MHS831

I don't know--Buzzkill is a cool name too. You could call him Buzz for short. (this is my dry humor that gets lost on some Huddlers--maybe my fault because they do not expect it and it is rarely funny)

Funny someone who suggested class is someone whose experiences in life featured that word as an adjective that preceded "clown" and "less". Just kidding--back to the Watson Watch. Verge never said this was a done deal. She said we were in the mix.

I was getting ready to.

Denver wants Watson too.

FWIW, there is similar chatter amongst Chicago fans--but that is because every trade rumor involves a large market team--they are writing for clicks.

That was a trick comment because we did not have a TE last year. Seriously, Cam could grab 5-7 TDs and catch 600 yards as a TE. full stop.

There is probably more of a chance that we re-sign Cam. Who's with me!!!? (that will get them going)

Ok, I trust Verge and she is usually more accurate than most of us. So what is the bright side of this trade? 1. We still have our second rounders--Fitts talked about the players 18-40 being the same. 2. CMC's contract was ridiculous--the only way we can take on Watson's contract would be to dump CMC's. RB is not a hard position to fill, even though I love CMC because he is more of a RB. 3. The three first rounders will not hurt that much, and if you consider that the success rate is about 55% for first rounders, we are giving them a good player and a half. 4. If the defensive starter is Thompson--another bad contract, it leaves the Panthers with enough cap room (now that they cut KK) to tag or extend Moton. 5. With a good OL, this team can take it to the next level with a QB like Watson. 6. Think of it this way--getting a first round QB this year would have cost us at least a first and maybe a second to move up--but what if Miami and Atlanta were not dealing? What if Miami wanted more? 7. I do not agree with the, "Let's just sit at #8 and see what we can get"--that is like pushing the problem back another year. We need to be players in this game now. 8. Entering the draft with a known commodity at QB makes the draft so much easier than if we were relying on tapes and a pro day. I dunno. It is rich, but it could be the best move we could make. (I tend to look at it this way--would you trade Burns, Moore, Brown, and CMC for Watson? (That puts faces on the picks--although they were early picks, and the picks we would send to Houston will be late.

I like this response. I get the other side--I really do--but once you are eliminated, I would argue that winning is a mute point. It means nothing. Developing youth means something.

I am uncertain about both, but the only thing that could separate them from Fields or Lance is the unknown--we know how Minshew and Darnold look on bad teams--which is more than we know about Lance or Fields--they have upsides--but Darnold was in perhaps the worst situation a QB could be in--I am not sold on the idea, but if they see something in his skill set that could be salvaged, they need to consider it. Minshew, on the other hand, reminds me of a potential Jake 2.0. Def my favorite option.

There is a difference between throwing the game and giving an opportunity for lesser players to earn a position. If the starters are 4-10, why would you not play the young guys? All is not black and white--what the Eagles did-that was losing intentionally. However, giving Grier a start and letting your rookies play the game is not throwing the game if you game plan to win. You are likely to lose, but you are not trying to lose. So you might ask, "Why stack the deck to lose and then try to win?" Because you have an objective--what if you can win with cheaper players? How will gaining experience help your team? With nothing to play for, what is wrong with giving Grier a look? Some experience? Are you telling Grier to lose? No. If he wins, it could change things. What was the benefit for winning with a QB you are going to cut? I would argue that Rhule's job is not to win meaningless games once the team has been eliminated from the playoffs. I would argue his job IS to develop players at all times.

If you don't think Lance or Fields is worth the climb, then make a trade for Darnold or Minchew (on a rookie contract) and trade back this year for a first rounder in 2022. In 2022, if Darnold or Minshew does not work out, trade up for a QB- Not what we want to hear, but finding a young qb to develop from another team is just about as risky as taking one from the draft.

It also means they are freeing up $$ for the now.

That must have been it. I cannot recall what I read, but a DT with a "low motor" is enough for me to scratch him off the list.

Just because you say what everyone is thinking-that does not make it right.

I never try to be a "pre-draft" know it all. But i have read some serious concerns about Marvin Wilson--wish I could remember details, but it was enough for me to x him off my list early.

Chief Njoku would be a nice addition--not yet 25 and he was a bit underutilized in Cleveland. There is some interesting, bottom-of-the roster movement at TE on this roster so far, so I am not sure a big free agent is the plan-- We resigned Colin Thompson, signed that player from Seattle, and signed that backup QB from New Orleans (Stevens) who can play TE. Not sure what we are doing there.

Maybe Star should get a footnote on KK's stat page. Hard to beat the Jenkins Buckner duo.

Here is the bigger question--Do we NEED to replace him? In the 3-3-5 defense that we run most of the time, we basically did it with 3 NT-sized DTs and a big DE or two. Brown can move around, Roy and Kerr played NT for the most part. Do we need a 3 tech DT?

Freeing money to make a move? (Thought I would be "that guy")

Not sure about the strong option part. He got paid and that was about it.

Nice thread, Ice. Thanks for getting this rolling---this year, there will be more cap casualties than any other prior year. Gonna be fun.

He is not left handed though. However, I heard that he is amphibious, so he could play both sides.