woahfraze

It’d be really nice if late in the game, they’d pump fake that throw and then hit RB or TE sneaking out the back side. But hell, this team couldn’t even run simple play action late in the game instead of running into brick walls when trying to salt the game away, so probably too much to ask to add some deception into their passing game. On the subject of the coaching staff limiting PJ, I think some of it last night had to do with the rain. It was just harder to throw downfield in that sort of weather with a slick ball. That being said, they do seem to be doing that quite a bit globally, and it’s really hindering us IMO. Yesterday PJ did show the bad—a really bad dropped INT—so I see where the coaches are coming from. But when you put the restrictor plate on, the offense isn’t effective. He can make plays down the field in a normal passing offense. You have to take the good with the bad and hope PJ limits those mistakes to an acceptable level. That also being said, I’m firmly in the camp that PJ ain’t the guy. Good backup? Sure. But we need to draft our franchise guy.

Truth is, we already know none of our QBs are the guy. We simply don’t have a franchise QB. Could any three of them play competently, and perhaps even well, for short stretches? Yes. But those instances are most often when the surrounding situation allows it—i.e. great supporting play from those around them, favorable game script situations, etc. They aren’t good enough to rise above their limitations on a consistent basis or elevate the play of the entire offense. So it doesn’t really matter who we trot out there. Sure, get more film on each of them to see who might be retained as a serviceable backup, even though I don’t need more game tape to know the answer is Mayfield, which is not an endorsement of him but rather an acknowledgment of how bad Walker and Darnold are…just keep him below 70%. But whoever we play, there’s only a low level of competitive we are going to be able to achieve.

Dumb dumb dumb. He's a the type of piece that would have helped attract and then aid int he success of a young offensive minded coach. Utilized properly, as a weapon in the passing game isolated against linebackers and safeties with less emphasis on running, he's well worth his contract. Also, this is going to kill our cap with all the dead money.

All depends on the overall mass and distribution of contaminants in the subsurface and also the characteristics of the subsurface (e.g. depth to groundwater, permeability/hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer, etc.). In many cases, contamination is simply too large in scale and/or there are geologic constraints for implementing remediation techniques to adequately clean up the impacts, at least not in a cost-effective way. In those case, it's better to conduct a risk assessment and determine if property occupants will be adversely affected by the contamination and to mitigate any identified health risks accordingly. That of course also can cost a good bit of money, but is often much cheaper than environmental cleanup. In some cases, you see a combination of the two approaches.

Environmental consultant specializing in Brownfields redevelopment here in the Charlotte area. Contaminated soil is not a barrier to building a stadium at the Pipe and Foundry (or other contaminated property). The environmental issues can be managed; it's simply a matter of cost, as contaminated soils would need to be disposed of to a properly permitted landfill at a higher price per ton than non-impacted soil leaving the site. Contaminated groundwater beneath the site could also require a vapor intrusion mitigation system be installed beneath the occupied portions of the stadium (not the concourses or seating areas that are open air). All these measures are things that can be and are regularly done during construction projects that encounter contaminated environmental media. It just requires more money to properly coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agencies and properly manage the contaminated media.

I’m firmly in the camp of not trading McCaffrey. Obviously the game plan yesterday was too heavily skewed toward passing him the ball on screens because our QB situation prevented us from running a normal passing attack. But you saw what McCaffrey was able to do with all those touches. This type of use (obviously as a lower percentage of offensive plays, with an offense that also throws intermediate and deep to keep the defense honest and guessing) is how McCaffrey should have been used all along. When you look at that sort of offensive role, where McCaffrey is more of a WR that can also line up in the backfield, the contract doesn’t look so bad. And having him as an incredible weapon, perhaps along with a decent, at least functional offensive line, is really the only attractive qualities our offense has for a potential new head coach. I don’t think an extra first or a couple 2nds is going to provide more value for us to having him on the roster. Even if I had more confidence that the front office could select players in the draft that will be studs or major contributors with the picks we’d garner for McCaffrey in a trade, the trade would still really hamper our ability to construct a talented roster because all of the dead money. So when you combine those two factors, I say we hold onto him and try to restock the cupboard by trying to trade other pieces, even if the return won’t be as good.

I don't think they could. This was a makeup game from one that had been rained out earlier in the season after they played 15 minutes. Kickoff last started with 15 minutes having already elapsed. I think they had to put out the same lineups and were unable to use subs if they had already done so in the previous 15 minute period, as we had when Carujo got injured. Dumb that they tried to even play that game, but it is what it is. Ref missed a penalty on Karol late. Would have been a bit light, but he called the game tight for the most part, so should have been a penalty. My thought is that CFC played well enough to win, but didn't deserve to win, if that makes any sense. Sucks to be eliminated from playoff contention, but noone expected to make the playoffs this first season. Glad to see they showed some flashes and improvement over the course of the season.

Not arguing about health--I don't know what Cleveland's situation was last year. But Mage's point is a valid one. Sack rates tend to follow QBs around. Just look at Joe Burrow this year thus far. He was sacked an incredible amount last year. And the Bengals went out and invested big time in upgrading the offensive line, similarly to how we made fixing our's a priority. But Burrow is still getting sacked at a high rate this year. It comes down to his style of play. He hangs onto the ball a long time and when he bails from the pocket, he's hellbent on extending the play for as long as possible to try to find an open man downfield rather than throwing the ball away. It all leads to high sack totals regardless of how good the offensive line is. Russell Wilson is another good example. I'm not going to sit here and say our offensive line is necessarily top 10. But it is vastly improved from last year, despite struggling with consistency. So Baker is to blame for a lot of the dysfunction in the pass game, particularly with sacks.

My takeaways from the offense All-22: Pass protection was better than I expected. Some inconsistency, particularly on Icky's part with getting beat outside, but he was a rookie go against Myles Garrett, so that's I won't be overly critical of his peformance. For all the talk that we gave him help, I don't really feel that is the case. Sure we had a TE or RB lined up on his side a lot when facing Garrett, but I feel like often times, those players didn't actually double team or even throw a chip. Struggles in the passing game were a combination of lack of chemistry between Baker and the WRs (miscommunication with the hot route on the interception), Baker missing his reads and/or scrambling from the pocket when he didn't need to, and the spillover effect of not being able to run the ball effectively against light boxes (see below). Run blocking was terrible. Some of this probably comes down to execution (e.g. interior linemen not getting close enough together on double teams and allowing the defensive linemen to split them and get into the backfield to blow up the play), but I think a lot of it comes down to scheme. The Browns were playing light in the box on a lot of our running plays and I saw a lot of instances where our scheme left guys from the edge completely unblocked and allowed them to slice behind our line and run down our back from the side before we could make any gains. I understand running away from unblocked players, but you've got to set up the runs in such a way that the unblocked player can't make a play. And if that's not working, then trust your guys up front to win their matchup and use your numbers advantage to block the edge guy instead of double teaming. As for the defense, I don't know for sure if it's more scheme or more personnel, but I feel like scheme has more to do with it than execution on the players' parts. I've linked two Brett Kollmann videos from last year. The first was created after Week 3 last year and broke down why we had been so tough to run against in the first three games. We were able to stop the run by using a lot of 3-4 over fronts where the nose tackle is tilted toward the center and a 4i technique weak side DE that used a concept called "gap stealing," and those choices often allowed us to play the run using relatively light boxes out of a nickel base defense. The second video was uploaded after Week 4 when we gave up 250 yards to Dallas. It explains that Dallas used heavy personnel to combat our base defense and we refused to exit our nickel defense. Also maddeningly, we didn't attack their runs with the same fronts that had been successful in the past three games but just one time. I didn't really pay close attention the remainder of the season, but my intuition is that other teams took notice of that and used the Dallas tape to scheme against how we play the run, but that a lot of it basically just comes down to our scheme not providing for proper gap integrity. And it's on our coaches to readjust.

This is a sunk cost fallacy. He counts against our cap regardless of whether he is on the roster or not. If PJ is better (debatable…they’re both terrible and we’re screwed for the season if we’re in a position where either would need to play, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight) and you want to keep Corral for his potential future development, then compounding a past mistake with another one currently is dumb.

If you watched Burrow in 2019, the tape backed up the stats. Sure, LSU’s offense was stacked, but without Burrow, it doesn’t perform the way that it did. I’ve never seen a more confident college QB at attacking deep down the field and putting deep balls exactly where they needed to go for his WR, and only his WR, to come down with them. And often on the move either as part of a designed roll out or as part of a scramble drill. Kid was 100% can’t miss as an NFL prospect IMO.

Look, Sam Darnold is awful and I hate him as much as the next fan, but let’s pump the breaks here. Matt Corrall is a rookie coming into the league from an RPO heavy offender who was drafted in the third round as the 4th QB of a weak QB class. We have no idea how quickly he’ll be able to pick up the playbook and adapt to NFL speed and defenses. He’s got a ton of potential and certainly could beat Darnold right out the gate, but we have no idea if that will be the case. I agree that playing Darnold is a death sentence for the season, and I generally agree that young guys should get live reps beyond practice, but we also have to be careful to not ruin Corrall. While our offensive line looks better on paper than last year, we also don’t know if the moves we made there will pan out. We have to be cautious with the situation we put Corrall in. If the rest of the roster/coaching staff isn’t there to develop him, it’d be better to bring him on more slowly than to throw him to the wolves. Yes, some development is incumbent on the QB himself to put the work in and take ownership of the position, but we also have to make sure we’re not throwing him out there too soon in his own development.

We need a rim protector and Duren has sky high potential to be an elite one. He also has the quickness and athleticism to perform well when switching out on the perimeter. Not sure if we'd have to trade up because his offensive game is so raw and might limit his draft stock (and is something we'd have to hope he can improve on), although he certainly could rise up the boards between now and the draft. Not that it's necessarily a great source, but in their most recent mock (4/12/22) for example nbadraft.net has Duren going at #14 right between our two picks. Another option would be Mark Williams. Honestly, he's a pretty similar prospect who is also projected to go in the teens somewhere around our picks. Also has to work on his offensive game and is not quite the athlete Duren is, but still a good athlete and with even more length has just as much rim protection potential. I think Walker Kessler could also be in play. Another massive, long wingspan guy with elite rim protection abilities that needs to work on his offensive game. Apparently projected to go in the 20s, so maybe a reach at 13 or 15.

I think you're overvaluing our players and that we wouldn't be able to get the returns you've projected for them. Moore and Burns could probably fetch relatively high draft picks because of their talent. But you also have to factor in the flipside of them being on relatively cheap rookie contracts--they are sort of rentals at that point and the trading team is not guaranteed to be able to retain them once those contracts are up. I don't care if Derrick Brown and Jeremy Chinn were 1st and 2nd round picks, respectively. Brown hasn't shown anywhere enough to recoup a 1st. Chinn was a beast in year 1 and played well in year 2 but because the staff moved him to a less impactful position that's less of a natural fit for him (even if he can still play it), it didn't show as much. In any case, a LB or S is just not a valuable enough position for a team to want to trade a 1st round pick for the player. I understand that WR trades have been all over the map in the past, but Anderson didn't show anywhere close enough this past year to garner a 2nd or 3rd. I could see a 4th possibly. But he dropped too many passes and showed a poor attitude in his media interviews that any trading team likely isn't going to want to spend that sort of draft capital. Is an inconsistent at best locker room malcontent going to garner a 4th when there are so many serviceable WRs out there in the league right now? Methinks not.

Here's what it comes down to for me: Last season, there was reason to believe Rhule really was implementing an effective turnover. The roster was not good. But it appeared to be well coached. Despite the relative lack of talent and poor record, that team competed well. It was in most of the games it lost toward the very end of the game. If Teddy Bridgewater had the it factor, instead of going 0-8 on potential game-winning or -tying drives at the end of the 4th quarter, we may have eked out a couple more wins. Fast forward to this year. I understand the decision to move on from Teddy. He's not the guy. Even if he is serviceable and can keep you in games, he can't get you where you want to go (the Superb Owl). I didn't agree with the Darnold trade, but I can maybe understand the idea that they could salvage him. The decision to pick up his 5th year option though was absolutely terrible at the time and still is terrible. And the personnel they chose to man the offensive line obviously were terrible. So Rhule constructed his roster in such a way that we basically came into Year 2 with more than half our offense being at best a huge question mark and at worst a dumpster fire (and of course it has played out like the latter). So from the above, it's clear that Rhule isn't the best at personnel decisions, especially at the most important position QB, and that's a huge problem. But then you also have to look at how the team has performed on the field. Where was the fight a limited roster showed last year? It's gone. We're getting dominated and blown out, even by other bad teams. Clearly he lost the locker room, whether that be from his personnel decisions, his day-to-day interactions with the team, or a combination of both. Had Year 2 been worse than Year 1, but not to this degree, and the team had shown a semblance of competitiveness, I think I'd still fire him. But I could maybe understand keeping him for Year 3 and giving him a chance to right the ship. Maybe you take personnel input/decisions away from him and tell him to focus on coaching up the players the front office brings in. But given how bad this season is, I don't see how you can bring him back.

PJ should start because he's undefeated as a starter in the NFL..... All joking aside, I only think this rotating of QBs is a problem if it extends beyond a week or two. Cam may not have full familiarity with the entire playbook, and certain play calls are needed based on game scenario where they don't want to risk miscommunication so PJ will come in. As long as the trend is heading toward Cam playing a larger percentage of the snaps and it's not a long drawn out process, I don't view it as Rhule getting cute.

These effing refs. Ball was overthrown and uncatchable....

Not excusing Darnold's play--he's absolutely dreadful and shouldn't even be a backup in the league--but that was an unreal play by Collins. Typically a ball like that is just getting batted down, not intercepted.

There's no way these are connected. The staff couldn't possibly evaluate Henderson so poorly in the one week that he's been in the building to have buyer's remorse yet. This is about being in on every deal and pulling the trigger on a great (albeit older and currently injured) player when we learned he could be had for only a future 6th round pick. There's very little downside here. Either gilmore plays well and we consider paying him (would depend on his contract demands and how we feel about his age as well as the same for DJ Jackson, since we may not be able to retain both--although it'd be nice to do so) or he doesn't and we move on. If it's the latter, then we still have Horn and Henderson on their rookie deals and hopefully a resigned DJ Jackson.

As bad as the interior of our offensive line has been, you can't just assume that Christensen and Brown are better or more capable. They have potential and we all hope they can be. But for all we know, they are guys that shouldn't be in the league. The coaches--who yes, could be wrong in their evaluation--don't think they give us a better chance to win than the current group they are trotting out. And they both see how all the players in question perform in practice and know a hell of a lot more about football than all of us.

Part of the reason our run defense was so good in weeks 1 through 3 was due to excellent execution out of odd man fronts. Check out Brett Kollman's recent video on the subject. It can work. But Dallas has a much better offense than the three teams we've played thus far, so our true talent level isn't what we've shown thus far--the numbers weren't sustainable. But more importantly we didn't execute today across the board.

The clock doesn't stop when a player runs out of bounds until under 4 minutes at the end of each half. This is not a new rule....

I don't feel good about the game. Bad matchup for us. Their strength on defense, particularly the defensive line, is not a great recipe for our weak offensive line and a Darnold that we're still trying to build up from the "seeing ghosts" portion of his career. On offense, yes they downgraded at QB and lost a lot of WR talent, but they still have a great offensive line that may be able to neutralize our strength (defensive line), and Sean Payton knows how to call an offensive game to get his guys open. We have to hope Jameis reverts to bad decisions Jameis and that turnovers weigh heavily in how close the game is.

"We haven't seen that yet though here." I disagree. It may not have been a high percentage of throws, but he still took those shots and proved he could hit them. That in of itself is important. We shall see if Joe Brady gives him more leash as he continues to prove himself and/or improved defenses don't prevent that.

Aside from the deep bomb to Robby Anderson, Darnold also hit DJ Moore twice on intermediate to deepish throws along the sidelines with nice throws. He also had another nice intermediate one to Marshall Jr. that was dropped (or maybe had tight coverage that broke the play up, but Sam placed the ball in a place where only Marshall could catch it and the defender couldn't). He's much more willing and much more able to attack down field than Teddy. That will open up the offense for all of that CMC stuff underneath.