AU-panther

When we first signed TB i really thought it was a coaching decision. Felt like a we can win now move, coaches tend to have that kind of ego, also the fact Brady had worked with him. Since though, I really think it was mostly Hurney, and the reason is how quickly Rhule sent Teddy packing. Usually if a coach is for a major decision like that he might try to make it work to make him self look good. This is almost more of a "told you it was a bad decision by Hurney" type of move." You see it all the time with new GMs and coaches they are quick to throw the other guys under the bus so to speak.

Of course they told the world it wouldn't preclude them from taking a QB. Increases their chance of trading down or someone trading up ahead of them to take a QB and increasing the number of non-QBs to be available to them at 8, specifically Sewell. In regards to Fields I don't think we passed on the basis of embarrassment, more so just the simple fact that we had already invested assets into addressing the QB position with Darnold. LOL, its not about me being important, its their job. They get told bist of information and then they pass that information on to the public, here again that is their job. Doesn't mean they are always getting the correct information, doesn't mean they are getting the complete information. There is nothing wrong with fans trying to fill in the blanks.

I agree. Whether you agree with Darnold or not the fact they cut bait with TB so quick and traded assets for Darnold does mean he places huge value in having a franchise QB. The team was so focused on making sure they made a change at QB they traded for Darnold because they new at 8 there was a very good chance no QB would be there. Same with not trading up for Herbert, we spent a good amount of cap to get TB. Not doing something well isn't the same as not doing anything at all. The team has tried to find a QB, just didn't' work the first time. We will find out about the second one here soon.

People have to remember that any decision at LT will have a ripple affect at other spots. If Erving can play LT decent you might end up with: Erving(LT), Moton (RT), Brady (LG) but if they decide they need Moton on LT maybe Brady ends us at RT and you end up with: Moton (LT), Brady (RT), Elflein (LG)

You don't spend that much just on a Bridge QB. You spend that much because you think he has a chance to be the guy, with that being said if he doesn't work out you draft a guy then cut Teddy after his second year and at that point you could consider him a bridge QB. The fact is thought, for what we paid somebody thought he had a legitimate chance of being the guy. Might have been Hurny, Might have been Rhule, might have been Brady. At this point I think it was Hurny's attempt to save his job.

Exactly, my point was at 3 we might have took an entirely different approach to addressing the QB situation. Us passing on Fields on draft night doesn’t mean we didn’t like Fields, it means we had all ready invested in Darnold. We couldn’t go into the draft hoping any of the top 3 QBs fell to us. We had already burned bridges with TB, another team could have traded for Darnold, we could have been left with Grier. it’s very possible that once Fields fell, there were some in the organization that regretted trading for Darnold, hindsight is always 20/20, but they won’t ever admit that after the fact.

And what exactly did I say that was wrong? Or not possible? You take your tweets and you apply that logic about one scenario and apply that logic over all other scenarios that is doesn’t even apply to. What if the asking price to move to 3 would have been agreeable? Do you honestly believe we would have still traded for Darnold? I can’t say for 100% we would have, and you can’t either but you won’t admit that. You will just keep repeating the same “sources” narrative that you do, even though those sources haven’t really even talked about that scenario.

They are the ones that are often fed information that the team wants you to hear .

He might be, but you have to remember the coaches are looking for the combination that makes best entire line, not just LT.

Some teams have a back up swing tackle. Could Moton end up being the swing tackle as a starter? For example, if everyone’s healthy could Cam play on the left and Moton on the right? Then If Cam was hurt Moton would switch to the left and Brady would go right?

Actually I don't remember many people saying we would. A lot of people said we should, but not that we would. Two totally different things but you never seemed to be able to separate the two because you kept pushing your own narrative.

a lot, as in logic? this is pointless

I was speculating on a different outcome based on a different draft position, your informed sources really were not commenting on that. Not to mention how often you do have to be wrong after taking your select "informed" sources so literly before you start applying some simple logic? buy hey, you be you

At that point Darnold was already invested in. Big board at 8 with Darnold on the team would probably look different that big board at 3 without Darnold on the team.

Maybe we liked 2 QBs, maybe we liked 3, once we beat WFT and ended up with the 8th pick it didn't matter. There was no way you could go into the draft hoping one of your top 2 or 3 fell to you. Nobody with half a brain expected QB3 to make it to 8. At that point we started to look at QBs already in the league. First Stafford and then Darnold. Once we invested in Darnold then realistic QBs were pretty much out of consideration on draft night. Unless you are Rhule or Fitterer there is really no way to say definitively what would have happened if we would have ended up with pick 3. Trying to say that Fields would have in no way been considered based on second hand tweets is ludicrous.

Who the Jets were claiming to take is irrelevant, any QB needy team had to operate on the assumption they were going to take a QB.

Everyone knew Jets were taking a QB at 2.

why did we ask about 3? most likely answer is to get a QB. making a second jump to 2 is highly unlikely and moving that far up for a non QB is also unlikely.

yes I'm seriously asking this. We passed on Fields because we had already invested in Darnold. If we had pick 3 to start with we might not have invested in Darnold because at pick 3 we are guaranteed one of the top 3 QBs, at pick 8 we aren't. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. It wasn't a Fields vs Darnold decision on draft night. The decision was made before than. They real decision was do you spend a lot to draft capital to move up to 3 to guarantee a top-3 QB or spend less draft capital to guarantee Darnold. QB3 for 3 1st round picks to trade to pick 3 or Darnold for a 2nd, 4th, and 6th. Answer this, why did we acquire about pick 3? Its very possible, and actually likely that it was for a QB. I'm not saying without a doubt they liked QB3 more than Darnold, I'm just saying its not as simple as Darnold vs Fields, you have to look at acquisition cost. All things equal they might have prefered Fields but not all things were equal. So a simple statement such as they liked Darnold more that Fields isn't necessarily true. Which means if we would have had pick 3 there is a chance we could have not traded for Darnold.

impossible to say that

Everything that happened behind the scenes happened on the decision that we didn't want to spend the resources to move to 3. If we had pick #3 from the start the behind the scenes would have been totally different. Our decisions behind the scenes was based off of having pick 8. Here again, if we would have had pick 3 to start with, do you still think we would have traded for Darnold?

That might not be true. There were reports that we called about moving to #3. That would mean we might have been interested in three QBs. Problem was the cost was two high. The decision isn't' as easy as Darnold vs Fields, they might have actually like Fields just as much. The real decision was the cost of trading up to 3 for QB3 vs the cost of trading for Darnold. Once the draft happened they had already invested in Darnold. The problem is they couldn't go into the draft guaranteeing themselves that QB3 or even QB4 would be there at pick 8. You have to remember that we had already burned the bridges with TB, we couldn't go in the draft hoping a QB that liked fell to us. Think about this way, what if we would have lost one more game and had pick #3, do you still think we trade for Darnold? I don't, but none of us will really ever know.

Spend resources to help QB1 be better or spend resources to help the rare scenario where QB1 gets hurt. Argument can be made both ways. What would have helped more in the Super Bowl, having Derek Anderson on the bench or spending an extra $2m on the O-line? Everything is a risk-reward analysis.

an inaccurate QB

Here again, I think our line was closer to middle of the pack than most people want to admit. Almost every fanbase thinks they have the absolute worse OL, when in reality there are a lot of bad ones. Also if he needs a top-5 OL to be successful that actually tells me he isn't a franchise QB.