Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
I get your point, but we probably should move on to other issues before we get all Rob/AJ on this one.
Tell me Oz, what do you thing about Jeff Fisher?
Since its going to be 20 days before we play a meaningful game, here are some observations, pet peeves, rants, and questions before we play this year's version of pre-season game #3 in week 17.
1. Every week I see posters calling for us to add that "deep threat" to our receiving corps, as if suddenly the clouds would disappear, cancer will be cured, and some Iman somewhere would declare to all Muslims that the 21st century doesn't suck, if ONLY we could find our own version of Julio Jones.
I have long opined that year after year of unbroken history that proven CONCLUSIVELY that having an elite WR is NOT the answer to winning football. And while it certainly is a very nice luxury, it definitely ISN'T a requirement. Unfortunately judging from the amount of WR threads, and demands and pleas from so many to add this so call "critical necessity", I'm clearly not making much headway in my efforts.
So let me come at it another way. Let me ask those people a question. Why do we need this "missing piece" when there hasn't been a single game all season where, with the talent at hand, we HAVEN'T had a WR open deep on multiple occasions.
Does it really make sense to invest major cap space, or valuable high end draft capital to add an asset with a skill set our QB can't match? Let's face it, the guy who is probably the greatest QB of all time, and one of the more accurate QB's in NFL history, DOESN'T throw an accurate deep ball.
At least once every game we are teased by a Brady long ball that will fall JUST out of reach of an open WR deep down the field. I don't know what the reason is. Its not arm strength. He's got more than enough. Its NOT that we don't have receivers who can get open. That's just not true. We see one open at least a couple of times a game.
So if I can't make a historical case by pointing out that WR's have less impact on winning than you think, maybe I can make the case that having that "deep threat" WR might be a wasted asset, since our QB might have a problem taking advantage of one.
He hasn't exactly set the world on fire in Oakland. And Carr is not an awful QB for a rookie.
This one eludes me. What are you suggesting? I don't think Seattle or San Francisco would think this felt like a home game. They may be slightly closer, but the climate AND the general make up of the population couldn't be more different. Dallas maybe. But really, why the hell would the NFL care really? If they wanted to get Peyton another ring, just hold the game in Denver, problem solved.Give Goodhell time and he;ll find a way to screw with this too.
and BTW, once again the Super Bowl in Arizona? What team would be extremely comfortable playing there as you look back a few years when the site was named...hmmmmm...Denver, Seattle, San Fran, Cardinals, Dallas....why not the Miami or Atlanta or N.O.? To the Pats, Pittsburgh, the Ravens, Falcons, Philly or the Giants this is like an AWAY game. Of course, nobody in the NFL offices is trend setting these games to match a specific geographical area on purpose, right...nah...they'd NEVER do something like that...
You do understand that Cooper is currently projected to be a top 10 pick. Two firsts and a second would probably NOT be enough to get Cooper.
I thought that the original Randy wanted to rejoin the Pats.
The tweak isn't that massive, and would have an overall beneficial impact: add a qualification that you have to win your division with a record of greater than 0.500. If your division is so bad that it can't produce a single winning team, it doesn't deserve a home game. (The other reason for arguing this is remembering that divisions are rather arbitrary: remember that Indianapolis has shared its AFC South with three expansion teams.)
