prerequisite to a contract extension, but we'll have to see how it plays out in these cases.

I don't know if we can quite say that, considering one just got drafted 8th overall. Plus 3 vets being franchise tagged instead of let go (Barkley, Jacobs, and Pollard), which ain't cheap.

It's understandable when it comes to Pro Bowl voting. But the AP All-Pro voting is supposed to be above all that bad team/small market noise.

Bryce legit seems like he eats, sleeps, and breathes football...like everything he does is in pursuit of being the best. I get the size concerns, but there was legit an entire goofy thread about someone saying "Bryce Young doesn't have that dog in him" or w/e which just sounds silly considering how hard he works.

Not a single vote is inexcusable. The Pro Bowl is supposed to be the "popularity contest" compared to the All-Pro selections which are supposed to be more reputable and merit-based and exempt from factors like market size. So this is pretty disappointing...but hey the silver lining is that pragmatically speaking, these things can theoretically help keep his price tag lower for an extension lol.

I generally see a lot of players in a "prove it" position as a positive. These are gonna be guys with a chip on their shoulder who have extra motivation to produce as their future prospects are dwindling. That's why you see a fair amount of players who overachieve during contract years.

You realize that in the scenario you’re alluding to where Dalton is playing this year, he’ll be playing with the starters…right? Whether we’re talking about him being the Week 1 starter, or coming in if Bryce gets injured, he would be playing with the starting receivers in the regular season. So your point that he needs to be prepared and build chemistry with the new FA receivers, you’re talking about the 1st team offense…in which case you’re advocating for him to take snaps away from Bryce, not from Corral who is playing with the 2nd and 3rd team offenses. And I could’ve sworn just a second ago you were against taking snaps away from Bryce. “Every snap that goes to Corral is a snap of preparation Young will not have”. Just because you’re giving them to Dalton instead of Corral, you’re still taking “snaps of preparation” away from Young in preparing Dalton. Even all that aside: if you want to argue there’s like a 5% chance that Corral will amount to anything on this team…I’ll argue that there’s a 3% chance we look back regrettably at the conclusion of the season like “Dammit, if only we gave Andy Dalton more snaps in training camp!!!”. Also last thing: if you don’t want us wasting any snaps on Corral in training camp, then I’m guessing you’re in favor of outright cutting him right (otherwise why waste a roster spot on him)? And you want us to carry exactly two QBs on this 90 man roster? Is there a single other team in the league doing that? You want Bryce and Dalton to split the entire preseason between the two of them? You’re acting like you are the one with the common sense position here and the rest of us are crazy for wanting to give our 3rd string QB snaps in training camp, when your position is the one that defies all league norms.

I don't even think it's a subtle, indirect thing that Bryce just instinctually emulated. My guess is that his dad explicitly coaches him on these things: "hey son, up at the podium you should do X, Y, and Z to project confidence and professionalism". As has been mentioned, his dad is a councilor and a consultant...it is literally his job to instruct others on how to carry themselves. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't apply that expertise to his own son as well. Bryce and his family dynamic strike me as a well-oiled machine of a unit who has meticulously crafted and refined him into what he is today...going back years and years. Him taking the S2 since high school is one example of that. It unfortunately may come across to some as him being somewhat robotic, and can muzzle his personality in the spotlight, but it seems like everything he does and says is very deliberate to a tee.

No QB plays 100% of the snaps in the offseason. That's why there's a 1st team offense, 2nd team offense, 3rd team offense, etc. It's not like we're going to be putting Bryce back there running plays with the 3rd string o-line/receivers who probably aren't even making the roster at the end of the day. Once Bryce officially pulls away from Dalton in the QB1 "competition" and starts taking the dominant share of snaps with the 1st team offense, then it'd be more a case of taking snaps from Dalton and giving a significant portion of those to Corral. Dalton is a 12-year vet, he doesn't need all those back-up snaps.

If you run "superstar" through Google Translate for SpecialJuanese -> English, it means he had at least 2-3 tackles in his XFL career.

What do you think the market rate is for a mediocre starting QB? This ain’t the 1960s. Derek Carr just signed a $150 million, $37.5 million/year contract. He’s at best in the same tier as Cousins, although statistically he has had a far less productive career. Jordan Love has done absolutely nothing so far in 3 seasons and got a $13.5 million contract. Thinking that a $10 million salary would scare people off from trading for a Cousins-level QB is just silly…there’s no need to get defensive. I’d be more put off by whatever assets they were probably asking for in the trade, rather than paying his relatively measly $10 million salary.

Just to clarify for the record...you did kind of create an entire thread around questioning Young's processing speed because of his Time to Throw metric. You also said he has no zip on his passes...he's got an average arm...average speed...average athleticism...so basically all the same criticisms verbatim that you're making fun of this guy for. But carry on...I'm glad you've come around.

He seems to be getting the standard "1st overall pick QB" hype...not sure what you mean. Maybe less because he's not considered a generational slam-dunk type prospect like a Trevor Lawrence/Andrew Luck.

You know you've had a pretty crazy resume with linebackers when you can't even fit Jon Beason into your list.

I guess I'm just confused about your argument. Why do we keep roping the Jags into an argument about tanking again? Because they hired the coach that the tankers fired? Seems irrelevant to the discussion. Or if it is relevant, it'd almost be an argument against tanking because you tanking just inadvertently helped improve another competitor. Now if you want to argue that they tanked for Trevor Lawrence, that'd be different, but I don't recall an egregious tank job that year rather than the Jags just being a genuinely awful team. Also the way you keep framing it as "it worked out" - is your argument that tanking just didn't ultimately harm the Eagles? Or that it actually meaningfully contributed to their success today? I think losing that last game of the season improved their draft position by a few slots, which of course objectively is better. But I think most everyone would agree that their success is primarily attributed to Jalen Hurts (who they already had drafted before the tank), the coaching staff that developed him (they could have replaced the coaching staff without tanking, teams do that every year), and all the key 2022 offseason acquisitions. It's also worth noting that the league doesn't agree with your characterization that the Eagles tanked. They investigated it and they could have penalized the Eagles (including taking draft picks), but they decided against it. So even the most egregious example of "tanking" you can think of in recent years, is by no means an accepted position. It was too close of a call where I don't think it's worth it to improve your draft position by 3 slots for even a 10-20% chance that the league is going to dock you one or more draft picks. I'm sure Goodell and the league are very motivated to crack down on tanking and make an example out of a team. Just because it ultimately "worked out" for the Eagles, doesn't mean it's a success story that should inspire other teams to do the same. Speaking of which - yeah I agree that Indy is a poorly run organization. That being said, I'd generally advocate not emulating the strategies of a poorly run organization.

Yeah every time people referred to Mingo as a “bigger stronger DJ Moore”, I kept thinking…isn’t that essentially just Laviska Shenault?

Well he's getting an invite to the Eagles' camp as well, which is arguably the best/most stacked team in the NFC.

It's funny that the two examples in recent memory of alleged tanking both resulted in the head coach losing his job. And yet fans wonder why teams don't tank more often lol. You're basically expecting the guy in charge to throw his job (and potentially career) away in the interest of a franchise that is going to get rid of him at the end of the year. It's counter-intuitive. Let's see if the Colts "tanking" works out for them. Imagine if Reich is successful here, and Steichen/Richardson are colossal failures in Indianapolis. That'll be a huge cautionary tale for the pro-tanking crowd.

Is there even a correlation between size and concussion risk? On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense that being bigger protects your brain from jostling around inside your skull. The only thing that I could maybe rationalize is that a smaller player might be more likely to be "rag-dolled" and slammed into the ground harder by a bigger opponent. But largely speaking, I would have a tough time buying into a player's size being a concussion risk factor. Cam, Luke, and Michael Oher were all giants (or at least of healthy size) at their respective positions and all experienced multiple serious concussions. It is known that once you suffer your first concussion, you're at a higher risk for future concussions, but other than that it seems like they're entirely random and unpredictable.

Your hyperbole aside, I'm not saying I expect my scenario to happen. I think it's extremely likely that Bryce starts Week 1. I'm just exploring alternative hypotheticals as to why a QB like Bryce would sit Week 1, when he seems extremely pro-ready. The obstacle with most rookie QBs in transitioning to the NFL appears to be the mental stuff. Bryce seems like the type of QB you could give a brand new playbook to on Friday, and he'll be ready to start on Sunday.

Bryce’s football IQ and processing abilities should put him on the fast track to start Day 1. The only thing that I could imagine might make the coaching staff hold off on starting him, is if they’re truly terrified about his frame holding up in the NFL and they want to essentially give him a redshirt season to bulk up. They’ve already said they have a plan for him to put on weight, I’m just not sure the timeline they envision for that.

If you want to be charitable, I think you can make a compelling case that Darnold has been a victim of an awful coaching staff and/or supporting cast every year of his NFL career thus far. But this season (assuming Darnold plays significant snaps) will definitively answer that question one way or another. If Darnold is awful this year, then there are zero excuses left in the book towards any defense of him.