Christensen ...

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Seriously. TC is basically uncoverable right now. We get maybe a dozen tweets and a few pictures from the grassy knoll each practice and that's pretty much it.

Yeah, that is really going to put a damper on future offseasons if this continues. I will say, they are largely removing the reasons to check out TC and Fan Fest.

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, that is really going to put a damper on future offseasons if this continues. I will say, they are largely removing the reasons to check out TC and Fan Fest.

Really hard to get excited about the upcoming season when you have no clue what to expect because TC is setup like an undercover CIA meeting.

[ladypanther]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Really hard to get excited about the upcoming season when you have no clue what to expect because TC is setup like an undercover CIA meeting.

[Basbear]

8 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Really hard to get excited about the upcoming season when you have no clue what to expect because TC is setup like an undercover CIA meeting.

[kungfoodude]

10 minutes ago, Basbear said:

That works when you are Bill Belichick, not so much for a team that hasn't had a winning season in a while. 

It's not a huge deal but if we don't start winning in the next couple of years, it's another thing that will get thrown on the pile of dung that is going to get heaved at the franchise(and likely owner). 

[Basbear]

46 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

That works when you are Bill Belichick, not so much for a team that hasn't had a winning season in a while. 

It's not a huge deal but if we don't start winning in the next couple of years, it's another thing that will get thrown on the pile of dung that is going to get heaved at the franchise(and likely owner). 

" THE GREATER GOOD!!"...

 

I dont get how to grow your product by greatly restricting it... Seems most other teams are doing the same too. You do control the message and all its ultra fluffiness. 

[kungfoodude]

12 minutes ago, Basbear said:

" THE GREATER GOOD!!"...

 

I dont get how to grow your product by greatly restricting it... Seems most other teams are doing the same too. You do control the message and all its ultra fluffiness. 

Yeah, I get the want to control the narrative. I just don't think most people are going to fall for it. Well, not the hardcore fans, anyway.

[Basbear]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, I get the want to control the narrative. I just don't think most people are going to fall for it. Well, not the hardcore fans, anyway.

 

[AU-panther]

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Had that discussion previously...

The notion that you could like a quarterback well enough that you'd have drafted him with the #3 pick but you pass on that same quarterback with the #8 pick is one of the silliest things I've ever seen.

For pretty much any team, a guy that they like well enough to take high dropping to them at a far lower spot is such amazing good fortune that you'd run to the podium to get the pick in.

Silly? No

People keep leaving out the fact that we had already spent resources to address our starting QB position before the draft happened.  That changes the way you approach the draft.

It was never a Fields vs Horn question.
 

In reality it was a Darnold (sure thing) + keeping pick 8 vs hoping a QB fell (not sure thing) vs trading up (too expensive but would make a QB a sure thing) decision.

Ask yourself this, let’s say the Darnold trade fell through and we go into the draft without a QB, do you really think we take Horn over Fields or whichever QB we had rated the highest?

 

[iamhubby1]

18 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Silly? No

People keep leaving out the fact that we had already spent resources to address our starting QB position before the draft happened.  That changes the way you approach the draft.

It was never a Fields vs Horn question.
 

In reality it was a Darnold (sure thing) + keeping pick 8 vs hoping a QB fell (not sure thing) vs trading up (too expensive but would make a QB a sure thing) decision.

Ask yourself this, let’s say the Darnold trade fell through and we go into the draft without a QB, do you really think we take Horn over Fields or whichever QB we had rated the highest?

 

 

Probably not.

[ForJimmy]

12 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Silly? No

People keep leaving out the fact that we had already spent resources to address our starting QB position before the draft happened.  That changes the way you approach the draft.

It was never a Fields vs Horn question.
 

In reality it was a Darnold (sure thing) + keeping pick 8 vs hoping a QB fell (not sure thing) vs trading up (too expensive but would make a QB a sure thing) decision.

Ask yourself this, let’s say the Darnold trade fell through and we go into the draft without a QB, do you really think we take Horn over Fields or whichever QB we had rated the highest?

 

I think we are on the same page. Acquiring Darnold made our staff much more satisfied with our QB position and they obviously feel he is very talented (which is is) and able to become our franchise QB (not sure on this one). Gambling on a rookie QB (yes it’s always a bit of a gamble) with a first round pick which you have someone you feel is the guy and is still very young seems like an unnecessary risk to take when we have so many other needs. Not saying I agree with these opinions, but the thought process makes sense. 
They could even rank 1. Lawrence 2. Fields and 3. Darnold, but number 3 cost way less resources to acquire than number 2. There are a number of ways it could happen, but yeah if we still had Teddy as our QB we would have rejoiced at Fields dropping to us (or maybe Mac Jones). There is little doubt in my mind we would have drafted one without acquiring Darnold. It all goes back to Darnold plus Horn is valued higher than Fields plus the future 2nd and 4th AND we weren’t sure Fields would even be there at 8. So a GUARANTEED young QB in Darnold plus the number 8 pick is valued higher than POSSIBLY getting Fields and the future 2nd and 4th.

[kungfoodude]

7 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I think we are on the same page. Acquiring Darnold made our staff much more satisfied with our QB position and they obviously feel he is very talented (which is is) and able to become our franchise QB (not sure on this one). Gambling on a rookie QB (yes it’s always a bit of a gamble) with a first round pick which you have someone you feel is the guy and is still very young seems like an unnecessary risk to take when we have so many other needs. Not saying I agree with these opinions, but the thought process makes sense. 
They could even rank 1. Lawrence 2. Fields and 3. Darnold, but number 3 cost way less resources to acquire than number 2. There are a number of ways it could happen, but yeah if we still had Teddy as our QB we would have rejoiced at Fields dropping to us (or maybe Mac Jones). There is little doubt in my mind we would have drafted one without acquiring Darnold. It all goes back to Darnold plus Horn is valued higher than Fields plus the future 2nd and 4th AND we weren’t sure Fields would even be there at 8. So a GUARANTEED young QB in Darnold plus the number 8 pick is valued higher than POSSIBLY getting Fields and the future 2nd and 4th.

Like any of these things, hindsight will tell us what the right decision was. It's even possible there were only good or bad choices. 

[LinvilleGorge]

Yep, we'll see how it plays out. I do think  that if Darnold flops we're gonna swing BIG next year. Enough half stepping. Identify a QB and go get him.

[kungfoodude]

14 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yep, we'll see how it plays out. I do think  that if Darnold flops we're gonna swing BIG next year. Enough half stepping. Identify a QB and go get him.

I tend to agree. The heat will start to rise on the staff and I think since Rhule is calling the shots, he is gonna get a little antsy.

Will be curious to see if it is in the draft or via trade. Jimmy G likely to be available next offseason.