SectionC3

Apparently that didn’t last long and he fooked his own self up.

This logic is why you bring him back and nuke Palmer. Given Cooks’s interest, the only thing I can think of that they may be waiting on is a more accomplished vet at an equally cheap price.

That about sums it up.

From what I understand, Mr. Allen does a lot of the wet work for his son. Take it for what it's worth.

Go to Spotrac. Post 6/1 release = $2.3m savings relative to cap hit if he's on the roster, with a $4.8m 2027 cap charge. If we can find some sucker to trade for him, then it's a much better deal. So, b/c it's post 6/1, we pay a little less to have him off of the roster, and we can use that savings to sign, say, Cooks to a vet min contract and still be better off than what it would be to have Palmer on the roster.

Sure. But Cooks for Palmer with Cooks on a vet min deal I believe actually saves us about $1m in cap space.

Palmer screams mediocrity. Swapping him out for Cooks on a Cooks vet min deal actually saves us a couple of bucks this year. I'm all for it.

Based on what I have heard, it's more along the third rail of it was happening and he didn't object.

Fair.

Here's my bet. They're waiting on Diggs. I know it's absurd to suggest on its face, and I don't think Diggs is what they need. I also don't think it's a good idea in the least to bring him back. But I'm with you in that they basically nuked Palmer at the end of last year and would save a couple of bucks this year by cutting him and bringing Cooks in on a vet minimum deal (assuming Cooks would accept that).

I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm not of the mind that the D has to hold Bo Nix to 7. But there's a happy medium out there. Don't let this guy hang 30 on you in regulation (or 27, if you want to subtract the 3 at the end of the half on the brain cramp), and you win that game in spite of all of the blunders.

A fair point. Kincaid drop, Cook fumble, etc. But I'll push back a bit. When was the last time the defense won us a playoff game? The shutout in Pittsburgh? It seems like every year under McDermott we get into these slogs where style of play hurts us (too slow, in my view, and self-limiting possessions) or we just turn into a sieve at crunch time (13 seconds, Denver, I think fits there as well). So the offense *definitely* has to be better in tough times. But the defense could help a bit, too, and I think that's why the change had to be made.

There's a great deal of truth to this and, like you, I think it's important to look at each of the losses in context. The KC divisional at home was a MASH unit on the defensive side of the ball, and we had to play nearly a perfect game. It should have gone to OT, and it didn't work out. Nobody's fault, really. The Denver game was lost on an atrocious call and some casual play by Josh. But, again, let's not forget that he was playing on a compromised foot that probably affected him a lot more than he'd let on. The throw to Knox in Q4, and what I think was a missed TD to Samuel earlier in the game, probably reflect that. And, on top of that, if we could have had a *bit* more from the defensive side of the ball, that one still is likely different. The KC AFCCG was lost on a bad call, a missed offside call at a high leverage moment, and a Kincaid drop. Plain and simple. And, again, that's another one where if we get just a bit more from the defense, then it's a different game. I don't disagree that Josh has to be better. (Too much casual play against Denver is the big thing.) But it's hard to fault the guy for either of the KC losses.

Still nothing about the St. Louis fed data being a hoax. A little surprising. The chump and company need to get in the ball this morning.

Hoax. Your anecdotal experience is belied by data supplied by the St. Louis Fed.