Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JDaveG

  1. You warned them, didn't you narc?
  2. I should have known better based on the source of the recommendation, but maybe 6 months ago someone I know commented on FB that people should check out OAN. I'll never get those minutes back. It was awful.
  3. I'd love to participate in one just to mess with the pollster. "How do you respond to the following question: I am in favor of universal healthcare even if it means marginally higher taxes on me and my family." "Strongly disagree. I'm in favor of mandatory euthanasia after age 35. If you haven't procreated by then, society doesn't need your weak genes anyway."
  4. I get them all the time. But no pollster has ever called me. #pollsarefake
  5. Dude, that's awful. I love how he zoomed in on the undefended lane when he said "where do you think they're going to run this play?"
  6. Yeah, that was completely out of character. I chalked it up to "he's been through some stuff and is not going back to this world no matter what." But I wish they'd found another way to accomplish that thematically.
  7. Buttigieg is trying to fill the vacuum in the race that is being created by Biden's downfall. I don't expect y'all to agree with him, but it's a solid strategy. He's not going to out-Bernie Bernie, or out-Warren Warren. I'm not endorsing the idea that you do what you have to in order to win at all costs. But it is how most politicians operate when they're seeking this level of power. Buttigieg is just way better at it than Beto O'Rourke, mostly because O'Rourke is flailing blindly, while Buttigieg has at least identified space he can occupy that distinguishes him from the other candidates.
  8. Echoing everyone else, I think there is a danger in hiring a guy for his first ever HC job right after he got his first ever OC job. Everyone thinks of Kyle Shanahan as this youngster, but the truth is he had been an OC for 9 years when he got his first HC job, including a very successful first stint in Houston, a successful first few years in Washington where he basically tailored an offense for RGIII, and then the 7th best offensive season in NFL history and a Super Bowl berth with us. He was ready. Maybe Stefanski is, but he certainly hasn't proven it like Kyle Shanahan had.
  9. It'll make it easier for him to pull his head out of his ***. I'm in favor.
  10. He wasn't that good, but he was certainly the only one who felt bad about being bad.
  11. Agree. The truth is, it's too easy to miss in the draft, so you have to maximize that capital. TD treats draft picks like they're sure things. He has too much confidence in himself and his team. The reality is, you have to draft well every year, without fail, and you have to stockpile picks and maximize capital, because even when you draft well, you will have misses, injuries, etc. You have to be constantly trying to improve the roster through the draft. When Dimitroff got here, he said "we draft for need." To me, that's a horrible way to approach the draft. You draft for talent first and foremost. You round out need in FA. Drafting for need is how you guarantee you get subpar talent more often, because quite often the position of need is not the best player on the board. That's not to say you don't factor in need at all. I don't care how good he is, this team hasn't needed a first round QB in years. It is to say you always have multiple positions of need. So you take the best player that fits one of those. And occasionally, you draft at a position of strength because the player is so overwhelmingly the best player left on your board that you'd be fools not to take him. See Calvin Ridley. My problem is I thought Calvin demonstrated we were turning a corner. Then we went out and got 2 first round OL this year. If they both work out to be great players, that was a good move. But the truth is, if we'd invested in that position the past 10 years more than we have, we wouldn't have much of a need there, and we'd be able to say "who is the best player at 14" instead of "who is the best OL at 14." You sure wouldn't have had to trade picks to move up for McGary.
  12. If you look at the Patriots' last 10 drafts, they don't always take 1st or 2nd round o-linemen either. They also take a lot of d-linemen. More to the point, they never seem to be reaching. They're always picking good players, and they have an eye toward stocking the cupboard. We have an eye toward rushing to Kroger on the way home to pick up dinner at the last minute. That's why we're always eating TV dinners instead of steak.
  13. Because we can't cover even dropping 7. Granted, coverage may improve if we rush 5 based solely on pressure, but man those 6 better be solid in their assignments, and literally nobody in the secondary is reliable right now, outside of maybe Allen.
  14. Let me suggest that is because you are taking that draft in a vacuum. Sure, in 2014, we had to have a left tackle. You say that's why we should have taken Jake Matthews, and you are correct. I'm saying it did not have to be that way if we'd spent more than a couple of seasons every 10 years addressing the o-line in the draft.
  15. O-line too, until literally this season. If we'd spent some o-line capital in the 1st or 2nd rounds the past 10 years, we'd be looking at a different team. Even 2 additional pieces over that time changes the whole dynamic of our offensive line. Instead, we took Peter Konz in 2012 (2nd), Jake in 2014, and then 2 guys this season. That's it. Everyone else has been mid- to late-rounders. ****, Holmes and Mike Johnson in the 3rd is the highest we've picked anyone else in that span. We've gone entire drafts without picking a single o-linemen in the last decade. At least on the d-line we spent some draft capital. On the o-line, we just wait until it's a problem and then throw the draft at it in one off-season. It's a dumb way to build a team.
  16. Oh, I don't disagree that he's been a solid pick. I'm not mad at Jake Matthews. My point is, we always seem to be picking guys when we need them, not when the best move is to take them. Jake was the right move because we needed a LT, not because he's a generational player. Or even the best player on the board at that time. I mean, he was a 6th overall pick. It's not that he's a bad player. It's that we always seem to miss that "this draft is chock full of ________ position," and just fill out the roster with guys at positions of need. Ridley is the last time I remember us legitimately taking the best player on the board at our pick. Lindstrom may (or may not) end up being that guy too -- him getting hurt isn't the GM's fault. McGary was the best tackle on the board at the time if early returns are correct, but I think it's obvious we moved up to get him because we needed a tackle, not because he was a game changing generational player we had to have.
  17. I don't disagree. I suppose my point is, why are we burning an 8th overall and a 26th overall pick on pass rushers if we can't rely on them? My answer is, we're not picking the right guys. Maybe the right guys weren't there those years, but it's the job of the scouting department to know that and act accordingly. Other teams manage to find pass rushers in the draft. We passed on some good pass rushers to take Jake Matthews in 2014. Jake is a solid piece, but he arguably cost us a Super Bowl (at least if we're going to pass around blame equally, since people blame Shanahan and Freeman to this day). Granted, there weren't a lot of great o-linemen in the 2015 draft either, but the point is, we seem to be taking guys because we need them instead of because they're the best choice. That's Dimitroff's drafting philosophy and it's one I've always hated. But maybe I'm wrong. If I am, the alternative is we are picking the right guys and Quinn isn't capable of coaching them to perform. But that's the same thing we said about Mike Smith, and what did Quinn do when he got here? He got rid of a WHOLE lot of Mike Smith players. We are still churning that roster. So it seems to me we didn't have the right guys then either. And my premise is we won't until Dimitroff goes too. That's not an argument to keep Quinn, and I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying, as I've been saying, he ain't the only issue. A decent coach can get production out of good players. A great coach can get production out of so-so players. Maybe we have a decent coach and a bunch of so-so players. That seems to be what I'm seeing, so that's why I keep harping on the talent. As I see it "why aren't we going after a bunch of FAs help to supplement our two first rounders" is only really a big problem if the two first rounders are playing like 3rd or 4th rounders. If they were hurt I'd feel differently. But they aren't. They just aren't performing.
  18. Honestly? Not with Dimitroff still here. We have coaching issues. We have personnel issues. They overlap. Quinn makes the final decisions on the roster, and he uses (and apparently trusts) the information the scouting department is giving him. Quinn will coach again. At least as a DC. He isn't an idiot. But this isn't working, and I'd wager a large part of that is we don't have the players in the front 7, despite him and TD drafting most of them, to make his defense (or any defense) work. The back 4 is no great shakes either, but he inherited at least one of those guys, and Sheffield has looked decent, so I'm going to give him a bit of a pass there. The Beasley/Takk experiment, however, is over. Either those guys can't play, or Quinn can't get them to play (more likely), or they won't play (most likely). In any event, he can't go anywhere with this personnel, and since he drafted this personnel along with TD, I don't expect another draft to change that. They'll pick the wrong guys again.
  19. Being fair, we drafted Beasley and Takk, both 1st rounders, inside of 3 years. We got Clay and Freeney in FA. It isn’t like they’ve ignored the problem. Grady was a 5th round steal. The problem is our two young 1st rounders either cannot or will not play.
  20. MNF

    I’m just glad we got rid of JD McKissick and Matt Prater....
  21. Right. I mean, to me if the offense hangs 50 on someone and we win 50-44, that's regression (from the last game, I guess it's improvement over that steaming road apple they dropped in Houston though).