oldmanfan

Well of course they have to hit. That goes without saying for any franchise. Their building plan is multiyear. Got two key pieces this year, got a LT and CB last year. Some other starters/depth guys. With 10 picks and a boatload of cash next year they have to get more linemen and a good WR. They have a plan. How well they execute will determine their future and that of the team.

I disagree. He is saying he doesn't understand their plan for building. But they spent capital to get their QB and their leader of the D; two young guys who could be fixtures for years. How is that not a plan for building?

I will never forget the Hit Heard Round the World.

Is it not OK to challenge him? how many folks before the draft last year were saying you have to get the QB no matter what?

Would you not say getting two guys you see as your leaders for years on both sides of the ball is a good start at rebuilding?

Tasker should be in no question and it's a travesty that a guy who changed how special teams are played get so little respect. Of the others maybe Hull and Fletcher. The rest are the Hall of Good to Very Good.

You have to do anything to get your potential franchise QB. Until you do. Then it's wrong.

No he was a scratch. I thought he was hurt but apparently he wasn't. Some guys need to suck up their pride and show up to play this week.

I prefer to say I challenge people's negativity.

Let's discuss this. First, my thread you refer to did not say I am a better fan than anyone else. It asked a question. And the question was simple: if the only thing that one can post about a team is negative, then why are you here? No one really answered that. If that's all one wants to do fine; I just am interested in the motivation for doing so. If you would like to respond I'm all ears. To say I've only criticized once is simply wrong if you look at my history. What I will say is that when I comment, I tend to look at it from the point of view of the team management and try to see why they make decisions fom that point of view. I also wait to see how their decisions play out before I get critical. I have a background in science and medicine; show me the data before I tell you about the disease. Now, let's take this specific thread. One guy got moved onto the practice squad and one got moved off. One is a CB and one is an OT. Does anyone here honestly think that: 1. It makes a difference to their performance on Sunday; 2. That they can't bring the OT back on tomorrow; or 3. That teams don't do this all the time? Of course not. Yet you have people being all pissy about it. That to me can only be explained as looking for an excuse to be critical. Similar to those who say the HC and GM are terrible, they'll be out, etc. I respond thusly: they have a plan, they are following their plan, and their livelihood will rest on whether they are right or wrong. And thus far the evidence of their plan being effective is this: they were a playoff team last season. Some say they backed in, they were the worst playoff team ever, etc. I say this: they put themselves in position to be in when Cinci won. So if you want to be critical of every decision feel free. We all have opinions of course, and we will all differ. But if you're going to be negative just to be negative, or twist things into a knot to try and "prove" something, then odds are pretty good I'll respond. You're a fan, I'm a fan, no better, no worse. But I'm the type who will not go crazy over every single decision as if it's an indictment against the organization. Feel free to do so if it's makes you happy for whatever reason. I wonder about that too. Assuming they think they could offer something (and they have way more film than we do) it might be about cap space.

Davis is going to have to play more like the Davis in Indy.

Yes, that is also true. It will also be true that some here will start all the Allen is a bust, draft another QB if (when) Allen throws his first pick. You call yourself a realist. I think we both are. It's how we deal with that feeling that separates us. You seem to want to wallow more in the negative; I'm more selective.

Go look at what I said immediately after the game Sunday. I said specifically you can criticize anything you want after that debacle. I also have asked repeatedly why they haven't brought linemen in the last couple weeks. I criticize when I see things to be. Ritual about. Others here are incessantly negative no matter what. You want to tell me why?

Moving guys around on the practice squad doesn't need to cause such angst

Not if you're doing so to get a QB and leader of a defense for year to come. And I say that as a guy who thinks you have to have solid line play in the NFL.

I don't know what the deal was with Peterman. Showed well in pratice, offseason, preseason. But just horrid in the actual games.

I look at it this way. If hindsight was 20:20 they most likely would have brought a guy like Anderson in as the vet. But maybe they couldn't afford him given the cap, who knows? But let's say they bring Anderson in to be the guy McCarron was supposed to be, and he gets hurt game 1. The Allen era starts then anyway. As it turns out, Peterman earned his shot with his play in preseason, threw away his shot, and same thing: the Allen era begins. However it turned out, the kid gets his shot. And we'll see what he does with it. Although if I see Ducasse and/or Groy and/or Miller or all three get pushed straight back into Allen's face again, I'll scream even louder at the TV.

I am particularly critical of the media a t times, so 26 may be right. Maybe it's because I remember guys like Felser and Deford on a national level. Guys that could actually do cogent analyses and commentary. Now it's just I have to write something to fill my 24 hour space, so writing tends to be poorer.

They use Goff as an example I think. Well that's pretty much what the Rams did. Kid took his lumps year 1, they added a lot of stuff around him year 2. And then things took off. Next year we have 10 picks and 70 some million to spend. Now, it is on the management to use those wisely. But very similar approaches.

I read it. And it is precisely that idea that I find ridiculous. How many times have he heard throughout the league that the QB position is the most important one by far in terms of having a successful team. They did what they had to do to get their guy, to prepare for the future. and then got a young, freakish athlete to stabilize their D around for the future. That almost by definition is building for the future. You may want to focus more of your attention on how Terry wants his team to fail just so a billionaire can make more money. That's your favorite as I recall. I get that. And they did so to get two hopefully mainstays of their team for years to come. Years to come. That's sort of like saying the future.

Not sure I agree. Both came out of small school, both played pro style offense if I recall correctly. Both had pretty much ideal measurable. Wentz's stats looked better, but as one who has a pretty fair knowledge of statistics you could argue some statistical comparisons were very weak and didn't take important variables into account. Doesn't matter now though. He gets his shot starting Sunday and we'll see

I see your point. I was screaming at my TV during that game. The interior of the line was thrown around like a pee wee team playing a college team. Ducasse weighs like 330? And got thrown around like a rag doll.

Why is it you think that? I was very critical myself after the abomination last week, and said here several times they deserve whatever criticism they get. I do read carefully though, and am willing to challenge stuff that is just dumb. As to this article, to say that drafting a potential long term QB and long term leader for your D is not preparing for the future is just idiotic. How many times have we read here and elsewhere that until you have a QB you have nothing? And I'd say the same for the defensive side, especially with McD's defensive scheme.

Yep. My bad. With Bradford I guess I just assumed it was injury. Still somewhat similar, in that the article states if Allen had looked better against the Bengals odds are he starts last week.

So in the article he says a couple really stupid things. One glaring one is that he said drafting a QB and MLB to lead your offense and defense is not preparing for the future. On the contrary, it is precisely what you do when preparing for the future. It is exactly what you do. And of course he calls Allen and abject failure with no data to back it up. Just another blowhard.