MHS831

So we should evaluate him based on his performance as a Jet with that coach and in that system with that personnel? That makes sense. His first camp as a Panther in the Brady system with these receivers and this defense. The man is 25--I am not ready to call him "Trash" and you should not be either.

We shall see. But to dismiss a player before his first camp is also trash.

He is a bit fragile.

Let's see how he does in man coverage. I think he will be better.

I am so happy Marty is gone.

I think we should storm the castle and knock Igo out of his little throne and crown Verge. If that is a thing we can do.

Wolf Blitzer might have played pop warner football. Just sayin--awesome name.

Think about it---we are sitting in pretty good shape. 1. Darnold is on a rookie deal for now. If he plays well, we lock him up and pass on Watson. If he does not, we dodge that bullet and make the move for Watson. 2. Our future cap figure is pretty low (2022...) 3. Watson is not my favorite option; I would rather see Darnold play well and not have to take on a player with baggage. That could divide the fan base to a degree. It does not matter if you or I are OK with Watson; this is a business and the QB is the brand. However, talent suggests he gets $40m per and someone will pay it.

I beg to differ. That is an impressive squirrel.

The secret to keeping your core is not paying them, it is hitting in the draft. For example, if you can get 2 starters each year, and 2 players develop into starters after the first year, then you always should have about 10-12 starters on rookie deals. If half your staring roster is on a rookie deal, the other half is much easier to manage. I would estimate that of the 11 or so players on second or third contracts, only about 5 should be on elite-level contracts. In our case, that will be (2022's crystal ball): CMC Darnold (hopefully) Moton Burns Moore That is a bit offensive (pun), but we have a young defense. Some players will be ending big deals and should be shown the door as well--tough calls to make--Shaq comes to mind. However, do not forget that we still have some big dead money debt.

Run some 2 back. Both can catch.

My top 5 questions: Link--right here. 1. Who will win the OL jobs and where will they play? (Some of you are penciling in Moton at LT--however, would it be a dickish move to sign him during his prime on a RT contract and move him to LT? Not sure, but I would love to see it if he can improve LT while the RT drop off is minimal) 1a. LT: 1b: LG: 1c. RG: 1d: RT: 2. How solid will our CBs be? (Jackson and Horn and Bouye {Nickel} can play man, and that is what we are going to do a lot. Bouye/Melvin at nickel is a huge question that should be answered in preseason. NOW ask the Chinn at FS question. It makes more sense.) 3. Can the front 4 generate enough pass rush to prevent the need to blitz as often? (Brown was better vs. the pass, not as good vs. the run, according to the expectations of some experts. Fox and YGM should be solid, and Reddick and Burns could make QBs shake. Pressure on the opposing QB without costing us a DB or LB is big). 4. Can Rhule show signs of his "3-year turnaround" success in college on the NFL level? (A 10-win season would suggest that he has done just that. If you want to gauge his success, note the UDFAs and the day 3 picks who are contributing--but focus on the UDFAs. They are players he "recruited" and they are marginal to inferior, for the most part. Franklin, Hartsfield, Smith, Stokke, David Moore, {rookies to watch, FB, G}, etc. for example) 5. Darnold, of course, but not his confidence, but the key QB measures of confidence: leadership, performance when the game is on the line. Both suggest confidence, but these are how QBs are forged in the NFL. Teddy had numbers, for the most part, but when you needed a field general, he fled the battlefield.)

This is going to be the most interesting story after Darnold this season--the LT spot. Again, if Moton can do at LT what he does at RT--I would LOVE to see it. Then we'd have BC at RT. Let Erving and Daley compete for the LG job with Elflein, and let Scott (who is a swing tackle, I think) back up both T spots. I have not watched the games you mentioned in some time, so I could be remembering it worse than it was, fwiw. IF Moton goes to the LT spot successfully, our OL could be very good. One other factor--what kind of rapport did he have with Miller? T/G communication is important--like knowing when to switch in man defense in basketball--and that could be the reason Moton STAYED at RT when he had the chance--so many variables. I think we can agree on this: If he is going to switch, it will be now and not later.

I think your last sentence sums this up.

And did he see every type of edge rusher on the left side? Here is my point--and I am not under any obligation to agree with sports writers or armchair GMs (I am the latter, and was the former back in the day) His feet were slow to recover at times and he did not get arm extension at times. To me, those could be confusion--an unsure OT lacks the confident to commit--and I saw that at times. How many plays did you see, total? A very small sample size. Maybe they take a look at him there now, especially with BC able to play RT. HOWEVER, my point has been for 4 years that these coaches see him every day--at practice, on film, etc. They know the risk reward for moving him. If he can play LT at the same level he can play RT, would the coaches not move him like the Huddle wants to see? So if he flashed at times, it is a good sign. However, I saw signs that he was uncomfortable there--mainly with his arms and feet. I have been having this debate with Huddlers for a few years now, and the irony is--I would LOVE to see him get a full preseason at LT and start there. It could be that RR saw a rookie and did not see a LT and never changed his view---or it could be that his natural position is RT and that is not because he failed at LT. I hope this makes sense. I know what you are saying, but I watched his feet and arm extension and sensed that he was insecure there. That is all I am saying, and if you have a guy who can start at RT for 4 years on a rookie salary, move Moton. The practices vs. Indy and Baltimore will be interesting because he can get a steady dose of rushers from a variety of perspectives. The Colts are going 4-3 this season (Tampa 2) and the Ravens run a 3-4, 4-3 hybrid. Those two practice weeks and games should tell us a lot about our Tackles. Let's see how this turns out.

There really is not. Blind side with mobile QBs is not what it once was.

There were a lot of variables, for sure. He was never in a fair situation, but I go back to the fact that if he could play LT, he would be at LT. Tanneyhill was a WR in college. What if he could be a better WR than he is a QB? Do you move him to WR, or keep him at QB? Maybe a bad example, but how i see it. I just know how much film these coaches watch--the OL coaches are experts--they never insisted that he move to LT when we had NOTHING at LT.

They ran the wide zone at OK St.--one of the best at it. So they went after talent to run it--Tremble, Christensen, Chubba, and I think they will groom D. Moore to be the center of the future. Elflein, Erving--both seemingly suited for it. If I had known that is what they were doing, and knew more about the wide zone, I might have been even more excited about the draft and free agency.

Sorry man, I have been busy and in and out of here a lot lately. If an OL can play LT at a high level, even if it is not quite as good as he can play another position, he plays LT. I was not impressed vs. NE, and I think it was Dallas when he got moved there for a bit. I did not see a LT, but statistically, he was OK--I think he gave up one pressure. It could be awkward footwork because getting moved without a week or two to prepare is brutal. And Dallas was throwing some wicked stunts at him and he was doing fairly well at times. I just need to see him vs. all kinds of DEs/OLBs. One or two games? Maybe they knew he'd be OK vs. one skill set and not the next game's DE. I dunno. So since he was not prepared vs. Dallas or NE at LT, it is really hard to get a feel for him out there. I saw some bad moments that he got away with, but I may have overstated my certainty that he is not going to play LT--I still do not think he will--because if he could play LT, he'd be a LT. You have an OL coach, an OC, a head coach--all watching film 8 hours a day. Did any of them ever say, "Hey!! Wait a tick. What if we tried Moton on the other side?!!!." I am guessing that they did that and tried it in practice and did not make the move.

We are running the wide zone scheme. That requires the RB to start running at the DE, then he adjusts and makes a cut based on the OL head positions--the read is C/B to B/A gap, so a back like CMC is perfect for this offense. Having said that, everyone looks at Erving's pass blocking, but his run blocking is pretty on point. Expect to see a lot of play action, where the DE/OLB has to hold the point and that (along with Tremble) will help Erving (if he is the LT). Erving is smart, and this requires some thinking--more about body position than anchoring the entire side. We could have a good line. I am not sure yet, because I am still learning about the skill set each position needs. I know that the C is a key player because he must reach the interior OL wherever he is--it is hard to understand at this point...but do not apply a power running gap scheme formula to this OL-- I know that Christensen was considered a G by many wide zone teams and they wanted him--and would have been gone soon if we had not grabbed him. Cosmi and Slater were the top OTs teams wanted for this offense. So compare our LTs to those guys and maybe you get a better idea. I am starting to see it--of course, you have to execute.

Arnold will get 50 receptions for 600-700 and Tremble will grab 25 balls for 300-400. Throw in the Tremble blocking, and we are with TE again.

For those of you putting him at LT, I do not see it.

Moton is a great locker room guy as well. High character, smart, etc.