K-9

I thought I answered that already. But I'll restate: Yes. They NEEDED to trade THOSE players for THOSE assets to acquire the draft capital necessary to maneuver in this year's draft WITHOUT having to mortgage high picks in future drafts. So, NO. I don't see any other alternative as it took good players to acquire high enough picks to interest potential trade partners in the last draft. I can't state it more plainly. You would have been OK with trading future high picks to move into the top 10 to get our QB. Fine. I disagree. Especially because even with those traded players, I believe our record wouldn't be much better, if any better at all, given the QB situation. And this forum would be in a meltdown over the prospects of having a sucking season with no #1 pick, at a minimum, in the next draft.

OK, so we have Darby, Watkins, Glenn. The screwed up QB situation is the same. Conjecture is fun, but HONESTLY, how much better than 2-7 are we with those players in the lineup and, assuming "not much", are you still happy to not have a #1, plus whatever other pick(s) in next year's draft? And how much do you charge for a ride in the time machine so we can go back and change 2017? That's often a problem around here. Debate about one subject quickly devolves into another. As I said to 26CB, I have ZERO interest in revisiting the tired debate about not drafting Mahommes or Watson, but suffice to say if we had taken them instead, the QB question is a moot point, even allowing for the fact that their respective experiences here, with this staff, and this supporting cast would be entirely different.

That's a COMPLETELY different argument; one that has been hashed and rehashed to death. I have ZERO interest in going back down that rabbit hole.

I agree, especially with the bold text. Having to have a competition in the first place was indeed a problem as it was totally indicative of the massive non-settled nature at the most important position in sports. That's no small thing to be sure.

Unless they were willing to mortgage future high picks to do so, yes. Two of the top four QB prospects were taken with the first three picks and all four in the top 10. Needless to say, QBs are at a premium. Would you have been willing to mortgage last year's draft assets PLUS next year's to get into a position to take your guy? Darby, Watkins, and Glenn provided the draft capital to maneuver. Not sure we had anyone else of commensurate value to trade at the time. Assuming you wouldn't have wanted to lose future high picks, how would you have acquired the draft capital to put yourself in position to get into the top 10 in the last draft AND retain those future draft assets?

Is it possible Beane was referring to the need to have a clearly established QB coming into camp every year thus nullifying the need for any so called "competition" and rendering control of the position a moot point? Ideally, McCarron would have won the "competition" hands down. He didn't rise to the occasion to say the least. Beane said as much when he said, "AJ wasn't who we thought he was." All that said, Beane and Co. screwed the pooch when McCarron's lack of ability showed itself and he didn't take immediate steps to get Anderson or any other veteran in to mitigate the disaster it became.

Yep. And Kenny Anderson really reaped those benefits when that offense took full shape and began to hum. I give Paul Brown a ton of credit for not trying to stifle some of the elements that they incorporated. That early Bengals offense had all sorts of influences, from Cleveland's running and blocking schemes to Sid Gilman's passing concepts. As a little kid, they were fun to watch.

Yeah, Cook got a tough break. He was destined for greatness. And the Bengals were just starting to introduce some innovative offensive schemes.

That is one heckuva what if. I'd like to think Rauch would have preferred Joe Greene, but I suspect he may have opted for Greg Cook instead.

Glad Erik qualified that comparison between Rutlowski and Peterman. Eddie R was the football equivalent to a utility infielder and could actually play the game. Peterman? Not so much.

Again, I’ve only argued against the idea that Beane mortgaged the farm. He didn’t because he expanded the size of the farm beforehand and then parceled off some acreage. He still has the farm he started with. I think it’s obvious that his future is tied to “what he did.” That’s always been the case for every GM that has ever held the position. Fault or praise, especially at this early juncture, is irrelevant as you pointed out.

I was never a fan of the puck tracker, either. My post was completely tongue in cheek. Interesting observation by your son regarding baseball. It was funny and brought to mind coaching my son’s team when he was a little guy. They were more interested in playing with the dirt and catching bugs than concentrating on the game. Anybody I know that’s been to Nashville for a game says the same thing. Have to put that on my bucket list. And hockey parents are a special breed. And can we ever really love our children enough?

Maybe the Ahole who started the gofundme page should have done that before deciding to go full douche.

?

Maybe we we need to go back k to the old Fox Sports Puck Tracker to help all those southerners with slow eyes.

Attorney General ManBoobs. Has a ring to it.

Who is this coach Length you speak of and when did we hire him to put a program in?

Riveting.

Don’t think I’d classify them as “incidents” so much as simply rude social behavior.

It’s ironic that Eagles fans wanted McNabb to play given how they booed him unmercifully when the Eagles selected him.

I’m more concerned about Allen’s rustiness after weeks off than I am his injury. Jets D on the road has the potential for a rude reawakening. While I think it could get ugly, there is little to gain by coddling the man. Get him th reps if he’s good to go. And be prepared for more ugly offensive football. We need to ask Dr. Chao. Only he knows for sure.

The aforementioned journalists above were often more critical, more scathing in their reports on the Bills and Sabres than Sully or Bucky ever were. But they had class and knew that certain venues, like bars and restaurants, were not for pressing matters, being rude, and acting unprofessionally. As critical as they were, they had the respect of people in the organizations, from ownership on down. And they knew how to turn it off and have a pour of scotch with their subjects once in a while, which is why they could maintain relationships and be privy to more information. Bucky and Sully were the antithesis of that behavior. Being rude and insulting got them nowhere.

I don’t think it’s difficult to assess Reinhart at all; it’s easy to say what kind of player he is: wildly inconsistent and often not fully engaged, especially when it comes to puck battles along the boards. I don’t buy the excuse that it’s becsuse his line mates don’t finish, either. There is no shortage of players that would benefit if their line mates could just finish. Jack is a better example of that, but Eichel keeps generating chances. Samson is just not creating enough opportunities, period. Again, that’s reflective of his inconsistent effort to create them. Anyway, these reports about needing to “find his game” and to “get going” are tiresome. He’s been a pro for five years now. I had hoped he’d have a better idea of what it takes by now. And I think he does. I just don’t think what he has is good enough. Maybe they can package him and Scandella in a trade. ?

Well, yeah. But that's the ethical question, isn't it? I'd be interested in knowing if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a taxi. It's not public transportation, it's transportation available to the public. Great. Yet another screed about how Reinhardt needs to jump start his game early in the season. Might as well wait until January again. Although this year, he won't be on Jack's line to get him going. JBots was smart to sign him to a short term deal. At this juncture and as much as I like certain aspects of his game at times, I wouldn't care if he was traded.

They could have done a multitude of other things with those picks. If I were interested in that aspect of the argument, I'd say that QB and MLB, especially in McD's defense, targeting who they targeted made a lot of sense. There is no way in hell that we can determine if getting those guys was a mistake or not at this juncture. But I'm not interested in revisiting draft strategy. I am only contesting that given all the picks we retained in the process of executing that plan, however good or bad it may turn out, did not cost the farm in the traditional sense of the term as we had two #1s and and still have our premium picks in next year's draft. Good or bad, Beane acquired the draft capital necessary to do what he did. I don't fault him for that aspect of his strategy. And the Jets gave up more than #6 to Indy. They gave them 3 second round picks for the privilege of moving up three spots.