tukafan21

Okay, PS makes more sense as he'd be an odd signing as a 3rd RB, we don't need him as that right now, we need a big bruising back.

I just think you're underestimating how difficult it could be for a rookie who has only played RG in camp and the season to make the switch to the other side mid-season, even if it's their natural side and college position. The whole point of this discussion is what you do if Zavala is playing so well that he can't move to being a backup when Corbett is healthy. We're not talking about a first round OG who was always destined to start, just depended on the side, he was a 3rd round pick with some upside, I don't think you mess with it if it's going that well.

In Brady's first season as a starter, which was also his second year in the league, he had 2,843 yards, 18 TDs, and 12 Int. The Patriots won those early championships because of their defense, not because Brady was Brady yet, the second set of rings was because of Brady being Brady.

Bryce Young. Bryce Young is the reason I don't like the idea of throwing a rookie who missed most of camp into a new position for him at this level, mid season, when Ickey admittedly struggled in the pre-season. The unfortunate truth is that for at least the next few years, keeping Bryce upright and healthy is the most important thing this team can do and every OL decision should be based around that and nothing else. Yes, I agree, the future best version of this OL is Ickey-Zavala-Bozeman-Corbett-Moton, but I don't think that's the best OL right now to keep Bryce upright, particularly when that would mean making a rookie who missed most of camp and the time he did get was at RG move mid-season to the other side. Having that be the left side of your line is a scary proposition with a rookie QB the size of Bryce. If Zavala is still playing well and BC isn't poo'ing the bed when Corbett is healthy, I'd rather have Corbett be the backup than shift Zavala mid-season, it scares me that much.

Teddy would be a solid starting QB in this league if he didn't have the fatal flaw of consistently turning the ball over. Yes, I know Bryce had 2 INTs, but it was his first game, I think INTs will be the least of his worries in his career with his mental approach to the game, he'll be lightyears better than Two Gloves ever was in that area. Having said that, comparing Bryce's passing chart in his first ever game without his fastest WR is just a fools errand anyways.

No, this is the worst revisionist history take about that draft, by all teams who look back on it. Parsons was NOT viewed as a pass rusher coming into the draft, he was a MLB and only even shifted to OLB because of injuries and then he was so good at that, that he's now become a legit DE/OLB pass rusher only. Taking a MLB at 8 who had just taken the previous season off (due to covid) and had other questions about his NFL potential would have been irresponsible. Hell, a lot of people felt Kuechly was taken way too high at #9 for a MLB, and he was a significantly better college player than Parsons ever was (Kuechly literally had the same amount of tackles in his last collegiate season that Parsons had in his career, 191). This isn't the case of a player just over performing their draft expectations, it's someone who essentially is playing an entirely different position than anyone ever expected. If teams saw this pass rushing ability from him, he goes at worst #3 in the draft and quite possibly #2 over Wilson. He's an entirely unique case when looking back at the draft, and one I can't come up with a good comparison for. Best comparison would be more like if a team took an RB who was forced to play WR due to injuries and was so good there that he became a Top 3 WR in the entire league.

Yes, I agree, always liked the phrase of "the best ability is availability" But too many people are trying to blame Fitterer for taking Horn over those other guys who are all blowing up. I'm not saying Fitterer hasn't done a bunch of things that deserve questioning and criticism, but this pick isn't one of them. There are tons of first round picks that stay healthy and are still busts, those are the ones where it's fair to be upset at your GM for taking them over other better players. But not for someone who has performed at an elite level when on the field but just keeps getting hurt, those are just unfortunate picks that didn't work out for the team, but not a bad pick. Bottom line, if Horn has stayed healthy, people might have wished we took Surtain, Parsons, or Smith over him, but I don't think people would be upset with Horn the player, and that's a key difference to me.

People need to stop calling Horn a dud When on the field, he's played like a Top 10 corner Nobody can predict injuries in the NFL unless they already struggled to stay healthy in college, something that wasn't an issue with Horn. I get being upset that so many others in that range are turning into stars, but this is just a bad luck situation much more than just a bad pick. If he sucked when on the field, then yes, it would have been just a bad pick, but that's not the case here.

LOL, talk about a Madden trade idea if there ever was one. With the QB's out there on the FA market, we would be legitimately lucky if they offered even a single 6th rounder for him. Nobody is giving up decent middle round picks for Andy Dalton instead of just signing someone like Wentz. And even then, he's worth more to us as a mentor to Bryce than a future 6th rounder would be, I wouldn't even pick up the phone knowing what they'd likely be offering us for him.

So players routinely get hurt on grass fields, and when they do, nobody says a thing. Players get the exact same injury on turf and everyone immediately is up in arms saying it's the turf's fault. Sure, maybe there is a chance it was caused do to the turf, but why do people refuse to accept that sometimes, injuries just happen, field surface aside. Dobbins and Rodgers had the same injury, one on grass, one on turf. poo happens

Corbett is a seasoned vet, I'm sure he could make the switch to LG and likely has at minimum practiced there over the years of his career at times as well. But moving Zavala could have a cascading affect that affects him and Ickey. Moving the rookie is the least ideal situation that I think you only make this season if Corbett significantly struggles at LG

Was hoping someone would mention this, as it's the exact reason my initial post makes the most logical sense. You put in the new CBA that all outdoor fields need to be converted to grass and make it so any NEW stadiums have to be build in a way that can support grass fields. Because something like this with Real Madrid isn't remotely feasible to do for an NFL stadium for a variety of reasons. First being there is probably only 3 stadiums in the entire NFL that they'd even begin a conversation of doing this with, and all 3 of them are already grass fields. That has been Real Madrid's stadium for almost 100 years, they weren't ever going to leave it and build a new one, so it had to be renovated. The only stadiums that would come close to fitting that mold in the NFL are KC, GB, and Chicago, which are already grass fields, every other stadium is relatively new, there aren't any other historically old stadiums in the league that they'd refuse to leave. Then they also had to play their games in another stadium for a while of course to do that (something that would be a bit tougher to do with the NFL). Plus it cost them about $1 billion, at that cost, no NFL team would do that, they'd just build a new stadium, which again isn't an option for a major european soccer club that has played in their stadium for almost 100 years.

Being able to grow plants/grass/etc indoors with grow lights is not the same as being able to grow and maintain an NFL sized field of grass that needs to hold up to the rigors of an NFL game every weekend. Just because something can be done for one part of an industry, doesn't mean it's applicable and will work in all other areas.

The closest you could do would be to mandate grass fields for any stadium that can have one and any future built stadiums. But even then, they'd likely need to start compensating those teams extra money for the upkeep of the fields. We switched because our grass field couldn't hold up all season long due to our games and other events, and everyone complained how poor of shape it always was in by the end of the season and if we were lucky, in the playoffs. Modern day stadiums can't be profitable on 8-9 NFL games a season, you need to hold other events and other football games there to support the cost of them. If the NFL wants grass fields where possible, they need to help pay the extra costs to keep the field in top quality shape all season long or the owners will never agree to it, it will be a non-starter issue for them in any negotiations.

And how do they do that for the stadiums in the league that it's just not feasible to have grass? Lions, Vikings, Rams, Chargers would have a 0% chance at it due to being complete domes (or roof in the case of LA teams). Then even the fields with some form of retractible roof like for the Cowboys, Falcons, Colts, and Texans that I doubt even with some retro-fitting would be able to be open enough to get enough sunshine to all areas of the field to properly have an NFL quality field. Those places can put grass in for the big soccer games on a one-off basis, but it can't be done for an entire football season. And they don't do it or them out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it because it's the only way to get the games played in those stadiums, it's done because that sport is played on grass at an international level, they just don't play it on field turf anywhere, so you can't then play on it here. Also, who knows if this injury was caused due to turf or not, but it's getting ridiculous where any non just pulled muscle injury on non grass fields is being blamed on the turf. Sometimes players just get hurt in this game.

For a SB starved franchise like the Jets, when you have a SB caliber roster outside of QB, you do what you have to do to win that ring. Doesn’t hurt that 2 of the last 3 SB champs did it that way either, proof that it can be done

If he’s playing well enough to stay as a starter when Corbett is back, I’d prefer to keep him at RG and put Corbett on the left. It would be tough for a rookie who missed much of camp to make that switch mid season if playing well. Plus with some of Ickey’s struggles in preseason, rather put the vet than the rookie next to him. Then move Zavala to the left next year with a full offseason to get settled.

I posted something about this the other day, Parsons isn't a player any team can really be upset about their team not drafting and is pure revisionist history if they are. Guy was a MLB in college and projected to be one in the NFL, nobody realized he could be the dominant pass rusher that he's turned into. If they did, he'd have been at worst the #3 pick in the draft, could see Wilson still going ahead of him given the hype he had, but I don't think lance would have gone before him if anyone remotely saw this coming.

I'm starting to think this is the last week we have to get a deal done with Burns or else it's going to be shelved until the offseason. If he gets another sack and looks good next weekend, his agent could just shut down negotiations and take the injury risk knowing the upside is him continuing on a tear and being able to get just as much as Bosa just got. And at the same time, if he struggles next week, I could see the team using it to play hardball and keep the two sides too far apart to be able to get a deal done. Gotta get it done this week Fitts, get that signature!

Bryce is probably the most ready QB to come into the league in a decade, if not longer, if not ever. There is a HUGE difference between the readiness of QB's today than there was even just 20 years ago. Kids are growing up learning the intricacies of the game in a way they never did years ago. They have QB coaches from a young age, taught to read defenses well before high school, and so much more. Young kids with QB aspirations these days are doing things by the time they're in high school that most college QB's didn't do 25+ years ago. That's more of why QB's needed to sit for a year or two to learn, but in today's game, they knew stuff 5 years ago that rookie QB's struggled with 25 years ago, massive difference.

Because it's not, he has no decent trade value right now with his inability to stay on the field, regardless of the talent he's shown when on it. If someone was dumb enough to offer up a 2nd for him, you take it, but even for a 3rd, you let him play out these last 2 years of his rookie deal and hope he finds the magic elixir to staying healthy and then re-sign him to a reasonable contract if he does, if not, it's just a pick that didn't work out due to health reasons.

I am all for being realistic when judging the team after just one game, but for the life of me I don't understand why so many people are saying we're in a total re-build and using that as an excuse for potentially being a bottom 5 team this year. We were 7-9 last year and outside of our #1 WR spot, I don't think there isn't a single position on the squad that we didn't at worst keep the same, in most cases have an upgraded that position from last year, even at QB as even knowing there will be growing pains with Bryce, he's already way better than our QB situation last year. On offense we kept our entire OL (albeit with one temporary replacement due to injury) while upgrading at RB, TE, and while we lost Moore which hurts, the rest of our WRs are better than anything we had last year (assuming TMJ were to improve but I'm starting to worry there to be honest). On defense we switched to a scheme that should put both Burns and Brown in better positions to utilize their talents, brought in Houston who should be a better pass rusher than anything we had after Burns last year while also bringing in Bell on the back end. That doesn't sound like a team in a total re-build to me, it sounds like a 7-9 team that improved their roster over the previous season. If we really were in a total re-build, in today's NFL, you don't START it by trading away a ton of assets for a QB. You get through the first couple of rough years of re-setting the roster with better contracts and younger players and then make your move for the QB, usually through the draft since you'll have a high pick from the struggling years of the early re-build and will end up with a Top 5 pick during one of them.

In the 4 weeks Chase missed with that injury last year, Higgins put up numbers that would have made him 3rd in both catches and yards last year if done across 17 games at those averages, as well as have 8.5 TDs as he had 2 in those 4 games. He's a #1, no question about it. But after the Bryce trade, we can't trade away another first rounder to give a $20 million a year contract to said player.

Agreed, I was really hoping we'd find a way to trade back into the late first and get Zay Flowers when he was still there in the early 20's, I think he's going to be a guy like that real soon. Honestly at this point, our best bet at finding a player like that is either through a trade or with our first rounder in 2025. Tee Higgins is going to be available through a franchise tag and trade, but we had to give up too much draft assets to get Bryce for me to like giving up the first rounder they'd want for us to then have to give him a big contract. It would just be better to wait a year and draft someone in the first to get them on a rookie deal for 5 years than make that trade.

There are no Tyreek Hill type of players, he really is a 1 of 1 that this league has never seen before at WR. Was talking with my friends the other night about what Barry Sanders would be in today's game with his size, speed, and style of play. It occurred to me that he probably wouldn't be an RB in today's game, with his skill set, he'd be a WR and dominate like Tyreek does and be a unicorn type of talent.