Pup McBarky

I remain cautiously optimistic. I don't understand some of the acquisitions, but I'm willing to reserve judgment until I see how the final product looks on the field.

It may happen. Doesn't mean trading for Darnold was the wrong move, however.

Something like that.

I'm not Verge, and I'm not the only one who ranks Darrisaw above Slater. He'll be gone by 15.

FIFY

As others have said, would rather use a 6th round pick on a big, power back for change of pace.

Richard Sherman is a very smart guy. I wouldn't take what he says as gospel, but I certainly put a lot more weight on what he says than a bunch of internet "experts." Whether that fit is right with us or not is still to be determined, but again, I'm cautiously optimistic.

And I assume, though that's all it is, that Ryan takes over for Brady when Brady ultimately leaves. But again, that's a big assumption.

I'm not advocating they take Lance. Never have. My argument is, just because you and Scot and whoever else think it's imperative to take an OT at 8, doesn't mean they will and if they truly believe in Lance and he's available, they are going to pick him. You can call it a mistake now and even on draft night, but only time will tell.

I'm simply saying, you don't pass on a potential franchise QB in round 1 if you are as certain as you can be. If that's the case, they can't pass on him. Again, it's not what I would do. I'd trade the pick and pick up Darrisaw. I think he's a much better OT than Slater.

Sean Ryan would be the one doing the developing. And you're just assuming it would take years. We really don't know. As I said, I wouldn't pick Lance, but if Fitz/Rhule think he's the guy, they have to pick him.

If they turn out to be mistakes, sure. But you're already operating on the assumption they will be.

Brady isn't fixing Darnold. If Darnold gets fixed, it'll be Sean Ryan who fixes him.

Again, as @ForJimmysaid, you can't judge Fitz/Rhule by mistakes of the past. It's a deep class at OT. We could get a solid starter in round 2. Personally, I'd prefer to trade 8 back and pick up an extra pick or two, draft Darrisaw later in the first and pick a stud OG or C along with a CB in the 2nd and 3rd. And yes, I'd pass on Lance. But that's me.

Better chance this year with the depth of this class. Every pick is a gamble. If they think Lance can become Mahomes, then you gotta take him at 8.

Rhule emphasizes the teaching aspect. He sees himself and his staff as teachers first. We've all watched tons of video on Darnold - enough to see the rough aspects and the promise. If there is zero improvement, that would be cause for concern about our staff. I don't think they see Darnold as a franchise guy, necessarily. They may see the potential for that and think they can coach him up enough for him to fulfill that potential. But no, while no improvement would cause me concern, I won't hang my complete evaluation of them on Darnold's progress.

I suppose the next year will tell us a quite a lot about our offensive coaching staff. Yes, I see it.

Don't know how much you know about our roster, but give us your best W/L guess with Darnold leading the charge.* *Assume we draft a couple of stud OL in the first two rounds.

I remain cautiously optimistic. Defense should definitely be better. I'm interested to see what Darnold does in our offense. If we manage to snag a cornerstone LT in the draft, I'll be very encouraged, regardless of whether Darnold is the guy or not.

I dig the reference.

Yep and read the article. You do know that just using statistics to bolster an argument doesn't constitute statistical analysis, right?

What's that bear doing?

"Advanced analytics." LOL.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

FIFY. LOL at "reasoning."