Sgt Schultz

Almost on cue while I write this, if our TE's were more active in the offense, our TD ratio in the red zone would be better.

He had two plays in that series where he opted to throw instead of taking off with it. Both looked like he could have gained yardage, and he might have scored on the last one. You'd like to think if it were 4th and goal from inside the 5, the decision would have been different. But, from what we saw on some things today, maybe not.

To my knowledge, God never threw three interceptions in a game.

Green Bay blew this by playing the "New York Jets style defense" at the end of the first half. What moron plays man coverage in that situation? That cost them 7 points. Compound that with the fumble and then playing another rendition of a New York Jets style defense on the next play in the opening two minutes of the third.. Everybody bit on the play fake and let the lone receiver free. Maybe the Bucs score a TD on that series, anyway, but it might have been nice to make them earn it. 14 points in the span of about 1:30 of clock at the end of the second and start of the third. Who knows what happens if those 14 had been 3....or 0? But you are not going to win many playoff games giving those away.

That was quite Favrian by Brady.

Packers defense is just awful. Between the last play of the first half and everybody selling out on the play fake there, they are acting like they have never played a game together before this.

I just read this: Haskins worked hard but not smart Take it for what it is worth, but if the story about him throwing to the receiver making the pick instead of the receiver getting free because of it is true, I'm not sure what you do with that.

It could be. Snyder is not going to noticeably step in this early in Rivera's tenure. That is not his style. He prefers "the cover of darkness" so he would do something like that rather than tell Ron he's in charge, but not that in charge. The more obvious meddling (and undermining) will come in 2-3 years, which history tells us will make the situation tense and probably unworkable. When that comes to a head, then everybody gets flushed out. The only coach/GM he let alone to run things was Gibbs, and that was because he was a legend that Snyder looked up to. He didn't have much of a chance to do that with Spurrier because he was out the door on his own so quickly. Schottenheimer was only there a year and the cycle played out with him over the span of a couple of weeks, mostly in an effort to sign Spurrier. The closest owner I can compare him to is Bill Bidwill (Cardinals back in the 70s and 80s), except Snyder is not as tight-fisted with the money. Bidwill was good at quietly imposing things that undermined his own people, and the fans would find out about it after the fact. He's not really like Jones in that he doesn't see the team as his toy, nor does he want the celebrity. The thing they do have in common is their respective fans pretty much see them as the primary reason for their teams' problems.

I am lucky enough to be old enough to have seen him hit #715 on TV. One of those moments in sports that you never forget. I agree, Scot, he will always be the home run king in my mind. He was a class act. He exemplified the rare quality of humility. RIP.

Hey, if he can be a TE or DE, maybe he can be a LT, too. Even at 6-5, 250, if he can stay on the field he might be the best LT we have. As for being Seattle East, I'd take it......as long as our OC does not outsmart himself with :26 left in the Super Bowl, down by 4, with 2nd and goal from the opponent 1, and a timeout left. Given our TE situation, why the heck not give him a whirl. How much more ineffective could he be?

This sounds like an organizational cluster f*#k to me, and would be typical of Snyder's organizations. It may not winding up that way, but on the surface it seems almost designed to blur the lines so badly nobody can be held accountable when this doesn't work for the Foreskins, either.

He hit that hanging curve ball well into the upper deck.

It took the Steelers about 40 years. On the other side of the coin, it took the Dolphins only 6. Then there are the Arizona/Phoenix/St. Louis/Chicago Cardinals......

You are venturing into opportunity cost in evaluating these things, and that is verboten here. Everything must be evaluated in a vacuum.......it is written in stone somewhere. I sometimes think Panther fans suffer a variation of Stockholm Syndrome from the prior regime.

Watson is intriguing because of his age (and his ability). He is essentially a first round choice that is proven, so low to no risk. But, I am with you, if we are going to lose the ability for several years to secure starters to fill our other holes (four on the OL, maybe five, a MLB, some secondary help, a TE, and depending on what happens with Samuel, someone to fill that role), you risk becoming what we were under Rivera where our offense was a QB, maybe one receiver of some merit, and an OL that would have trouble protecting an Abrams tank (save for 2015). I like Stafford, and believe he would be held in much higher regard if he had landed somewhere that the city did not throw a parade if they simply made the playoffs. But he has neither the age nor dramatic ability advantage of Watson. He does not fit in with the "younger, better, longer" philosophy. He would just extend the QB envelop a bit before we need "the guy." As ForJimmy said, he is basically a rental whereas Watson is (or better be) the solution. Still, at the right price, he might be in play. Our current QB depth chart should not contain the word "depth." Stafford may give us the flexibility to not draft a QB in with our first pick (especially if 3 or all of the top 4 are gone), or trade down to fill other holes and pick somebody like Jones, who may or may not become a starter but at least makes your depth chart more than one layer deep. It really depends on what Rhule and company think about the "big 4" not named Lawrence, and what they think of the available QBs not in the "big 4."

That's true. It is pretty much cap neutral. In fact, it even helps a little because you have one less likely starter on the roster every year from the first round misfires. I just had an ugly thought. Think of all the money Hurney saved us by missing everything after the first round all those years! He probably saved us the salary of at least a half dozen starters through the years. I need some bourbon in my coffee after that stray thought.

This. Short of Watson winding up in a Panthers jersey on Sundays or a preseason injury, TB is the game 1 starter. I'm not betting on either of those "ifs" happening.

I think that should be in the current tense for Denver, not the past.

I'm with you on spamming picks. People act like drafting a QB yearly in the first round until you get it right has no costs. Who would you have picked in the first if you didn't need to continually draft a QB? While we are busy with that goat rope, the chances of the rest of the roster weakening and gradually aging out increases. Oh, I know. We don't need a good rest of the roster, just an elite QB.

Yessir. I was looking at cap space earlier, and the Colts have plenty of it and the Dolphins have their share. Neither of them would need to eat their own young in order to make this deal. I can't imagine the Texans want to deal him to the Colts, but at some point they may not have a choice. The 49ers would be intriguing, too. If they can find a home for Garoppolo, they are sitting in good shape. These are all teams that could part with high draft choices for the next couple of years and not kill themselves. The teams are in decent shape, and the holes that are left can be addressed in FA.....since they would have the cap space to do so. They can all win in the short-term. I just don't see us in that situation. If this situation came up in a year or two, maybe.

I would not be surprised by that, either. It is just comical to watch people here think we can pawn off our less-than-stellar contracts on the Texans for Watson. "We'll give you our #8 pick and all the players we have under contract that we don't really want for a guy ten other teams may be willing to trade for." Or, as Onmyown pointed out, trade our best talent and our ability to address the holes for the next three years, essentially recreating the situation we had when our offensive philosophy was basically "we have Cam Newton." And then they will complain that our offensive philosophy is "we have Deshaun Watson" and we have not done anything to get him any help. It's like we have people who hated the Hurney-Rivera methodology so much they want to recreate it!

I don't disagree, but as a "potential buyer," if you go in thinking all those factors will magically align in your favor, you will be sadly disappointed.

People also make the mistake of thinking that because he wants out, that will weaken what the Texans get for him. Maybe it would, if there were only one or two teams interested. We are looking at a situation where the demand for Watson is going to be high. At this point, the fact that he is demanding a trade only impacts the fact that upwards of ten teams are talking to the Texans, as opposed to zero because everybody thinks he is untouchable. Even if his no-trade clause cuts half of them off, it only takes three to get the bidding war spiraling out of control. Two, if you have the right (or wrong) GM/owner involved. That, however, is not limited to this site or Carolina fans. Some of the trade ideas I have heard from various sports talk radio shows will make your hair hurt. The worst for that seems to be the New York area, where some good number of fans seem to think that every team in every sport is looking to trade their talent to a New York team.

That is a gem. Not a talent evaluator at all, and not a contract negotiator at all. That does explain some things.

Looking at the NFCE, Richie Kotite as coach and Matt Millen as GM could work.