Sgt Schultz

I think they are shopping Carr. The problem is that is a loaded statement on my part. The coach is Jon Gruden. He has wanted to trade Carr since day one. If Mariota becomes the starting QB, then he will want to trade Mariota. If Mahomes were to wind up in Las Vegas after Mariota, he would want to trade Mahomes. The man has never met a QB he didn't want to unload.

I think they were a lot more likely to pick a QB when they were in position to pick a guy named Lawrence. Now, I am certainly not convinced they won't do what you are thinking. Their overall roster is in need of a lot of pieces, too, so trading down is certainly an option.

I actually see a lot of similarities in the molds the Panthers and Seahawks were built from. They were better at some positions, we were better at others, neither of us had great OLs, we both relied on mobile QBs and the running game, and they generally had better WRs and DBs. We both lost Super Bowls we should have won. We managed that by not game planning for the opponent or adjusting to anything they did, they outcoached themselves with the win 1-yard away.

RIP coach. As for the Washington Post, they have been a shadow of their former selves for years. Katherine Graham is probably spinning in her grave, and not just about this idiocy.

It would have been hard to lose the Foreskins game. As somebody pointed out in another thread, it was typical Ron Rivera. Big game for them, a lot on the line, we were not exactly an opponent that strikes fear in opposing players, the ability to sew things up and have a week to breath before the playoffs, and they go out and look like the Keystone Kops. Had they played the 1976 Bucs, history would have been made. That game virtually not loseable from the start, and not due to anything we did. In fact, the 76 Bucs would have given us a tough game unless the defense salvaged it. Washington didn't exactly distinguish themselves the following week, either. Our misfortune was not losing to them, but having them or anybody from the NFCE on the schedule in the dying weeks of the season. From what I saw, the only NFCE team that had a pulse at the end might have been the Giants, and it was very weak. We still have so many roster holes that we could be drafting top-10 again next year. Rhule seems to have the team ready to play every week, and the team tends to perform better than the sum of the individual players, but we are not exactly stacked or even solid at most positions. Otherwise, yep. Any trade for a starting QB of any quality is probably going to take the 2022 first, and maybe then some depending on who it is.

I've had that same reaction when people think Cincy will trade out of the #5 spot. They have their young QB, it appears, they got him killed this past year, and Sewell or Slater will be available at #5 (I still think in that order). They may not be available five picks later or lower. Granted, the Bengals are far from a complete team, but a huge piece of their puzzle is likely going to be sitting their for the taking. I'm not convinced the Dolphins will be all that interested in trading #3, either, unless the mother lode is put on the table. They have to feel like they are close, and having the #3 pick is not likely to happen again any time soon unless they are not close. Everything does have a price, but I think the price both of those teams want is going to be extremely steep.

I am sitting here a little in awe of those who think a QB who may be unhappy because he has to run for his life when he takes a snap will certainly want to come to a team that has had to give their starting QBs hazardous duty pay for something like 9 of the last 10 years. Granted, the gentlemen who devised those stellar OLs are gone, but if you are Wilson, well, "what's in your wallet?"

I saw some ranking/mock yesterday that had the Bengals picking Slater over Sewell, the "big four" QBs being gobbled up before we draft, and Sewell sitting there for us at #8 and being picked. I don't think it is as incredibly unlikely as some have posted, but I do think it is unlikely. But, with 7 teams ahead of us, if 4 take QBs that only leaves 3 other picks. I realize some here think the big four, Jones, Sewell, Slater, Surtain, Darrisaw, Farley, Pitts, and Parsons will all be gone by the time the #8 pick comes around, but something tells me that is not likely to happen.

I don't know. When was the NBA rigging game 6's to ensure game 7's, 2002? It is a lot harder today for someone outside to buy an outcome. You are right, you'd have to put a lot of money on the table to get a professional athlete's attention. I am not questioning the integrity of the officials, either. While NFL officials are not full-time, they are well paid and worked hard to get where they are. Even those officials in any sport who are notoriously bad and have bad attitudes are not biased about it. But, if the league tells you they want unnecessary roughness penalties or else, what are they going to do? In the NBA's case, they wanted game 7's and they apparently had at least one referee that was willing to toe the party line. They did not get called on that until they had another referee facing gambling charges (not on NBA games, to my knowledge), and he was aware of it.

Officials in all sports at major levels receive "areas of emphasis" or "rules clarifications" from their league/conference. Their official purpose is to clarify gray areas in the rules or spell out how to handle situations that happened on the field/ice recently (and, in the case of a bench clearing brawl, prevent the causal factors from escalating). That is what they were meant for. They have been used for all sorts of things. MLB has used it over the years to do things like redefine the strike zone without changing the rule that defines the strike zone. If there is grief, the umpires take it, not the league. The league keeps its hands clean and nobody is any wiser about their motivations. The players and coaches will figure it out about the second or third different crew they see having changed their tendencies. Teams scout officials just like they do opponents. They have data on which officials tend to call which penalties/fouls or be more lax in the enforcement of others. In baseball, the pitcher knows full well what the plate umpire's tendencies regarding the strike zone are before he goes out to pitch. That has been going on for years. What such an "area of emphasis" does is alter those tendencies. If I had to guess what we saw yesterday, because of the consistency of the three defensive backfield officials in the strictness of their view of defensive holding (which is not supported by their previous games), it was that the league issued an "area of emphasis." The league would, if they are ever called on it, say they were simply advising the officials about something they wanted heightened awareness of, and they never expected it to be a major factor in the outcome. The league official's nose to grow as he trots that out to see if it flies. Are they ensuring that one team wins the game? Nope, they could still lose. But they are giving them an edge. In this case, an edge that could only be reasonably be expected to go one direction.

Spotrac and OTC are both speculating (I like that word for this) between $14.7M and and $15.5M. I have no idea if those numbers were revisited with the latest salary cap information.

I said this elsewhere, but it is worth saying again. Under Goodell, the NFL has moved away from sports and into sports entertainment.

Doesn't sound stupid at all. Sure, we want to move on from everybody but Moton. But, in the name of some continuity we can't do that in one year. Paradis may or may not be okay at C next season, but he is familiar with both our blocking schemes and Moton. I agree with you, having one side of the line or the entire middle being either rookies is a recipe for exploitation!

I'm not a conspiracy theorist on game outcomes, but I turned the game off just before halftime and told my wife the league had pretty clearly issued the three defensive backfield officials a "point of emphasis." Sadly, at least for me, it overshadows what looked like a well-devised and executed defensive game plan on the Bucs part. I am back to where I was in 2017 with the NFL after that game: if the Panthers are on here, I'll watch it. The rest is noise that I can see the ashes of by checking the standings on Monday or Tuesday. Under Goodell's leadership, the league has steadily slid downhill from sport to "sports entertainment." Probably the only reason I watched more non-Panther games this year was the fact the NHL did not start until January.

I think they are both deeply flawed QBs who have major character issues and show no leadership on or off the field. My advice for anybody in the top, say, 7 picks would be they need to take a hard pass on them and not give it a second thought. That is my honest assessment, if the Jets, Dolphins, Falcons, Bengals, Eagles, or Lions staffs happen to be reading this forum. No charge for this advice, BTW.

If you are looking for a stat that defines poor contract/cap decisions, this is it. There is some bad luck sprinkled in (premature retirements), but overall, this is the benchmark. We opted to eat some dead cap this past year, so the number is a little inflated compare to our norm, but the face that we had to eat it sooner or later speaks poorly of our former GM. We'll be eating some this year, too, as has been pointed out. Essentially, it is the equivalent of over a forth of your income going out the door on credit card payments for stuff you overpaid for and do not own anymore. Now, we need to have some major work done on the car, and can't really afford it.

One thing Curtis had that Ginn lacked were these things called hands. It was frustrating that the guy could run past DBs to get open, have the ball hit him right where his hands would be (if he had them), and bounce away and fall harmlessly to the ground. I liked Ginn, and it was not like defenses could just let him run free because he would catch one often enough to make it worthwhile to have somebody run with him, but I held my breath every time a pass headed his way.

I just don't see it. The upside on Wentz is when he is good, he is very good. He could lead a team to a Super Bowl. But when he is bad, he doesn't deserve to be on the field. He could lead the same team to a top 10 draft choice, as well. I've seen him mentioned most realistically with the Colts, Broncos, and even the Pats. But they seem to be mentioned with any veteran QB who becomes available. As comparing him to Stafford, until this year, it would be hard to say the trains they were each engineering had the same horsepower. The Eagles roster has been consistently better than Detroit's. If I had to take one of them, I'd take Stafford. While his upside is probably not as high, his downside has not been as low, and his norm is slightly higher, IMO, and he has been more consistently near that norm. I'm not even sure we have ever seen Wentz's "norm."

I think you know I have similar feelings about putting Winston, or any gunslinger-type QB, in Arians' offense. It was some sort of lab experiment that was destined to fail. Take a QB who has a problem throwing interceptions, and put him in an offense that will maximize his chances to.......throw interceptions. What could possibly go wrong? I don't think as highly of Favre as most. I saw him throw away too big games. I don't mean just making a bad throw. In fact, the throw was not the problem. The throw went pretty much where he wanted it to go. The decision to make that throw was the problem. In some cases, I have no idea what he was thinking to this day. That was never going to be coached out of Favre. It was who he was. It is not inherent in gunslingers, though. Kelly didn't make me scratch my head like that. He may have tried to wedge a ball into a space that it was not going to fit, but that is the nature of the beast. At least you could see what he was trying to do, even if it was ill-adivised. Where Jameis falls in this line is in front of the jury.

My memory of what all shenanigans the 49ers pulled in the 90s is vague (well, my memory on a lot of things is vague), but that would be the only run that could compare with the Saints. Both had similar results: they did win a title, but they also had several other opportunities that they could not cash in on. The 49ers at least had the Cowboys and Packers to contend with. The Saints really did not have hills that high to get over, with the possible exception of a couple of years of Seahawks and 49ers, but they really only had one playoff game against either of them during their heydays (Seattle following the 2013 season). Maybe it's me, but one championship in a string of winning seasons followed by swings and misses in the playoffs does not seem worth the eventual cratering that follows.

Me too, because I have seen everything from $176M to flat with this past year. For NOLA, it is the difference between a bright red, boldfaced number land a bright red, boldfaced, flashing number. Teams have played salary cap Russian roulette before. Eventually, they all found the chamber with the bullet. The 49ers did so in the 90s, almost like they expected the cap to go away. It didn't, and everybody heard the bang.

If that happens, they have 8 x 10 glossies on somebody. I really have no idea what they were thinking when they inked Hill, but I guess the good news for them is it only runs one more year. It was like the consulted our former GM during the negotiations.

Let's correct something here, David Newton is a lot of things, but reporter is not a title I would use.

The only thing I can think of is in whatever chatter they had with him, he said something about wanting to land somewhere that he would have the chance to start. Payton said everything but that, but he was walking a fine line. He may also have been trying to kiss Jameis' posterior, since they are so deep in cap hell they might have to pay him in postage stamps. Given the QB market this year and the squeeze they are in, kissing up is worth a shot. What I did not hear him say is that "Taysom Hill looks like our starter." And since he gave no appearance of extreme intoxication, I didn't expect to hear that.

The Boston-area sports sites and Pats sites have speculated for a while that Garoppolo may be of interest to the Patriots. Hoodie liked him enough that he wanted to transition from Brady to him until Kraft got involved and the trade to the 49ers happened. Apparently McDaniels likes him, too. But, there is a decent gap between liking him and trading for him. For us, I don't really see the point. His contract is similar to TB's in terms of what it costs and its length. Garoppolo's was more front-loaded in terms of a roster bonus instead of a signing bonus, so that is not a factor. They are roughly the same age. The plan all along was to ride with TB for at least two, maybe three years, preferably with the heir apparent learning in the last year. Unless they are so unhappy with TB, all you are doing is changing the name on the back of the jersey of the guy who fills that role. I think Garoppolo has a bigger potential upside, but if he can't stay on the field, that and $2 will buy me a cup of coffee tomorrow morning.