2023 NFL Off season News

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

My problem is the 49ers knew what they were getting. Why would you give up 3 first round picks for a project? That sounds insane. I initially thought they were going to use him like the Ravens used Lamar in 2019.

Philly for example, they saw the limitations Jalen Hurts had in the passing game and changed to an RPO with great success. As good as Hurts looks, he's not picking apart a D from the pocket. He's an RPO QB with quick reads in the passing game. He doesn't go through progerssions. Lance is not a pocket passer, never was.

Right, it was never a great move for a Shanahan based system. I'm giving not-ups-because-49ers for not continuing to pursue this just because they spent all that draft capital on him, not saying that the trade to get him is anything but a bad move in retrospect.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

My problem is the 49ers knew what they were getting. Why would you give up 3 first round picks for a project? That sounds insane. I initially thought they were going to use him like the Ravens used Lamar in 2019.

Philly for example, they saw the limitations Jalen Hurts had in the passing game and changed to an RPO with great success. As good as Hurts looks, he's not picking apart a D from the pocket. He's an RPO QB with quick reads in the passing game. He doesn't go through progerssions. Lance is not a pocket passer, never was.

Having an RPO QB works great in college. In the NFL, with MUCH faster DE's and linebackers, not so much. They close on the QB much faster, and more importantly, can read the play and react much faster.

...aaand they hit much harder. There are two types of RPO QB's...those with CTE, and those that WILL get CTE's.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Having an RPO QB works great in college. In the NFL, with MUCH faster DE's and linebackers, not so much. They close on the QB much faster, and more importantly, can read the play and react much faster.

...aaand they hit much harder. There are two types of RPO QB's...those with CTE, and those that WILL get CTE's.

It has worked several times in the NFL provided you have the QB with the skillset, and the supporting cast around him. The Ravens went 14-2 in 2019, and the Eagles just went to a SB. CTE would be the last thing on their minds.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't see the racism here. Can you point to it?

I can understand the POV of those that wanted to kneel, and those that wanted to stay in the tunnel. I can also understand those not comfortable doing that as well. What I don't like is when people label others for making one choice or the other.

The situation began with Kaepernick's protest (backed at first only by his buddy, Eric) over the racism involved in the 49ers treatment of him, which evolved into a general protest of racism in the league (I know damn well that Dennis Allen should never get another HC job after his Oakland disaster, yet Bienemi has KC host the AFCCG every single year and still can't get a sniff; also the way the league protects and promotes its [traditionally white] QBs yet lets the [black] RBs get chewed up and screwed over by the franchise tag, and of course the lack of black ownership in a 70% black league) and when the protests spread in Week 2, President Trump (who may not be the literal Satan the BushCrat party has spent most of a decade slandering him as, but was not exactly considered a unifying figure on race relations) had waded into the controversy, apparently to appeal to the more retrograde elements of his base.

Combined with the fact that the mandate to stand for the anthem was part of the NFL's partnership with the Pentagon, another organization that exists to exploit black men, being forced to appear and salute was seen (by some) as submission to white tyranny. Some teams might not have wanted to rock the boat, some white players might not have wanted to take part in a black-based protest (although one would think that a certain loyalty to one's teammates would be a good thing)

It would be one thing if Carr had supported his teammates, if he had gone out alone for the coin flip to avoid the penalty, or even if he and other compliant players had gone out while those who wished to protest stayed away. But apparently he "pulled rank" and got the coaches to force his teammates to act against their previous decision. I'm not surprised he got "screen-doored", which we now have another allegation does happen.

I'm not saying the o-line was right; I think they clearly overestimated how easy it would be to reset against Denver. But I understand why they felt slighted and thus justified. And I think ignoring others' concerns about racism is at least slightly racist.

And I think that the organization's subsequent actions (drafting Great White Stiff to break up the line, selling off the two black stars and keeping Carr, Gruden's emails) would indicate the black players had some reason to be concerned. It's possible that Carr was innocent despite all that…but I'm reluctant to give him much rope, I admit. JMO.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

The situation began with Kaepernick's protest (backed at first only by his buddy, Eric) over the racism involved in the 49ers treatment of him, which evolved into a general protest of racism in the league (I know damn well that Dennis Allen should never get another HC job after his Oakland disaster, yet Bienemi has KC host the AFCCG every single year and still can't get a sniff; also the way the league protects and promotes its [traditionally white] QBs yet lets the [black] RBs get chewed up and screwed over by the franchise tag, and of course the lack of black ownership in a 70% black league) and when the protests spread in Week 2, President Trump (who may not be the literal Satan the BushCrat party has spent most of a decade slandering him as, but was not exactly considered a unifying figure on race relations) had waded into the controversy, apparently to appeal to the more retrograde elements of his base.

Combined with the fact that the mandate to stand for the anthem was part of the NFL's partnership with the Pentagon, another organization that exists to exploit black men, being forced to appear and salute was seen (by some) as submission to white tyranny. Some teams might not have wanted to rock the boat, some white players might not have wanted to take part in a black-based protest (although one would think that a certain loyalty to one's teammates would be a good thing)

It would be one thing if Carr had supported his teammates, if he had gone out alone for the coin flip to avoid the penalty, or even if he and other compliant players had gone out while those who wished to protest stayed away. But apparently he "pulled rank" and got the coaches to force his teammates to act against their previous decision. I'm not surprised he got "screen-doored", which we now have another allegation does happen.

I'm not saying the o-line was right; I think they clearly overestimated how easy it would be to reset against Denver. But I understand why they felt slighted and thus justified. And I think ignoring others' concerns about racism is at least slightly racist.

And I think that the organization's subsequent actions (drafting Great White Stiff to break up the line, selling off the two black stars and keeping Carr, Gruden's emails) would indicate the black players had some reason to be concerned. It's possible that Carr was innocent despite all that…but I'm reluctant to give him much rope, I admit. JMO.

I understand your points. I just don't understand how it makes Carr a racist. Everyone has their opinions and act accordingly. I just don't see it as him having something against Blacks. The fact that he may not have liked what they were doing doesn't make someone racist.

[Ragnar]

The Cowboys trade for Trey Lance for a 4th round pick. I honestly don't know what to think about this. Dallas just gave away a 4th round pick.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

The Cowboys trade for Trey Lance for a 4th round pick. I honestly don't know what to think about this. Dallas just gave away a 4th round pick.

I don't blame them for kicking the tires. I'm not a Lance fan. But I also hesitate to put the nail in his career's coffin cause the guy simply hasn't played. He lost his last college year, got spot duty his rookie year, got injured from the jump his sophomore year. And his pro career has been guided by the QB's nightmares the Shanahans.

No one gets better by not playing.

[Syd Thrift]

I'm not criticizing anyone for kicking the tires, it just seems like a gross overpay for a guy who's a 3rd year guy with like 3 starts to his name who can't battle his way past the 3rd string. I was expecting offers of 6ths and 7ths and the 49ers to say "no thanks, we'll keep him for another year and see what happens".

I guess this is the cost of getting them to move on a year early and I guess if Lance turns out to be a player, nobody's going to care that the Cowboys gave up a 4th, but if he's just holding a clipboard for 2 years behind Dak, that's one spicy overpay for a 2 year backup...

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I don't blame them for kicking the tires. I'm not a Lance fan. But I also hesitate to put the nail in his career's coffin cause the guy simply hasn't played. He lost his last college year, got spot duty his rookie year, got injured from the jump his sophomore year. And his pro career has been guided by the QB's nightmares the Shanahans.

No one gets better by not playing.

He's basically what Jalen Hurts was until they changed the gameplan. Jalen Hurts isn't a pocket passer. He doesn't go through progressions. He's a one or two read QB and takes off. His success is through the RPO. Quick reads in the passing game. But Hurts has the supporting cast.

Trey Lance needs a similar gameplan. He would be the perfect backup to Jalen Hurts, not Dak.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

He's basically what Jalen Hurts was until they changed the gameplan. Jalen Hurts isn't a pocket passer. He doesn't go through progressions. He's a one or two read QB and takes off. His success is through the RPO. Quick reads in the passing game. But Hurts has the supporting cast.

Trey Lance needs a similar gameplan. He would be the perfect backup to Jalen Hurts, not Dak.

Trey Lance needs to play. Period. Until a player is asked & given opportunity to display a certain skill, I won't completely dismiss the idea he is incapable of displaying such a skill. lance was always going to be a project. Everyone knew it from the get go. A project can't improve if he is never on the field in real game situations.

I don't blame Dallas for trading for him. But for Lance's sake, I'd rather see him go to the Bucs, Dolphins, Falcons. A team that has an influx QB situation that will have interest in seeing him develop & not married to their current starter.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

... the way the league protects and promotes its [traditionally white] QBs yet lets the [black] RBs get chewed up and screwed over by the franchise tag...

It's certainly fair to call out how RB's are getting screwed, although a strong case can be made that - given their productive-years-expectancy and the ease at which they can be replaced - the market for them is legit, even if it seems unfair. However, the insinuation that RB's are getting hosed due to racism seemingly requires a belief that owners are racist against RB's but not against QB's. Otherwise, it would be pretty hard to explain how 6 of the 10 highest paid QB's are black...

Originally Posted by Amazin69

... and of course the lack of black ownership in a 70% black league)

I think it's closer to 56%, actually. Doesn't negate your point. I mean 0% compared to 56% or 70% is still a stark difference.

Originally Posted by Amazin69

... the Pentagon, another organization that exists to exploit black men

Seriously? The Pentagon exists to exploit black men? I can only assume this is hyperbole on steriods

[dsvitak]

Seriously? The Pentagon exists to exploit black men? I can only assume this is hyperbole on steriods

I would like to address this.

My father joined the military in 1947, very soon after President Truman COMPLETELY integrated the US Armed Forces.

Race was no longer a factor in job selections, or promotions.

I can make a bullet-proof case that the military was the LEAST racist part of American society. Easily.

My father was on active duty from 1947 to 1968, then another ten years in the reserves after that. I was on active duty from 1974 to 1994, with another ten years in the reserves (subject to recall, had to maintain standards and uniforms) for another ten years after that.

So..my dad and I were in the military or reserves, unbroken, from 1947 to 2004, a period of 57 years.

We both agreed that the military was the way out of the ghetto for millions and millions of men and women. It gave them a trade, respect, and a way to provide for their families.

Now. Are African-Americans and other minorities killed at a greater rate than whites? NO. Every study I have ever seen indicate that young, white Lieutenants, in Viet Nam, were killed more than the minority soldiers they commanded.

Now..if you want to claim that the Pentagon exploits ALL young soldiers? Would I get behind that?

NO. The military is 100% voluntary, and has been for more than 50 years. It was an absurd thing to even attempt to claim that soldiers are exploited. They join voluntarily, then follow orders.

Edit to add... https://www.archives.gov/research/mi...lty-statistics

About 7000 of the 58000 dead in Viet Nam were black. This is 12%, in line with the demographics of the US at the time.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by thehef

It's certainly fair to call out how RB's are getting screwed, although a strong case can be made that - given their productive-years-expectancy and the ease at which they can be replaced - the market for them is legit, even if it seems unfair.

These are the only reasons their market is down.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Now..if you want to claim that the Pentagon exploits ALL young soldiers? Would I get behind that?

NO. The military is 100% voluntary, and has been for more than 50 years. It was an absurd thing to even attempt to claim that soldiers are exploited. They join voluntarily, then follow orders.

I would disagree. Exploit has a negative connotation, so I see how one would be hesitant to use that term. But just because you volunteer to be exploited doesn't mean you are not being exploited. Just as being addicted to medicine your doc prescribed doesn't keep you from being a drug addict. You may have not done anything illegal, but you are still a drug addict.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

These are the only reasons their market is down.

RB's are kinda like starting pitchers. Gone are the days where you routinely needed 7 or 8 solid innings, at least. Now you just need guys who can get through the order a time-and-a-half without surrendering more than 4 runs... Those 7+ inning guys still exist, and they are cool to have, but they're not crucial.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by thehef

RB's are kinda like starting pitchers. Gone are the days where you routinely needed 7 or 8 solid innings, at least. Now you just need guys who can get through the order a time-and-a-half without surrendering more than 4 runs... Those 7+ inning guys still exist, and they are cool to have, but they're not crucial.

The days of running backs getting long term contracts with guaranteed money are over. Thay can get a long term contracts, but the money won't be guaranteed. So what's happening now is they're giving the good RBs one year at a time contracts.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I would disagree. Exploit has a negative connotation, so I see how one would be hesitant to use that term. But just because you volunteer to be exploited doesn't mean you are not being exploited. Just as being addicted to medicine your doc prescribed doesn't keep you from being a drug addict. You may have not done anything illegal, but you are still a drug addict.

It's the connotation that I strongly disagree with.

Not one person EVER "volunteers to be exploited." The entire premise is wrong.

Are there individuals in the military that are "exploited?" 20+ years on active duty, and I never saw one. Ever. YMMV.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

It's the connotation that I strongly disagree with.

Not one person EVER "volunteers to be exploited." The entire premise is wrong.

Are there individuals in the military that are "exploited?" 20+ years on active duty, and I never saw one. Ever. YMMV.

Again I disagree. Soldiers, prostitutes, professional fighters. All give their bodies up for the benefit of another party.

My cousin joined the Air Force, trained to be a medic, served for 20+, had surgery on his eyes & the AF docs made a mistake & now he's blind. And he can't sue cause, as you mentioned, he volunteered his body to be used by the military. So he was essentially their property to do to as they wished. Sorry, that's exploitation.

But it isn't appropriate to carry this convo on in this thread. So I'm going to finish my thoughts w/this post.

[Cobra Mgr]

So New England has one QB?

Love this tweet

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Again I disagree. Soldiers, prostitutes, professional fighters. All give their bodies up for the benefit of another party.

My cousin joined the Air Force, trained to be a medic, served for 20+, had surgery on his eyes & the AF docs made a mistake & now he's blind. And he can't sue cause, as you mentioned, he volunteered his body to be used by the military. So he was essentially their property to do to as they wished. Sorry, that's exploitation.

But it isn't appropriate to carry this convo on in this thread. So I'm going to finish my thoughts w/this post.

Disagree all you want. So long as you agree that my opinion has equal validity, we're good.