NFL 2016 regular season

vivalamexico said:

Also, I guess this means that the Bridgewater situation is worse than we thought.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I didn't think about it that way. I assumed they panicked, and I still think they did, but it's quite possible they did this as a contingency plan for 2017 too if he winds up being out longer ala Victor Cruz.

That injury could easily cut into 2017. At the very least it wipes out all off-season prep and conditioning. I wouldn't call this a panic move at all, based on the severity of the injury, or say that it's "worse than they thought." I'd guess they thought it was that bad all along.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13773480&postcount=130

JollyRoger, I'd say your prediction has come true.

edit: And considering JR's prediction I thought to be wild and crazy at first and now I was proven wrong, I frankly want to hear more from him. I say this as the person with the highest points per week average last year in the NFL pick 'em contest: If JR made picks, I would be influenced by whatever he chooses.

Personally I think 3rd string backup QB for the Dallas Cowboys would have been a good location for Johnny. He always wanted to be a cowboy all along, but you should force him to prove himself for the starting role rather than just giving it to him when he hasn't proven he's worthy for the position. He's flawed through and through, but the Cowboys QB position is exceptionally desperate. Johnny would get to play for the team he always wanted to to begin with, and since the Cowboys (if they did take him) would be the only team in the NFL willing to work with him, they could snag him for an exceptionally cheap contract, saving valuable cap space. Meanwhile Manziel would know this is really and truly his last chance for a career in the NFL, and with Romo getting older/injured there is a realistic chance he could be the future of the franchise (supposing he does get his act together). The good thing about this is even if he doesn't, they lost very little since they signed him for so cheap.

vivalamexico said:

Also, I guess this means that the Bridgewater situation is worse than we thought.

Click to expand...

Just saw on ESPN that his surgery is scheduled for Thurs. 9/8. If memory serves,
when there is an ACL tear, the surgery is usually within 2-3 days. So it's likely that
they had to do other things/wait until he was in a condition where the surgery was possible, which I interpret as a very bad thing.

Still think the Bradford thing was too panicky because it was Bradford, but
assuming the above is true it makes more sense (especially w.r.t Bradford's contract)
than it did initially.

Well at least the Viks still have a good defense... Also... Tebow is still available...

At this point, I bet he'd suit up for a 3 day pass to Disney with Park-hopper option and a box of Cracker jacks with a cool tattoo as the prize inside.

Sommerswerd said:

Well at least the Viks still have a good defense... Also... Tebow is still available...

At this point, I bet he'd suit up for a 3 day pass to Disney with Park-hopper option and a box of Cracker jacks with a cool tattoo as the prize inside.

Click to expand...

Which would be overpaying him by a wide margin.

The Eagles are outright denying that they intended to trade Bradford all along. They sacrificed tons to get Wentz despite him not being particularly impressive, then they got rid of Bradford as soon as they even remotely had an excuse to do so.

To be fair, there could be a legitimate reason to get rid of him. (perhaps he's not getting along with his teammates, perhaps Bradford has problems they don't know about.)

That being said, I don't know who the Eagles think they're fooling.

I would say the legitimate reason to trade him was getting a first round pick.
I find it perfectly plausible that they intended to play Bradford, but that the Vikings made an offer they couldn't refuse.

Frankly , I'm a fan of this trade for both sides

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

You have to presuppose two things for the trade to make sense for the Eagles:

1) They are thinking in the long term.
2) Carson Wentz will be a solid QB. And that's quite a gamble.

I mean, if they were gonna decide that Wentz is gonna bust, they would not have traded up. So I think we can take that as a given from the Eagles FO.
And regarding the longterm thinking, the team is young and is not winning a Superbowl this year, with of or without Bradford. So longterm is really the most realistic way for them to think, especially with developing Webtz, etc.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

first round pick=legitimate reason

No question about that, really.

Timsup2nothin said:

first round pick=legitimate reason

No question about that, really.

Click to expand...

From the Eagles' side, this was a no brainer.

Is my memory playing tricks on me , or did the Eagles announce at one point that
they had no plans to play Wentz this year?

How is this a "no brainer" for the Eagles if they don't plan to play Wentz? The only way not playing Wentz is acceptable is if you have Bradford, which now they don't.

Wentz is (probably) not going to be ready to play. Everyone talks about the "genius" of the Green Bay Packers sitting Aaron Rodgers until he was ready to play. That's pretty easy when you've got Brett Favre, but it is still the smart play even if you don't. Whether the Eagles and Rams can keep that in mind as the pressure mounts is of course a question.

Timsup2nothin said:

Everyone talks about the "genius" of the Green Bay Packers sitting Aaron Rodgers until he was ready to play. That's pretty easy when you've got Brett Favre, but it is still the smart play even if you don't.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. Do we know that Rodgers wouldn't have been just as good if he had started from day one?
There's something to be said for sitting and learning, but adjusting to the pace of the game and such only comes with experience, and there's no proof that letting QBs learn through experience isn't better, especially for teams like the Rams and Eagles, who are both building for the future, and can afford to let their QBs make mistakes and learn since they're not in win-now mode


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

vivalamexico said:

I'm not so sure about that. Do we know that Rodgers wouldn't have been just as good if he had started from day one?
There's something to be said for sitting and learning, but adjusting to the pace of the game and such only comes with experience, and there's no proof that letting QBs learn through experience isn't better, especially for teams like the Rams and Eagles, who are both building for the future, and can afford to let their QBs make mistakes and learn since they're not in win-now mode

Click to expand...

Don't overlook the damage (from a franchise perspective) in letting a newbie go out there and start and get knocked around. He's the starting QB now, so come contract time, he's gonna demand a massive contract to stay... at the same time, if he falters or starts sucking, he's gonna have a bad taste in his mouth about the team, and the fans are gonna turn on him and make a really unhappy uncomfortable situation where he will be demanding to be traded... so all is for naught. Keeping him on the bench until he is fully ready, and has developed some team/locale loyalty, can be a good strategy.

I think the number of high potential quarterbacks dumped behind a bad line and told to score enough to make up for a bad defense who got the confidence beaten out of them speaks for itself.

vivalamexico said:

I'm not so sure about that. Do we know that Rodgers wouldn't have been just as good if he had started from day one?
There's something to be said for sitting and learning, but adjusting to the pace of the game and such only comes with experience, and there's no proof that letting QBs learn through experience isn't better, especially for teams like the Rams and Eagles, who are both building for the future, and can afford to let their QBs make mistakes and learn since they're not in win-now mode


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I think this really works on a case by case basis. There are some guys who need to
sit and learn before going out and getting their experience, and others who are
better off playing from the get go. As Tim said, the quality of the team around them
will/should also influence this (See Carr, David).

Serutan said:

I think this really works on a case by case basis. There are some guys who need to
sit and learn before going out and getting their experience, and others who are
better off playing from the get go. As Tim said, the quality of the team around them
will/should also influence this (See Carr, David).

Click to expand...

I would have said Plunkett, Jim, but only because I'm obviously old. Thing is, that we could list off top talent quarterbacks that were day one rookie starters and accomplished nothing literally all day long...where day one rookie starters with long successful careers...there's Peyton Manning.

Carr's problem wasn't that he wasn't ready it was his o-line.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk