Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Good News??
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
nephillymike
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/...h-mettenberger/

This would be a good start.
Dreagon
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 12 2015, 12:33 PM) *


If true, then that would mean you would need to trade up to #4, because I can't see him falling past Washington.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Apr 12 2015, 02:53 PM) *
If true, then that would mean you would need to trade up to #4, because I can't see him falling past Washington.



Agree. OAK is the partner.

If they want him, I can't see moving up to #4 being a deal breaker, especially with running the risk that WAS or NYJ want him.
mcnabbulous
If Was or NYJ want him, getting to #4 is obviously a lot easier for them.

I still think something happens with Tenn.
Pbfan
Ok this is getting insane. Why do people still think that if we were to somehow get Mariota, it would be a good idea... He could drop to our draft position and I still am not sure whether drafting him is a good idea. There is NO evidence that this kid is gonna be a great QB. Let's plug one of the 3,401,234 other holes we have before we get a 3rd QB.

Edit: I actually hope that for some reason there is a Armageddon type scenario in the upcoming months, and NASA picks Mariota to be aboard the spaceship that drills a nuclear bomb into the asteroid. This way he would be not available for the draft and all this absolute horseshit talk would be done with.
mcnabbulous
Because we don't have a viable long term answer at the most important position in sports. It's quite simple.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 12 2015, 07:11 PM) *
Ok this is getting insane. Why do people still think that if we were to somehow get Mariota, it would be a good idea... He could drop to our draft position and I still am not sure whether drafting him is a good idea. There is NO evidence that this kid is gonna be a great QB. Let's plug one of the 3,401,234 other holes we have before we get a 3rd QB.

Edit: I actually hope that for some reason there is a Armageddon type scenario in the upcoming months, and NASA picks Mariota to be aboard the spaceship that drills a nuclear bomb into the asteroid. This way he would be not available for the draft and all this absolute horseshit talk would be done with.



Wow!! Seems like some deep seeded hatred there PB!

Remember, as of right now, the guys he is competing against, Bradford and Sanchez, have career passer ratings of 79.3 and 74.4 respectively, which in last year's passer rating stats would have ranked 28th and 32nd respectively.

It ain't like we got Manning and Brady here. It's not a stretch to say he would be our best QB option next year.

28th and 32nd!!

IMO, In a quest for a SB, a gaping hole at the QB spot trumps all others.
samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 13 2015, 09:29 AM) *
IMO, In a quest for a SB, a gaping hole at the QB spot trumps all others.

Testify!

To the OP, I'm not sure that WAS would really take MM. Could you imagine being a 'Skins fan and seeing your team sell out for RG3 then and drafting MM now, just a few years later? I'd go bonkers.

But, whatever it takes, I'm okay with. If he's the future of this team, I'd rather overpay to make sure we get him than miss our chance at a deal.
Dreagon
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 12 2015, 07:29 PM) *
Remember, as of right now, the guys he is competing against, Bradford and Sanchez, have career passer ratings of 79.3 and 74.4 respectively, which in last year's passer rating stats would have ranked 28th and 32nd respectively.


And this is why I have to believe Kelly traded Foles and the draft pick to grab Bradford as more tradebait. The trade just doesn't make sense otherwise.
Zero
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Apr 13 2015, 12:37 AM) *
And this is why I have to believe Kelly traded Foles and the draft pick to grab Bradford as more tradebait. The trade just doesn't make sense otherwise.

There's too many other factors that need to fall right for them to get Mariota and I'm sure Kelly knows that. I believe Bradford has potential to be a trade chip in Kelly's eyes but I also think Kelly believes he can get better production from him than from Foles assuming health.

Who would they trade Bradford to and why would the other team make the trade if Bradford is such a health risk? That part of the trade bait argument is a huge hole. And, there's a lot of chatter that Mariota has supplanted Winston as #1 to Tampa. No matter where he goes, if he's off the board, who would the Eagles trade up for?

IMO, Bradford will be our starter this year and Kelly will draft a QB to replace Barkley. Even if they draft MM I think Bradford is the starter. If Bradford produces, his contract status will depend on how the kid develops, but I suspect he's a one year starter in Philadelphia. 2016 will see Sanchez and the kid competing in camp and the kid taking the reins by mid season. Everyone says this is a QB friendly system and Kelly has won with all levels and descriptions of QBs. Mariota may be the best fit for them but still a luxury not a necessity.
Pbfan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 12 2015, 07:29 PM) *
Wow!! Seems like some deep seeded hatred there PB!

Remember, as of right now, the guys he is competing against, Bradford and Sanchez, have career passer ratings of 79.3 and 74.4 respectively, which in last year's passer rating stats would have ranked 28th and 32nd respectively.

It ain't like we got Manning and Brady here. It's not a stretch to say he would be our best QB option next year.

28th and 32nd!!

IMO, In a quest for a SB, a gaping hole at the QB spot trumps all others.


What makes you think though that Mariota is going to be a great QB? Shouldn't we only draft a QB that shows a lot of promise? I don't think Mariota has done this.

Are you guys sure you are not bolstering your view of Mariota because its a draft in which we may need a QB? Couldn't this bias make you think a good QB (that is still one of the best in the draft) looks like a great QB? I think we can all be certain that none of the QBs in the draft look like Luck.
Phits
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 13 2015, 06:46 PM) *
What makes you think though that Mariota is going to be a great QB? Shouldn't we only draft a QB that shows a lot of promise? I don't think Mariota has done this.

It's not about whether MM is a "great QB" but whether he is a great fit for Chip's system.

QUOTE
Are you guys sure you are not bolstering your view of Mariota because its a draft in which we may need a QB? Couldn't this bias make you think a good QB (that is still one of the best in the draft) looks like a great QB? I think we can all be certain that none of the QBs in the draft look like Luck.

I would rather keep going for the right QB, than sitting back and waiting for it fall into our laps.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 13 2015, 05:46 PM) *
What makes you think though that Mariota is going to be a great QB? Shouldn't we only draft a QB that shows a lot of promise? I don't think Mariota has done this.

What standard are you using to define "show a lot of promise"?

QUOTE
Are you guys sure you are not bolstering your view of Mariota because its a draft in which we may need a QB? Couldn't this bias make you think a good QB (that is still one of the best in the draft) looks like a great QB? I think we can all be certain that none of the QBs in the draft look like Luck.

You realize Luck was the best QB prospect of our lifetime, right? If that is your exclusive standard for drafting a QB, you will never do it.
Pbfan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 13 2015, 07:26 PM) *
What standard are you using to define "show a lot of promise"?


You realize Luck was the best QB prospect of our lifetime, right? If that is your exclusive standard for drafting a QB, you will never do it.


What is show a lot of promise? Let me put it this way- if we are going to get the top rated QB, I want him to look like Bradford did.

Is luck my exclusive standard? No. Thats my requirement for some of these crazy trade ideas.
Pbfan
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 13 2015, 07:04 PM) *
It's not about whether MM is a "great QB" but whether he is a great fit for Chip's system.


I think you guys are over-emphasizing the importance of fitting into this "system". You look at the guy from the basics, that are important for any qb in any system, and I don't think he's been as good as some other #1 QB draft prospects in recent years. We can definitely wait till we have a better opportunity. We need SO much improvement in other positions!

QUOTE
I would rather keep going for the right QB, than sitting back and waiting for it fall into our laps.


Oh it will never, ever fall into our laps. But there's just so little evidence this is the "right QB". I think you guys have convinced yourselves because he is the #1 QB.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 13 2015, 06:29 PM) *
What is show a lot of promise? Let me put it this way- if we are going to get the top rated QB, I want him to look like Bradford did.

Does this mean white? It seems like it means white.
samaroo
We usually do well enough to not have a top-10 pick, (thanks CLE, OAK, JAX and TEN!) which means when there is a can't-miss-super-awesome QB prospect, we're not in a position to get him, and there's a bunch of QB-hungry teams there licking their chops.

We might have a legit shot at getting a QB who might be our Russel Wilson. Is Wilson better than Luck? I don't think so, but he's better than Luck at being Seattle's QB. And he's got 1.9 SB rings already. We don't need to find the next Manning, Rodgers or Brady. We've got to find a guy who can play for our team well enough, and elevate the team enough, to win the last game of the season.

MM might not be that guy, but he's also the best bet we've seen and had a chance at. When looking for a QB, you take all the swings you can. When you get your guy, the strike outs don't matter, just that one home run you hit. Do you think Seattle laments Seneca Wallace or Charlie Whitehurst right now?
Pbfan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 13 2015, 07:41 PM) *
Does this mean white? It seems like it means white.


So you're that lady that wrote the rolling stone article...?
Phits
QUOTE (samaroo @ Apr 13 2015, 07:55 PM) *
We usually do well enough to not have a top-10 pick, (thanks CLE, OAK, JAX and TEN!) which means when there is a can't-miss-super-awesome QB prospect, we're not in a position to get him, and there's a bunch of QB-hungry teams there licking their chops.

We might have a legit shot at getting a QB who might be our Russel Wilson. Is Wilson better than Luck? I don't think so, but he's better than Luck at being Seattle's QB. And he's got 1.9 SB rings already. We don't need to find the next Manning, Rodgers or Brady. We've got to find a guy who can play for our team well enough, and elevate the team enough, to win the last game of the season.

MM might not be that guy, but he's also the best bet we've seen and had a chance at. When looking for a QB, you take all the swings you can. When you get your guy, the strike outs don't matter, just that one home run you hit. Do you think Seattle laments Seneca Wallace or Charlie Whitehurst right now?

^^Yep. What he said.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 13 2015, 07:27 PM) *
So you're that lady that wrote the rolling stone article...?

Yep, that's me.

But what the hell could you possibly mean by "look like Sam Bradford did"?


Pbfan

You're totally avoiding the question. Why is he a QB to mortgage our current and future drafts on? You need to prove it, I don't need to disprove it.
In terms of talent/ability/promise...obviously.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 13 2015, 09:36 PM) *
Yep, that's me.

But what the hell could you possibly mean by "look like Sam Bradford did"?


im talking aside from the ACL obviously...

Mariota is not a player you mortgage your future on. It's a stupid risk to take! You can definitely do well without a great QB. You can make the playoffs, you can win a superbowl. What you can't do, is have the glaring holes we have on D!
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 13 2015, 10:06 PM) *
In terms of talent/ability/promise...obviously.

Obviously...cause Mariota didn't just win a Heisman. He didn't finish his career with 104 passing td's to only 15 int's. He didn't do all this while capable of running a 4.5 40 at roughly the same size as Bradford.

But sure, he's got no talent, ability, or promise.

QUOTE
Mariota is not a player you mortgage your future on. It's a stupid risk to take! You can definitely do well without a great QB. You can make the playoffs, you can win a superbowl. What you can't do, is have the glaring holes we have on D!

He's exactly the type of person you take a risk on. He's a great athlete and could step in on day one and play within our offense. At the most important position in sports.

There is no bigger hole than not having an answer at QB. Whether we land Mariota or not, it's a position that needs to be addressed.

I like Bradford and what he could potentially do in Chip's offense. I'd still much prefer making a big move for a guy that offers the endless upside as MM. Whether you want the guy or not, suggesting he lacks talent is plain weird.
samaroo
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 14 2015, 01:06 PM) *
You're totally avoiding the question. Why is he a QB to mortgage our current and future drafts on? You need to prove it, I don't need to disprove it.

I don't think anyone's talking about "mortgaging the future." Can you overpay for a player? Only if he doesn't live up to expectations. What would you be willing to give up for Peyton Manning as a rookie? A whole draft? I would, and I wouldn't consider it a mortgage of the future.

And nobody can prove or disprove anything about an NFL prospect. Every pick is a gamble. Again, it sucks to swing and miss on Ryan Leaf or Joey Harrington, but you certainly can't sit around and wait for Brady to be there in the 6th round, either. You have to make your own opportunities, and take the ones you make.

MM might be the franchise QB we've been waiting for. That, to me, makes it worth a lot. Definitely worth a handful of maybe's (i.e., draft picks.) There is no such thing as overpaying for a franchise QB.

QUOTE
Mariota is not a player you mortgage your future on. It's a stupid risk to take!

Making a move for a potential franchise QB is a risk you have to take in my mind. What you can't do, is keep hoping a QB falls in your lap. We've had one franchise QB in the last 20 years, and we spent a real high draft pick on him. Was he worth the risk? Or should we have taken "can't miss" Tim Couch, or would you have preferred Ricky Williams.

QUOTE
You can definitely do well without a great QB. You can make the playoffs, you can win a superbowl. What you can't do, is have the glaring holes we have on D!


I agree you can do well without a great QB. So well, in fact, that you consistently hover around the top-third of the league, with occasional playoff appearances and no shot at ever drafting that "sure thing" QB prospect you desire. I also believe you can win a SB without one, but you need an elite D that comes once a decade or so. You say we have glaring holes on D, so that is obviously not us right now. What else can happen, as it turns out, is that a great QB can win a SB with an average D. I've seen it happen!
Pbfan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 13 2015, 11:33 PM) *
Obviously...cause Mariota didn't just win a Heisman. He didn't finish his career with 104 passing td's to only 15 int's. He didn't do all this while capable of running a 4.5 40 at roughly the same size as Bradford.

But sure, he's got no talent, ability, or promise.


He's exactly the type of person you take a risk on. He's a great athlete and could step in on day one and play within our offense. At the most important position in sports.


Learn to read. I didn't say he has no talent,etc... its a matter of valuation.You're right he might be a good QB. He could be the greatest ever. So could some 6th round QB. But what is the probability. Thats the question. And I think because there aren't any better QB's coming from the draft, you are overestimating his abilities.

There are obvious concerns about how he will integrate into an NFL offense. Even one like Chips that may be similar to Oregon. There's a lot of adjustments that he is going to have to make. I think he'll be good. But you guys are valuing him to high.

Its so funny that those that can't have a rational conversation are always the ones that seem to misjudge situations.

Pbfan
QUOTE (samaroo @ Apr 14 2015, 12:32 AM) *
I agree you can do well without a great QB. So well, in fact, that you consistently hover around the top-third of the league, with occasional playoff appearances and no shot at ever drafting that "sure thing" QB prospect you desire. I also believe you can win a SB without one, but you need an elite D that comes once a decade or so. You say we have glaring holes on D, so that is obviously not us right now. What else can happen, as it turns out, is that a great QB can win a SB with an average D. I've seen it happen!


The falure of this logic is that it assumes we ahve no QB. Do you think the probability is higher for Mariota to be a Superbowl QB than Bradford? I wouldn't say so.
samaroo
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 14 2015, 04:25 PM) *
The falure of this logic is that it assumes we ahve no QB. Do you think the probability is higher for Mariota to be a Superbowl QB than Bradford? I wouldn't say so.

I would. I think Bradford might do well here, assuming he stays healthy. I also think MM would do better. There are so many variables in play that both of those statements are wild ass guesses at best. But a hole in your argument seems to be the assumption that if Bradford does well here, he'll stay and be affordable.

If you told me that they'd both be equal on the field, I'd pick MM for the youth and price. Bradford is already expensive, and won't get cheaper if he plays great.
Zero
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 14 2015, 12:06 AM) *
What you can't do, is have the glaring holes we have on D!

I'm on record for not trading away the future. That said, I also think MM would be a great addition for the right price. I also think alot of the 'glaring' has been taken away with FA.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 14 2015, 01:14 AM) *
Learn to read. I didn't say he has no talent,etc... its a matter of valuation.You're right he might be a good QB. He could be the greatest ever.
So could some 6th round QB. But what is the probability. Thats the question. And I think because there aren't any better QB's coming from the draft, you are overestimating his abilities.

You'd probably be hard pressed to minimize the bust risk on a QB more than by drafting a Heisman winner who was a proven entity in an offense that has countless similarities to the very one that we run. For a coach who has compared him to Peyton Manning between the ears.

QUOTE
There are obvious concerns about how he will integrate into an NFL offense. Even one like Chips that may be similar to Oregon. There's a lot of adjustments that he is going to have to make. I think he'll be good. But you guys are valuing him to high.

Virtually every college team runs some version of a spread offense. It could be said for nearly every single one of them.

QUOTE
Its so funny that those that can't have a rational conversation are always the ones that seem to misjudge situations.

Rational? You started this off by stating, "There is NO evidence that this kid is gonna be a great QB." as if we're watching some episode of CSI and just need a blood sample.

I suspect you're not much of a risk taker in life, but I'll tell you what...we're not going to win a SB by cruising at 55 MPH in the right lane. We're not building the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs defense. We need to score to win, and that's not changing any time soon. The best chance we have is by getting a great QB. It's not like the defending SB champs had Patrick Chung in their starting defensive backfield or anything like that.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 13 2015, 06:46 PM) *
What makes you think though that Mariota is going to be a great QB? Shouldn't we only draft a QB that shows a lot of promise? I don't think Mariota has done this.

Are you guys sure you are not bolstering your view of Mariota because its a draft in which we may need a QB? Couldn't this bias make you think a good QB (that is still one of the best in the draft) looks like a great QB? I think we can all be certain that none of the QBs in the draft look like Luck.



I think MM will start out as a very good NFL QB in Chip's system with a chance to develop into a multi time Pro Bowl QB.

Why? He's shown he can run that offense to near perfection.

Now by the traditional qualities of evaluating an NFL QB, I agree with you, I don't think he would be much above average. I would also agree that if we were using traditional evaluations, it would be a reach to get up and get him.

But in Chip's offense, it's a no brainer.
mcnabbulous
Just out of curiosity, but do you guys watch much college football?

The "traditional" way to evaluate QBs is dead. 95% of college offenses are spread. They're all QB friendly.

A guy like Jameis comes from a more "traditional" offense that has produced Jamarcus Russel, Christian Ponder, and EJ Manuel.

Andrew Luck was an anomaly. Outside of simply being an amazing prospect, he played in one of the few pro-style offenses in the game.

If you wait for those types of prospects to come along, you'll basically be waiting forever.
D Rock
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 14 2015, 08:14 AM) *
Learn to read. I didn't say he has no talent,etc... its a matter of valuation.You're right he might be a good QB. He could be the greatest ever. So could some 6th round QB. But what is the probability. Thats the question. And I think because there aren't any better QB's coming from the draft, you are overestimating his abilities.

There are obvious concerns about how he will integrate into an NFL offense. Even one like Chips that may be similar to Oregon. There's a lot of adjustments that he is going to have to make. I think he'll be good. But you guys are valuing him to high.

Its so funny that those that can't have a rational conversation are always the ones that seem to misjudge situations.

The one thing you consistently fail to recognize, is that MM is less of a "risk" or "gamble" for THIS team with THIS coach and THIS system. It's more of a "known" commodity than any other QB since Luck came out. For other teams, your logic rings somewhat true. But for the iggles, not so much.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 15 2015, 03:39 PM) *
The one thing you consistently fail to recognize, is that MM is less of a "risk" or "gamble" for THIS team with THIS coach and THIS system. It's more of a "known" commodity than any other QB since Luck came out. For other teams, your logic rings somewhat true. But for the iggles, not so much.



Bingo!
Pbfan
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 15 2015, 03:39 PM) *
The one thing you consistently fail to recognize, is that MM is less of a "risk" or "gamble" for THIS team with THIS coach and THIS system. It's more of a "known" commodity than any other QB since Luck came out. For other teams, your logic rings somewhat true. But for the iggles, not so much.


No, I dont agree entirely. I think RG3 was more of a "known" commodity than MM. His familiarity with a fast paced offense will not compensate for what he loses in his missing fundamentals. You aren't factoring in the price to get him when you say risk. We will have to trade to #1 to guarantee us getting him.

The amount of picks we will have to give up is astronomical. This risk is VERY high... You don't know what picks we will be able to get for the 2 first rounds and the extra picks. Lets not turn into some of these low tier teams where we just keep drafting QB's because they are "there".
Pbfan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 14 2015, 05:12 PM) *
I suspect you're not much of a risk taker in life, but I'll tell you what...we're not going to win a SB by cruising at 55 MPH in the right lane. We're not building the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs defense. We need to score to win, and that's not changing any time soon. The best chance we have is by getting a great QB. It's not like the defending SB champs had Patrick Chung in their starting defensive backfield or anything like that.


I'm a pretty huge risk taker in life. Actually, my livelihood (trading & market making) is really accepting risk for a fee. So I could say risk is my life. What I do know is that any potentinal increase in probabilitty of winning a superbowl over Bradford doesn't to warrant the HUGE price we have to pay for them.

It's not about not taking risks, its about taking SMART risks.
samaroo
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 16 2015, 10:51 AM) *
It's not about not taking risks, its about taking SMART risks.

I agree with this. But your assertion is that the price to get MM is too high, thereby making the risk greater than the reward. That is a valid opinion. I think others here (me included) just think that either the risk is lower, or the price is lower, or both. I think MM's likelihood of being a better QB for our team than we've had in years to be pretty high. I think the likelihood of him being much better than that to be lower, but still favorable. 2 1sts + Bradford + another player + later draft pick(s) is a price I'd gladly pay for that chance.

If we pay up for MM, there are really only 3 ways it can play out*:

1) He's awesome and leads us to multiple Lombardi's. His statue replaces Rocky's, and he's voted High Lord and Supreme Ruler of Philadelphia forever. The city rejoices. Cheesesteaks and pretzels rain from the heavens. Hallelujah!

2) He plays well, but not superbly, and we average out to 10-ish wins a season, with occasional playoff appearances. No SB. No trophy. More of the same.

3) He sucks out loud and Sanchez takes over. We do well, but not superbly, and we average out to 10-ish wins a season, with occasional playoff appearances. MM gets cut after 2 years, and Cleveland picks him up, where he is lost in football purgatory forever. We try again to find a new QB.

So, worst case scenario, it seems to me, is that we end up where we are now, minus some draft picks. Best case scenario is free food for a whole city (plus some trophies.) I say pull the trigger. Make it happen, Chip!

*There are no possible outcomes other than the three provided here. So sayeth my black novelty toy shaped like a billiard ball.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Apr 15 2015, 08:51 PM) *
I'm a pretty huge risk taker in life. Actually, my livelihood (trading & market making) is really accepting risk for a fee. So I could say risk is my life. What I do know is that any potentinal increase in probabilitty of winning a superbowl over Bradford doesn't to warrant the HUGE price we have to pay for them.

It's not about not taking risks, its about taking SMART risks.



I would think that taking Bradofrd over Foles a second rounder and $12M would be the biggest risk of the two decisions, no?
samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 16 2015, 07:14 PM) *
I would think that taking Bradofrd over Foles a second rounder and $12M would be the biggest risk of the two decisions, no?

True dat!

Also, I didn't think there was enough MM draft-trade talk, so I found this. If you don't wanna click the link, it basically is a spitball session, with a 3 team trade. Rivers to TEN, Bradford to SD, and #2 to us, pluse a bunch of other picks swapped around to make it even.

Interesting, but I'm not sure SD and/or TEN would play ball with that. It seems like the cheapest way to get Chip's boy, though. Mikey, any way to crunch those numbers? Does that seem feasible at all?
Zero
QUOTE (samaroo @ Apr 16 2015, 07:56 PM) *
True dat!

Also, I didn't think there was enough MM draft-trade talk, so I found this. If you don't wanna click the link, it basically is a spitball session, with a 3 team trade. Rivers to TEN, Bradford to SD, and #2 to us, pluse a bunch of other picks swapped around to make it even.

Interesting, but I'm not sure SD and/or TEN would play ball with that. It seems like the cheapest way to get Chip's boy, though. Mikey, any way to crunch those numbers? Does that seem feasible at all?

Why would SD want Bradford over Rivers?
Zero
And this is more water for the blanket:
QUOTE
The Titans might be the worst team in the NFL. They have nothing. Seriously... Without looking up their roster, name five Titans. Is a team with nothing going to build around a 33 year old QB? By the time they get enough good players around him, there's a pretty good chance Rivers will begin to decline. The only way this makes any sense at all to the Titans is if the coaching staff and front office are content to improve their win total by showing improved (although empty) short term results to prolong the lifespan of their jobs. But this isn't how you win a Super Bowl.
Linc ...

This makes sense so maybe I asked the wrong question. Plus, the Chargers would be loading up on needed picks in the first scenario. So, why would the Titans want Rivers? biggrin.gif
mcnabbulous
The second to last paragraph is exactly why they would do it. The NFL is all about keeping your job. That's why the league is so notoriously conservative. They are nearly all afraid of looking like idiots.

It's also why Chip is different. He doesn't give a shit about all the old conventions cause he can get $5M a year in college if it doesn't work out in the pros. But that outside the box thinking is exactly why it will work out.
Joegrane
QUOTE (samaroo @ Apr 15 2015, 11:19 PM) *
...If we pay up for MM, there are really only 3 ways it can play out*:

1) He's awesome and leads us to multiple Lombardi's. ...Hallelujah!

2) He plays well, but not superbly, and we average out to 10-ish wins a season, with occasional playoff appearances. No SB. No trophy. More of the same.

3) He sucks out loud and Sanchez takes over. ...


I'm okay with eliminating option #3 except in the Bradford-like case of numerous injuries.

Another option is that MM plays well and the fit with Chip is a good as advertised. However, the team is so lacking in young, inexpensive talent due to so few draft picks that they can't field a playoff caliber defense. Therefore they languish as just a playoff contender even though they have a SB caliber QB.

My best case scenario for getting MM is that he is telling teams he only wants a minimum length--3yr?--deal. Essentially he'd be hinting that after the deal he'll look to reunite with Chip through free agency.

This would make MM less valuable and cause him to drop somewhat. At some point it would be worthwhile for some team to make a deal with Chip, maybe a team that is not in love with any of the most highly rate players available, does not need a running-QB and is looking to trade down.

I'm not holding my breath that it will happen, just speculating.
samaroo
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 17 2015, 10:10 AM) *
The second to last paragraph is exactly why they would do it. The NFL is all about keeping your job. That's why the league is so notoriously conservative. They are nearly all afraid of looking like idiots.

It's also why Chip is different. He doesn't give a shit about all the old conventions cause he can get $5M a year in college if it doesn't work out in the pros. But that outside the box thinking is exactly why it will work out.

Yep. Also, Rivers will probably be able to play at his current high level for several more years. His experience and skill-set mean he doesn't take many hard sacks, and he never runs, so he's pretty dependable, injury wise. It kind of makes sense to build a young team around a veteran QB, to get them the experience they need. Then, you get the young QB and you've got experienced players around him to help.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Apr 16 2015, 09:04 PM) *
I'm okay with eliminating option #3 except in the Bradford-like case of numerous injuries.

Another option is that MM plays well and the fit with Chip is a good as advertised. However, the team is so lacking in young, inexpensive talent due to so few draft picks that they can't field a playoff caliber defense. Therefore they languish as just a playoff contender even though they have a SB caliber QB.

My best case scenario for getting MM is that he is telling teams he only wants a minimum length--3yr?--deal. Essentially he'd be hinting that after the deal he'll look to reunite with Chip through free agency.

This would make MM less valuable and cause him to drop somewhat. At some point it would be worthwhile for some team to make a deal with Chip, maybe a team that is not in love with any of the most highly rate players available, does not need a running-QB and is looking to trade down.

I'm not holding my breath that it will happen, just speculating.



Is MM really telling teams he wants a three year deal?? I have not heard that.
nephillymike
I make a motion that the board prevent the future posting of anything by said poster Zero and his #$%^ wet blanket!!

It's killing the mojo of my Mariota moment!!

Anyone want to second??
Zero
I'm just burning the bad mojo so the northeast can finally have a recruiting booth for the Optimysts. Confronting the Axis on their own terms is a dirty job.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 16 2015, 10:06 PM) *
I make a motion that the board prevent the future posting of anything by said poster Zero and his #$%^ wet blanket!!

It's killing the mojo of my Mariota moment!!

Anyone want to second??

Hear hear.

I'm actually at the point where I don't think something is going to happen. There seem to be too many players with more leverage who are in the market for MM.

My hope is that Tenn is actually a legit landing spot for Bradford and we can use him and our first (along with some other pieces) to move to that spot. Not counting on it though. Can't wait for the 30th!
JeeQ
I'll continue to keep my wishes simple... #MariotaOrBust
Joegrane
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 17 2015, 12:03 AM) *
Is MM really telling teams he wants a three year deal?? I have not heard that.


I've not heard it either. That is just part of my speculation about how the Birds might still be able to get him.
Joegrane
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 17 2015, 10:39 AM) *
My hope is that Tenn is actually a legit landing spot for Bradford and we can use him and our first (along with some other pieces) to move to that spot. Not counting on it though. Can't wait for the 30th!


A recent article at csnphilly pointed out that Bradford has something to say about this. What team will take Bradford without a contract extension deal?

Why would Bradford agree to that. His alternative is to play in Chip's offense that will likely pad his stats and make him more valuable next year. He had his greatest success playing in St Louis with the current Eagles O coordinator. He has good reason to want to stay in Philly this year.

samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 17 2015, 01:06 PM) *
I make a motion that the board prevent the future posting of anything by said poster Zero and his #$%^ wet blanket!!

It's killing the mojo of my Mariota moment!!

Anyone want to second??

Thirded!

This is going to be the most exciting draft I remember. Maybe for only about 10 minutes, but exciting nonetheless.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.