mav1234

Nobody said backup was his ceiling. We said backup is a success for a 3rd round QB. Ceiling for any rookie is usually very high. But the floor is very low. He wasn't groomed as a starter last year and he won't be next year. He'll get a shot in camp, but hell, teams use back to back first rounders on QBs in rare circumstances, they won't blink at using another draft pick after a 3rd rounder. Not to say we didn't believe he had (has) potential - but this is gonna be a new regime or a coach that can't go into the season with this QB room...

You legit said "Wilks doesn't know anything about NFL offenses," then admitted right after he did have an understanding of them when it was pointed out how dumb that is. Of course he's letting his coordinators coordinate. Are you saying he doesn't know anything about NFL defenses, either? . Saying HCs need good coordinators is not the same as saying an HC needs a coordinator because they "know nothing about" the offensive/defensive side of the ball. See, the Huddle is a place you can't just interpret everything ridiculous as hyperbole. You can admit you were exaggerating for effect, it's ok.

I have no doubt McAdoo has more fine scale knowledge of an NFL offense than Wilks, but that isn't what you said. Regarding comparisons with Rhule, I don't think it's fair to put Rhule and Wilks in the same category of knowledge on the offense... If nothing else than having been around the NFL for longer I suspect Wilks picked up more... But I also think good defense coaches do need to know the offense well... They have to scheme against them after all. It doesn't mean he can come up with great new schemes on his own, or has the same knowledge as an OC that's been in the league since probably before half our posters were born etc but this is again not what you said...

Its very hard to call a 3rd round QB a bust if they aren't a starter - as you say, if he makes it to a backup that's a successful 3rd round pick... And he'll definitely have an opportunity to do that and more... I think he will definitely get 2nd team reps and any smart coach will give him a chance to show he deserves more, but not rely on him ofc. If he performs well there and in the preseason for what time he's had, one never knows, and definitely we would keep him around (giving him more opportunities). I mean look at the namesake of this thread - opportunity comes in unexpected times.

Do we know this for sure ? Not saying he'd ever run an offense himself, but he's a smart dude and has been around the NFL for some time...

If he finishes with a convincingly winning record with this crew of QBs even if we miss the playoffs, I think he at least gets a real chance in an interview. I think it's likely we have one loss down the stretch and miss the playoffs but he gets brought back on a 2 year deal. My huge concern with Wilks is and will be the offense - but, I am very impressed with him as a coach so far. I just really wanted an offensive minded coach last time and I still do.

The fact they don't say he's a bust. He could still end up a backup for sure or, long shot starter, based on that quote... Corral has a VERY hard road to climb to be starter but it'll be possible for him to at least make #2 if not more if he's half as good as some of our posters believe. I can't judge since he has the tools but hasn't shown he can use them effectively yet in the NFL (and yes I understand why). Corral is a later round QB, that's hard even without injuries or shitty coaches or coaching changes...

A great o line is definitely rare and it's pretty awesome pff even considers us 11th, just surprised by the stat snippet - I wouldn't really have expected so few pressures, but as stbugs said we don't exactly have many pass attempts. but sacks given up aren't all on the OL. All our QBs have def given some up at times.

So we're #11 despite allowing the fewest pressures, and with our run game performing how it is? Wild.

Depending on where the win probability is sourced from, it may only include the first few minutes of the Bengals game, as our win probability tanked to less than 20% after the first drive, which would make the vast majority of that game be excluded.

The figure seems to suggest it is when a game is between win probability of 20 and 80% for either team. (in this case, not in general usage obviously)

One major problem - "problem" - Sam routinely trusted receivers to make plays when he could have with his legs. I actually think a few of those plays were on the receiver for not making, but at the goal line he really shoulda taken off and he had a couple first downs he could have had if he didn't throw on the run. But the long pass down the sideline to Sullivan should have been a reception, but alas, our TEs... Anyway, Wilks is clearly a legit NFL coach. Whether or not he is the best option long term, I'm much less sold on.

I really thought it was intercepted and TMJ was rolling on the ground hurt live on the play... Absolutely phenomenal effort by the young WR to make that catch.

Josh Norman had at least one year where he was more than adequate in that regard, I think... But we will have Jaycee for much longer...

Really a great day for him. He's just so good. Only a single low effort play at the end of the game, but he gave it his all the rest of the day, and deserved that sideline pick that ended up "just" a breakup...

He definitely is. He's exciting out of the backfield. Really fun to watch, and teams need to account for him because it takes more than one guy to take him down.

Oh he's much better than Rhule. If he keeps winning, then yes, he's HC next year. He's got these guys playing hard. But I'm not ready to offer him a contract until we see the rest of the season is all.

Plenty of games left in the season. He's what, .500?

we're now arguing how many are/ours and the's are in a press conference of a coach that just won a game, lol.

The players have no control over the HC changes. That is what he means by an "it". Did you actually listen to the interview, or just the sound bite?

Lol there is definitely a "the organization" in there. Its either "our the organization" or "are the organization" The entire first set of questions was about how the team overcame what was swirling around the team outside the players on the roster and overcame it. He's talking about the "its" being out there all the time to distract them. And he later clarified what he meant.

He clarified, it isn't backpedaling. His first like minute was all about the distractions players have to deal with and how they have to focus. I don't know what to tell you, we just disagree. So give me the examples of this team trying to tank? He didn't have any because he said they weren't, but you apparently know they did, so I'd like to hear your rationale.

We won't. He very clearly said afterwards he meant things around the team, not from inside. There's no way you can look at this team and think it's tanking. What decisions were made to do so? Trading away our best offensive player? Ok, but he may have lowkey requested a trade (esp given where he ended up), and we had good backs behind him. Refusing the Burns trade is 100% strong evidence we weren't trying to tank, as was firing Rhule.

He clarified later he was talking about things said outside too

Uh he definitely does. He starts the q&a talking about things outside their play that is distracting and when a reporter asks what he meant by tanking directly he says he meant things being said outside the organization His whole thing is this is big for the players because they ignored the noise and performed as he felt they could