Sgt Schultz

Hire him, I don't even think I can pronounce his name.

Hey, hope is about all we have right now. Unfortunately, this poster most likely sums it up: There is no one answer, but we tried annually chasing FA's to fill the "couple of players" we were away. We never seemed to get the right couple of players, we did spend a lot of money, and then the number in "couple" grew due to injuries, lost FAs, and age. New England has been a fixture in the playoffs most of the last 20 years and won 6 titles in the process. They were not great at drafting and not terribly aggressive with FAs (the occasional Randy Moss aside). Yet, they always seemed to find role players that created greater results than the sum of the parts. It comes down to reading and reacting, and also have a realistic assessment of that the team needs and how far away it is. We may need an entire OL (save for Moton, and maybe BC and/or Brown who we have no real idea about because they were not put into a position to assess), a QB, and a few other random pieces. Too many to go on a spending spree to fill the gaps. I feel like the Three Stooges scene when Moe states they are in trouble. Larry chimes in that it will take brains to get them out of whatever situation they were in. Moe's response rings true....."That's why I said we are in trouble."

What's wrong with Baalke? He's egotistical, a prima dona living off one good turnaround year in San Francisco, power hungry, pretty incompetent, and apparently a known liability league-wide. Other than that, he is perfect for the job.

No problem. 30 years ago they would have stopped the clock and called him out of bounds. When games started lasting 3-1/2 hours without going into overtime, they tightened that up more making this call more and keeping the clock running.

They ruled his forward progress was stopped in the field of play.

It comes down to the 4th quarter. Was anybody thinking that when it was 21-3?

I dunno. But everything we have read indicates that is the final pecking order here. Even assuming the emphasis is strong on consensus decisions among Fitts, Rhule, and whoever else, ultimately somebody has to have the final say. I am yet to read anything that says that final authority is not Rhule, and we were told he had that prior to Fitts coming here. Back when the alternative was Hurney, it was more palatable. Laurel and Hardy were more palatable than Hurney. I guess the answer may be that whether the GM final decision making authority or not, he is paid like he does. If you want to be a GM bad enough......

From everything we've been told (and that is not 100% proof of anything) Rhule is in charge of who is on the roster. I'm not endorsing that structure, nor am I saying it is even a remotely good idea for Rhule or any other coach, especially one with no NFL experience (see Chip Kelly in Philly), but it is what we have consistently read. If that is true, Darnold was his decision. Fitt may have agreed with it, but we'll never know. Maybe Fitt can be criticized for what it cost us in the trade, but even then, we don't know who had the final call. You'd like to think the GM would be able to tell the coach the guy he wants costs too much, but that may not be the case here. At that point, the relationship with Bridgewater was in the toilet and they weren't going to toll with Walker and Grier. As for whose decision it was to pick up the year five option, I have no idea. I'd have to assume from the above that Rhule at least had a major say in it, if not the final word.

The bar is looking pretty low right now.

The way it looks right now, the NFCS could be what the NFCE was in 2020. It sounds like the Bucs are on the verge of a mass exodus. The Saints have a number of problems, along with a coaching situation that may have turned over....or it may be temporary. The Falcons have some fundamental problems, and if you look at their results this year, it showed. Things will change some before September, but right now 8-9 could ring the bell in this division. 7-10 could even do it. I'm not sure who is worst. A lot depends on who jumps off the train in Tampa.

FWIW, an article I read earlier, which was from cbs sports, said those closest to him were expecting him to make an announcement this coming week. The thinking being he respects the game too much to overshadow the games tomorrow or make the announcement during Super Bowl week. Waiting until the dust has settled from the Super Bowl would put the Bucs in a lurch, assuming his decision is to hang them up. Those same people expect he will retire, but nobody has said he has finalized that decision.

You had to mention Slater. It is 11:15am here, and thanks to you I need a drink. If I remember, some of the pre-draft analysis even said he was versatile.

Deonte at center might look like Jabba the Hut over the ball. The other problem, given his size, is how mobile is he when he is not lined up in front of the NT? He has to back up and react, which would be quite a feat for somebody that big. The focus on versatility may play well in mid-level to and smaller college ball. It is a great quality for the backups, especially on the OL, DBs, and LBs. But I would prefer my starters be exceptional or very reliable in their positions. It's funny, though, for all the talk about versatility, we didn't have anybody whose versatility include place kicking. Maybe everybody's leg to body length ratio was too short?

For me, I don't mind taking a "natural" guard and seeing if he can also play center. The blocking schemes for the IOL are extremely similar, especially when the center is lining up in front of a NT. Asking a "natural" tackle to do that is more of a stretch. Not impossible, but more to learn, IMO. Of course, since everybody knows BC's arms aren't long enough to be a tackle.......at least in Rhule's mind.

I agree with SCO96 that the most frustrating thing for me about our coaching staff is not another 5-win season, it is not pretty much all of our second-year players having a "sophomore slump" at the same time (which does concern me), it is the fact that we know almost nothing more about people like BC now than we did when the season started. Now combine those last two frustrations. It became obvious our OL stunk and was not going to gel. At that point, evaluating players like BC to see exactly what we have becomes rather important. Do I expect him to be Art Shell, either out of the chute or in 3 years? No, but if he is a decent LT or can become one, he is better than anything we have had since 2015 when Oher handled that position pretty well. Oher looks like Art Shell compared to what we have seen since. Right now, we have too small of a sample size on BC to know. Nor do we have any indication he was coached to be a LT after his first season, so we don't know if he can become one. This also points out another rabbit hole we have gone down. Everybody gave a standing ovation to the move toward analytics. Data-driven decisions rest on a few assumptions. The first is the data you are looking at tells enough of the picture to see a trend (is it complete or are there other factors that need to be factored in)? The second is are the exceptions to the conclusions are rare enough to not be a major factor (most decent tackles have arms longer than some size, but enough have arms shorter than that making it impossible to know if there is causation)? Third is that the data, which occurred rather naturally (nobody was relying on it or playing to it, it just happened indicating a trend) holds up when people rely on it enough to increase its frequency, especially under circumstances it would not happen naturally (going for 2 more often vs. only in the 4th quarter is an example). Using analytics is in decisions is one thing, relying on them absolutely is another. If BC could fill the LT slot as a medium or long term solution is still not known. As a result, we are still in the market for a LT despite the fact we may have one, ,or not. But we do know BC is versatile! BC is not the only example. Which may be why our 2020 draft class almost entirely had a "sophomore slump."

I've always been a believer that one play does not cost a team a game. You can always look at the game and find a string of "missed opportunities," mistakes, and points left on the field by both teams. Then there are coaching mistakes or being a little to clever and outsmarting themselves. The biggest factor in the tying semi-drive was that KC had all their time outs. That is extremely rare in those types of situations. The odd thing was the Bills acted like they were defending the sidelines on the last two plays leading to the FG when the sidelines didn't matter.

A good old screw-up in communications explains what has been bothering me since it happened. That said, the clock doesn't start until somebody touches it after it has been kicked. The Chiefs were probably told to down it as soon as they touched it, so he would have still had 13 seconds. Now where that would have been is another question. It almost always happens inside the 25, so it would have at least added a few more yards to the equation. But, you never know if whoever gathers it in (assuming it was a Chief) disregards what has been drilled into him and starts running with it, starting the clock. Seems like calling a squib kick and not making sure the kicker got the message is about like calling an end around and not tell the end.

If we are going to be honest with him, the pitch is that we know he is tired of disappointing losses in the playoffs. We have the fix for that.

There are also a lot of first and second round QBs no longer in the league, and not before they aged out. This line of thought is a minefield.

Hey, if you don't have anything to back up your position, you either make it up or you post something completely unrelated. Huddle rules, I think.

Why would this be any different than any other topic? This is the Huddle, remember? Let's not get delusional with our expectations.

Missed opportunities???

You may be right. The list of coordinators who were good to exceptional, but could stunk in the head coaching job is not small. Now add something that is a rarity for us right now: he has actual NFL coaching experience. Now if we can get someone in the OL coach spot with a little bit of that thing called NFL experience, maybe we won't look quite as lost, both on Sundays and when selecting who plays and where on the OL on Sundays.

I've sitting here thinking he is the same guy who could not generate enough offense to give the Falcons flailing defense a breather at any point while they were blowing a 28-3 lead in a Super Bowl. And then, with about 4:00 to go and after a big play that put them on the Pats 22 with a first down, only need 3 to potentially seal the game despite having the 25 lead cut to 8, not being able to put a point on the board, even get a shot at making it a 2-score game, run off any clock, or even cause the Pats to drain their time outs. I think the guy is brilliant, but brilliant coaches often outsmart themselves....especially on offense. And not for nothing, he was 6-10 in his first year in San Fran. His second year they were 4-12. If he did that here, the Huddle would be besides itself wanting him run out of town. If Rhule is reading this....his third year was 13-3 and a Super Bowl berth.

Geez, my best to you both, Scot.