Mr. Scot

No we don't.

Our current braintrust has existed since about January 14th. The roster they're putting together isn't even finished yet, and obviously has yet to see the field. How exactly should we judge them at this point?

Zack, aka Roaring Riot. Mind you, I'm not saying Bridgewater was forced on Rhule and Brady. Obviously, they agreed to have him be their starter. What Zack has said though is that Marty was basically the head cheerleader for bringing Teddy aboard. Why? Well, while Rhule and Brady could be comfortable of keeping their jobs no matter how the season went, Marty needed the team to win now. Having a veteran as the starting quarterback was seen, in his eyes, as giving him a better chance to achieve that goal. Didn't work out, of course. But again, this is one of the reasons why I keep calling this year one of the rebuild instead of year two. Last year, Rhule was stuck working with a GM who was more interested in saving his own ass than building for the future. Now, we've got two guys on the same page.

My dearly beloved Lady Cowboy Fan cheered and applauded

Rhule has final say on the roster but he's not acting like Belichick about it. As part of one of his press conference answers yesterday, he talked about the evaluation process and indicated that Fitterer was pretty much in charge on that side of things.

Our best inside source said it was a Marty move. And I'd add that for whatever other responsibility you want to attribute to them, Rhule and Brady don't set or negotiate contract terms. I won't be too surprised if that changes sometime after the draft.

Multiple sources have said that could happen.

He didn't. This is inside info, not a press release.

You realize we don't have the same front office as last year, right? (apparently not)

That's not a good situation to bring a young quarterback into.

How exactly do you get certification for that?

Not the same situation. Hurney was hired after all the offseason work was already done. Responsibility for this season belongs totally to Fitterer (and Rhule, of course).

I'm honestly not the person to ask why so many teams passed on Fields. I don't know either. It's possible we'll learn they were wrong. It's possible we'll learn they were right. Guess we'll see in a few years. Do think going to Chicago might skew things a little bit.

I think the last quarterback he drafted was Garoppolo.

I think there might be a few other people here who share those feelings

And hey, we got Tommy Stevens too.

No we're not

I think a lot of us might have PTSD from the Marty years

Could go back to Fitterer saying that once you got past the first 15 or 16 picks, the difference wasn't that huge. That, plus the philosophy that more picks equals more chances to find a great player. Both of those are guiding principles in the Seahawks organization.

Fields isn't a freak athlete?

The other day when you were arguing for drafting Fields, you were telling me that what we traded for Darnold wasn't that big a deal and we could afford to lose out on it. Now suddenly it's "mortgaging the future"?

I prefer to look at coach and GM as a combo. I could see framing rules first year is kind of a "redshirt" year because he needed to adjust from college to the pros. Fitterer doesn't have that sort of adjustment to make.

Well there's that, plus the fact that he's not especially bright.

Would it make sense to draft a great zone corner if you're running a man based system? Ditto drafting a 4-3 defensive end when you're running a 3-4 defense. Drafting a guy who can't run your offense wouldn't exactly be a quick path to a head coaching job. Not only are you not going to look good, but neither are they. It's not about promotion though. It's about winning. And when you're trying to win, you pick up players that suit what you do. Doing otherwise would be crazy.

Other trend: Defense