DriveHomeSafelyAtlantaWins

Dumb thing to say. The market sets the salary range for players. Both of those guys are paid according to their market (and yes, Julio is due a raise). Were we going to pay Ryan less than Matt Stafford? Also, Matt Ryan is arguably top 5, definitely top 7.

That 1st pick better be an o or d lineman.

You can tank while still getting your players to play hard. How? Just don't backfill when you lose 3 critical players in the first 2 weeks. That way, everyone still plays hard on the field, but you still get the draft picks. Unfortunately, the players figured it out, so half of them lost hope and started playing like sewage.

I think after all the injuries, several players quit. Alford and Trufant among them. That's mostly bad news (low mental toughness), but at least they still have the ability to play ok if we get back on track next year.

I don't want a new OC. Sark ain't perfect, but we already have 2 years invested in him. If we had a decent O line, we'd still be dominant on offense. There are better OC's out there, but every time we switch OC's we lose a year. I'm tired of losing years.

Wait, what did Takk say?

I agree about the salary cap. But then, why draft Ridley at a position of luxury instead of a D lineman?

It's frustrating, because it was Quinn's eye for talent that _got_ us Poe and Clayborn. Quinn thought Poe could be more of a force rushing the passer than what the general consensus was, so he offered Poe a one-year prove-it deal. Quinn also thought Clayborn would be great at an entirely different position, and he was right. Why did they let both go without adequate replacement? I worried about that back in free agency, and it turned out to be worth worrying about. How did the same guy who had the special insight to see better than the rest of the league what these guys could do, also turn around and let them both walk without adequate replacement?

It's a great question. Maybe the Redskins started sucking? (I haven't checked). Dunno, but gave me false hope. But when I saw the Cleveland game, I knew the season was over.

Yes. I do. He needs to learn some things. But yes, I think he's amazing and I think he'll get us some Lombardies.

It comes down to whether you believe 8th best offense in history was sustainable, or whether it would have come back down to Earth even if Shanny and the same roster had returned. There's no real way to know. We could ask God, but he doesn't seem to respond to questions like that. I think there are a lot of good O coords who've never had a year that good. Sometimes a company has a really fortunate year with outrageous revenue due to transient market conditions and luck, which turns out not to be sustainable, even with an amazing CEO. Personally, I believe Shanny could've maintained it with our personnel. And Sark hasn't. But that doesn't mean Sark is terrible ... that only proves he's not as good as Shanny. Earlier this year, Sark was still looking pretty good. Lately the O is crap, but the O line has fallen apart and a lot of the players seem to have given up.

I partly agree ... Quinn has not yet shown he can draft excellent starting O linemen. I don't think Harlow and Schweitzer count against him ... they are just non-data. They were secondary priorities in the drafts where we picked them. And I don't think anyone can predict a player falling off a cliff. So I'm worried ... I _hope_ Quinn has the eye for O line talent, but we haven't seen it yet.

I think the problem is injuries and an O line deficiency, not coaching. However, coaching is the reason that even the noninjured positions, like cornerback, are playing poorly. I understand if the players are disappointed that we suck, but they need to have the mental toughness to play a lot better than they have been.

You're pointing out that our offense is way worse than that one year when we had the 8th best offense in history. That doesn't really prove Sark is bad. It might be evidence that Shanny was really good, or that 2016 was a really good year, or maybe that Shanny is way better than Sark. But it doesn't prove Sark is the problem.

Or was that the manhood they took?