MHS831

Why did we give Darnold a chance to start? The culture, the coaches, the OL, the system, the play calling, etc. have everything to do with a player's chance to succeed. It takes a village.

Wasnt it Cosell who said something like, the system is critically important for any young QB? Darnold did not start playing QB until he was a Jr in High School. Four years later, he is in the NFL with a bad coach, bad OC, bad team, etc. expected to work miracles. This was not a gamble--it is a low-cost, calculated risk--the kind of move that either propels you to greatness as a team, or you lose a second rounder in 2022. No brainer.

And when you are playing from behind all the time you force it because that is your competitive nature. Still, there is some criticism of his field vision. Film OL, and Brady can fix that.

People wanted an established QB with a winning smile and record. That player is not available. And every time we have a great QB draft (1983 comes to mind) half of them do not make it. So you all are bitching about the equivalent of a third, a fifth, and a sixth rounder for a QB that might become good in our system--and that has nothing to do with what happened in NY- Or would you have preferred that we sent our 2021 first and second rounders and our 2023 first rounder to trade up for a QB with about a 50% chance of becoming special? This is a very shrewd move, and it does not suggest that we are done. For example, Mills needed another year of college--would have been a first rounder next season, some say. Why not add him? If Darnold develops, we could trade him for a first rounder or more. If Darnold flops, you have a guy you have been grooming for a year. Some wanted to keep Teddy for a season if we drafted a rookie--then cut him. This is a better option because Darnold is 23 and might just have a future.

I have been trying to analyze his comments all day---there is a dropoff around 16 (and I see it) and then between 20-40 there is no difference. So do we trade back with a team like New England (15) and then take a player, adding a pick in the 20-40 range? I am so confused.

This is getting eerily close to conversation my wife and I had recently...

I think we do something like this---we need 3 players in round 2 in my "imagination" and it takes me anywhere I want to go. I want a #1 CB, a starting LT, and Mond or Mills (QB). In round 3, I would like a 3 Tech and maybe a developmental G in round 4.

Ryan Kalil was not that good at G--too small, but he was a nice center. I like what I am hearing and want to believe it all...

I thought he was as good as cut this year--he did step up a bit, probably getting strength back after the injury, but he is no star.

I know-but it is not going to be as simple as we are making it--if there is a QB there, and there might be--or if not, a damn good WR/CB/T will be there--do we move back? I think we have to. My favorite OT in this draft--Sewell is awesome--is Teven Jenkins--but he played RT.

There will probably be a QB at #8 and a team that wants to deal. We could get a 2021 second and a 2022 second to move back to 15 (NE) or 19 (Washington) and still get a CB / T in round 1.

I do not think we go OT in round 1--there are about 8-10 good Tackles. We can have BOTH a CB and a T, but the CB market gets thin at the back end of the first round--there should be tackles through the second--at least in the mocks I mess with. I just do not get the Erving and Elfein signings.

Yes, but Jackson is probably gone in 2022 (if we do not re-sign him) and we have Pride. The CBs in round 1 are good--and the OL is deep in this draft. We can have both. Nobody is talking about a 3tech DT, but we are going to get one. MARK MY WORDS!!

I hear you, brother, but a #1 CB on Jones and Thomas makes us better at 2 positions. #1 CBs are rather hard to get, and the draft is deep at OL---just a hunch, but we could trade back a bit, grab a CB and a T, and then we frolic.

Erving at G--how did he do in KC? I have not given it thought, but we restructured Paradis and paid Elf a 3-year deal, so I did not see Erving at G. What do you know?

I think a #1 CB is our biggest need at this time, depending on how one feels about Darnold. I hate the idea of Erving at LT, and I think a decent LT prospect is there in round 2. There are some tackles in the second round, but no #1 CBs. If we get a #1 CB, it immediately makes Jackson better, because he can now cover the less established WR. In the NFC South, that means we have a better player on Jones, Thomas, and Evans, for example--that makes a huge difference, moving Action Jackson to the #2.

He had a better OL

Tannehill was on a terrible, dysfunctional, poorly coached team in Miami. I am struggling to see the compari--oh, there it is.

Sam Darnold is younger tha Joe Burrow. This is like an experienced rookie who will appreciate the opportunity more than we all know.

Funny when they talk trash. I like seeing the pictures of the Jets' fans on draft day--same look they had on the "bubble in your name" portion of the SAT.

FWIW, how would feel about spending a first rounder on Mac Jones? That is probably where we were headed. Or 2 first rounders on a QB from NDSU? or one of Ohio State's many QBs?

I had the same thought. This is a much better deal for a QB with more upside. People, you can look at stats all day--they don't measure coaching, culture, or the future. They are snapshots of what happened. So what? If they want to give this a shot, what is it really costing us? Not $40m for sure.

Another factor---we are going to kick the tires for 2 years before we fish or cut bait with him.

I am pushing Mills, fwiw--trade back up into the late second Chinn style.