1of10Charnatives

Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please can this be a thing? I wants it. Wants it so bad.

This is where you lost me. I am after all of the Huddle.

Hrm...I wonder what could cause that percentage to jump up? Maybe improved coverage by his secondary, giving more time for those hurries to turn into sacks? I wonder if Burns' team took the first defensive player chosen in the draft and it happened to be a db?

There was once a player in MLB who was traded for himself. He was part of a trade that involved a player to be named later (one of the many aspects of MLB that keeps me from never taking it seriously). He didn't work out with his new team so they shipped him back as the player to be named later. The Denzel Perryman saga with the Panthers reminds me of this.

I like GM's and coaches who don't give a poo about optics. Often it makes them better. Caring what fans think is akin to worrying what the monkey flinging poo at you from inside his cage at the zoo thinks of your fashion choices.

OLB's that make more do so because they are pass rushing LB's in a 3-4. That is not remotely what Chinn is. Chinn will get paid well regardless, but his agent saying something does not make that thing true. He will get paid like a pro bowl caliber safety or perhaps non pass rushing LB, which is what he is, not something he is not because his agent has jedi mind powers.

We only admit begrudgingly that they can probably be trusted to track reps. Err snaps. Snaps and reps. Snapreps.

*shows up with his dog eared copy of Robert's Rules of Order, a bag of Cheetos, a six pack of OMB Copper, a Vuvuzela horn and a sign saying Don't blame me I voted for Cthulu* Who's ready for a meeting? Let's do this.

This is a good start. I'll admit I was not a fan of waiting til the 3rd to take Christiansen and grabbing Marshall in the 2nd because I consider the OL need for this team right now extreme. But if Christiansen turns into a quality tackle and Marshall turns out to be as good as he looks so far, I'll eat crow and admit it was shrewd drafting. That is some crow I would be more than happy to eat.

@NASI like the way you laid out your points. Simple, straightforward, well reasoned. Good post.

Great. Now my head hurts.

This seems fair and about right.

Just looking at the PSL marketplace and can't recall off top of my head which side of the stadium gets the sun in the afternoon.... Somebody help me out. NM just noticed the north symbol on the stadium diagram. Duh.

Who's scruffy looking?

Why is it no one ever does this? Every personal decision in the NFL has an opportunity cost. Every. Single. One.

As long as I have been watching the NFL, I don't ever recall seeing an expected starter play more than one series in the second preseason game. You may not think Darnold is the answer, I know I'm certainly not sold yet myself, but it's not up for debate that he's expected to start. It's not *treatment* so much as SOP. If we had drafted Fields and he were here now in an open QB competition, then both QB's likely would have played a series each and you'd be posting questioning how we're supposed to evaluate them against each other with so little playing time. Keep in mind this team has played two full weeks of practice against two different NFL rosters. The coaches have had ample opportunity to evaluate Darnold against other teams players and he will play his most snaps on Friday. Chill. This is how this always works. Darnold's situation is not meaningfully different. Either he's going to be the answer or he isn't. How much he plays in preseason game number 2 isn't going to move the needle on that. If he flops, then we'll lose most of our games and be in position for a top prospect next draft. I for one do not want some mid level backup riding great skill position players on O and a stout defense to the NFL purgatory that is 8-8.

This is where you lost me. Starting QB's barely play in second preseason games. It is known. Reacting this way screams casual poorly informed fan. You've been around these boards alone long enough to know better. Calm down. Have some dip. *offers him chips and cheese.*

@Zod you might be a bit overly optimistic about our OL rookies. I wouldn't pencil them in as starters just because they've looked good in camp and 2 preseason games. That being said, I hope like hell you're right. We could really really use some good fortune in that positional group. I feel like if the OL gets fixed and Darnold turns out to be even decent, our skill positions make this a dangerous offense. Agree with pretty much everything else.

Agreed. In a similar vein I have nothing against Terrace Marshall, and so far he looks very promising, but I was not a fan of taking a WR in rd 2 when there were plenty of quality tackle prospects on the board. If Christiansen works out, it paid off. If not....

Post of the week.

Gross was the top rated tackle in his draft class and we took him at 8. If you're going to start a rookie tackle, the time to do it is when he's a top ten pick. Also it doesn't hurt if you don't have a franchise qb at that point that it's urgent you protect. 2003 was Jake's first year with us. We had no idea if he was any good and we were going into the season with a journeyman aging qb. The need to protect these folks was not as critical as say protecting a Cam Newton in his prime (which we didn't do) or a Sam Darnold that you're trying to evaluate for the long term. In a perfect world you never start a rookie tackle, but my argument is that the circumstances with Gross in 03 vs now with Christiansen were/are meaningfully more favorable back then.

I agree. Not entirely sure what the team's thought process here is, but it does seem based on what we've seen that they don't intend for BC to start at either tackle position this season if possible. I think it's possible they are working him out on the right side just to find out how much positional flexibility he has, in order to know that going forward. If it turns out he sucks at RT and needs to stay on the left side to be effective, that's something they'd want to know. But I'm only guessing.

Can't answer this as I'm not privy to nor speak for the thought process of team decision makers. Only commenting on why I wouldn't put a rookie LT in as a starter. Just because he *might* be the future LT does not mean he should be the present LT. Given that the coaching staff has already demonstrated a high priority for versatility, they might at this early juncture be working him out at RT to find out how much positional flexibility he has. Just conjecture.

Rookie LT's who played against less than top flight competition in college starting at LT usually = train wreck. LT is just a position where you want to avoid starting a rookie at almost all costs.

Not a one.