7 hours ago, TEW said:

I agree that moving away from the running QB strategy is an option. But then we are talking about taking away a big part of what makes Hurts special. If that’s the case, do you want to invest $50M a year or whatever it will cost to give Hurts a new contract?

That’s something we need to figure out, especially if we have a top 5 or 10 pick in the draft this year with an absolutely loaded QB group. Maybe it would be better to draft a rookie, keep that QB1 on a rookie deal, and then move Hurts for a couple first round picks. Crazy, I know, but why try to force a square peg in a round hole when you can get a guy who better fits your system, save tens of millions in cap space, and get a slew of draft capital. It’s an interesting thought excitement on opportunity cost.

But alternatively, if you think Hurts can transition into a more traditional pocket passer, then why take WR off the table? If you get a shot to draft someone you think can be a game changer, why pass that up? BPA should be our strategy, and if we move away from running the QB, then there will be more throwing attempts both by design and because the clock will stop more often resulting in more plays per game.

As far as money goes, a rookie WR would be on his rookie deal during Brown’s contract, and Brown would be gone when we need to give the rookie a second contract.

Yes, we need investment in youth across the board, but we have 2 firsts this year, and most of our mistakes at WR seem to come from trying to find a particular skill set instead of drafting BPA.

Great question.   More importantly, how long will this style work for Hurts before the hits take their toll, because they will.  And so the question also is how much can they afford to invest in him moving forward if everyone knows there's a limited shelf-life for that style?

 

But, I can't ok taking yet another first round WR this year, even if we have two picks.  They need to stop drafting WRs so much that early.  And the 50% hit rate is just not something where I could even say... well, at least they will be getting a player.  Because odds are... they won't.  Honestly, the only WR they've hit on since 2009 early has been Smith.  The rest are disappointments or just flat out busts.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

While we’re talking about the future, I’m just going to throw this out here…

The biggest problem with these college styled running QB systems is how much they put the QB at risk of injury. At the same time, their biggest strength is that they are relatively easy to install and find starting level players at QB that make the offense formidable. 

At some point, a team is going to realize you can save $50M a season AND have better QB depth AND avoid risking high first round picks on QBs if you just spam the QB position with mid round athletic guys. You can get someone like Hurts in the 2nd, Jackson in the late first, Malik Willis in the 3rd, etc. You could have all 3 for less than the price of those blockbuster moves teams have been doing recently, which has yielded mixed results. For every Mahomes or Allen there is a Trubisky or Darnold.

You use less draft capital to find a QB, so the rest of your team is stronger. You get more chances to find a solid QB, so your franchise isn’t likely to be left in ruins from one miss. You’re deeper at the position, so one injury doesn’t derail the season. I see a lot of advantages in this resource allocation switch, and it’s all about leveraging the strengths of a system you’ve already implemented.

I know… it’s a crazy idea to do to the QB position what has happened to the RB position. It goes against nearly a hundred years of NFL thought. But if the system allows for a lower threshold of QB to create a dynamic offense, something that isn’t as ethereal as mastering a complex offense and is instead based on an easily recognizable trait like physical athleticism, isn’t that the ultimate money ball approach?

In a league with a hard cap where teams that have their QB on rookie contracts have a massive advantage, some GM is eventually going to be crazy enough to try it. Go for guys like Hurts, Prescott, Willis. And go for a lot of them. One new QB in rounds 2-5 every year. And with a good coach, solid scouting, suddenly you have a massive advantage over the rest of the NFL.

I've been thinking about that too, at least as it pertains to Hurts.  So, maybe that's the way forward for teams that don't find that uber-talented QB.  And they use the money saved to build up the rest of the roster.   

One thing I do know... teams that invest heavily for mediocrity at the QB position pretty much mire themselves collectively in mediocrity for the life of that contract (i.e. Minnesota Vikings).  

And maybe that's this team's idea with Hurts too.  I don't know.  I am hoping not and hoping that he can develop into more and be a long term answer.  I just believe that this style will ultimately be a limited shelf life and won't last for very long at all, but just past the time that the monetary commitment is required.  Tough choices coming if he can't get smarter about hits.

22 minutes ago, UndyTaker said:

The box score of last nights game is a national treasure. The QBs combined for 4 INTs, 10 sacks, and 3 fumbles. Lets ride.

Seems someone forgot to flush that game.

8 hours ago, TEW said:

I agree that moving away from the running QB strategy is an option. But then we are talking about taking away a big part of what makes Hurts special. If that’s the case, do you want to invest $50M a year or whatever it will cost to give Hurts a new contract?

That’s something we need to figure out, especially if we have a top 5 or 10 pick in the draft this year with an absolutely loaded QB group. Maybe it would be better to draft a rookie, keep that QB1 on a rookie deal, and then move Hurts for a couple first round picks. Crazy, I know, but why try to force a square peg in a round hole when you can get a guy who better fits your system, save tens of millions in cap space, and get a slew of draft capital. It’s an interesting thought excitement on opportunity cost.

But alternatively, if you think Hurts can transition into a more traditional pocket passer, then why take WR off the table? If you get a shot to draft someone you think can be a game changer, why pass that up? BPA should be our strategy, and if we move away from running the QB, then there will be more throwing attempts both by design and because the clock will stop more often resulting in more plays per game.

As far as money goes, a rookie WR would be on his rookie deal during Brown’s contract, and Brown would be gone when we need to give the rookie a second contract.

Yes, we need investment in youth across the board, but we have 2 firsts this year, and most of our mistakes at WR seem to come from trying to find a particular skill set instead of drafting BPA.

A WR in the first round isnt happening.

8 hours ago, TEW said:

I agree that moving away from the running QB strategy is an option. But then we are talking about taking away a big part of what makes Hurts special. If that’s the case, do you want to invest $50M a year or whatever it will cost to give Hurts a new contract?

That’s something we need to figure out, especially if we have a top 5 or 10 pick in the draft this year with an absolutely loaded QB group. Maybe it would be better to draft a rookie, keep that QB1 on a rookie deal, and then move Hurts for a couple first round picks. Crazy, I know, but why try to force a square peg in a round hole when you can get a guy who better fits your system, save tens of millions in cap space, and get a slew of draft capital. It’s an interesting thought excitement on opportunity cost.

But alternatively, if you think Hurts can transition into a more traditional pocket passer, then why take WR off the table? If you get a shot to draft someone you think can be a game changer, why pass that up? BPA should be our strategy, and if we move away from running the QB, then there will be more throwing attempts both by design and because the clock will stop more often resulting in more plays per game.

As far as money goes, a rookie WR would be on his rookie deal during Brown’s contract, and Brown would be gone when we need to give the rookie a second contract.

Yes, we need investment in youth across the board, but we have 2 firsts this year, and most of our mistakes at WR seem to come from trying to find a particular skill set instead of drafting BPA.

Think diminishing returns at wr as you invest more marginal resources. Moving from 90 to 95% performance isnt worth it to the overall team. Already have game changers there with a finite (scarce) resource to utilize them (one ball).

Now a DE or CB premium talent will have far more impact on win probability 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

While we’re talking about the future, I’m just going to throw this out here…

The biggest problem with these college styled running QB systems is how much they put the QB at risk of injury. At the same time, their biggest strength is that they are relatively easy to install and find starting level players at QB that make the offense formidable. 

At some point, a team is going to realize you can save $50M a season AND have better QB depth AND avoid risking high first round picks on QBs if you just spam the QB position with mid round athletic guys. You can get someone like Hurts in the 2nd, Jackson in the late first, Malik Willis in the 3rd, etc. You could have all 3 for less than the price of those blockbuster moves teams have been doing recently, which has yielded mixed results. For every Mahomes or Allen there is a Trubisky or Darnold.

You use less draft capital to find a QB, so the rest of your team is stronger. You get more chances to find a solid QB, so your franchise isn’t likely to be left in ruins from one miss. You’re deeper at the position, so one injury doesn’t derail the season. I see a lot of advantages in this resource allocation switch, and it’s all about leveraging the strengths of a system you’ve already implemented.

I know… it’s a crazy idea to do to the QB position what has happened to the RB position. It goes against nearly a hundred years of NFL thought. But if the system allows for a lower threshold of QB to create a dynamic offense, something that isn’t as ethereal as mastering a complex offense and is instead based on an easily recognizable trait like physical athleticism, isn’t that the ultimate money ball approach?

In a league with a hard cap where teams that have their QB on rookie contracts have a massive advantage, some GM is eventually going to be crazy enough to try it. Go for guys like Hurts, Prescott, Willis. And go for a lot of them. One new QB in rounds 2-5 every year. And with a good coach, solid scouting, suddenly you have a massive advantage over the rest of the NFL.

That's a really interesting perspective.  With this scenario are you letting the QB contract run out or trading for capital before FA?  Either way, the team is going to have to hit more than miss on the yearly QB sweepstakes.  I know we a lot rag on the Hurts intangibles but I do think it counts for something.  Say you let Hurts walk and draft KJ Jefferson with hopes that he can pick up where Hurts left off.  I don't know anything about Jefferson as a leader but I think you'd see team morale take a huge dip because this team is 100% behind Hurts.  It's a huge risk to take.  

At the same time, you have to wonder.  If the Eagles give Hurts a top QB contract, which position is going to be effected most?  Can they give Hurts a top contract, re-sign DeVonta Smith, keep some of their new talent on defense and so on?

Having Kelce, Cox, BG and even Slay come off the books the next 2 years will free up money.  Re-working AJ Brown's contract after next year should free up money. 

But sooner than later you're going to have to pay Dickerson.  Mailata is already in year 2 of his 4 year extension and he should have his contract re-worked after next year.  Epps, Edwards, Bradberry, CGJ, White..at least 3 of those guys need to be brought back.   Not even counting FA from othe teams.   

I don't envy Howie for trying to figure out how to manage the cap and this roster moving forward.  Having a QB on a rookie contract does give a team so many advantages.  Your proposed idea would be great...if you continually bring in the right QB and the team buys in to the revolving door at the most important position in sports. 

 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

While we’re talking about the future, I’m just going to throw this out here…

The biggest problem with these college styled running QB systems is how much they put the QB at risk of injury. At the same time, their biggest strength is that they are relatively easy to install and find starting level players at QB that make the offense formidable. 

At some point, a team is going to realize you can save $50M a season AND have better QB depth AND avoid risking high first round picks on QBs if you just spam the QB position with mid round athletic guys. You can get someone like Hurts in the 2nd, Jackson in the late first, Malik Willis in the 3rd, etc. You could have all 3 for less than the price of those blockbuster moves teams have been doing recently, which has yielded mixed results. For every Mahomes or Allen there is a Trubisky or Darnold.

You use less draft capital to find a QB, so the rest of your team is stronger. You get more chances to find a solid QB, so your franchise isn’t likely to be left in ruins from one miss. You’re deeper at the position, so one injury doesn’t derail the season. I see a lot of advantages in this resource allocation switch, and it’s all about leveraging the strengths of a system you’ve already implemented.

I know… it’s a crazy idea to do to the QB position what has happened to the RB position. It goes against nearly a hundred years of NFL thought. But if the system allows for a lower threshold of QB to create a dynamic offense, something that isn’t as ethereal as mastering a complex offense and is instead based on an easily recognizable trait like physical athleticism, isn’t that the ultimate money ball approach?

In a league with a hard cap where teams that have their QB on rookie contracts have a massive advantage, some GM is eventually going to be crazy enough to try it. Go for guys like Hurts, Prescott, Willis. And go for a lot of them. One new QB in rounds 2-5 every year. And with a good coach, solid scouting, suddenly you have a massive advantage over the rest of the NFL.

Its certainly got a strong rationale…

talk about exploiting a market inefficiency…

That game was brutal. Reich should know better than putting Pryor at LT - all he needed to do was make 1 call to someone at the Eagles to know Pryor can't do it. It's nice seeing someone so smug in Wilson having struggles after forcing his way out of his previous team.

4 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

That game was brutal. Reich should know better than putting Pryor at LT - all he needed to do was make 1 call to someone at the Eagles to know Pryor can't do it. It's nice seeing someone so smug in Wilson having struggles after forcing his way out of his previous team.

Think they moved Pryor to RT and put the rookie in at LT for last night's game. It did not work out lol.

3 minutes ago, UndyTaker said:

Think they moved Pryor to RT and put the rookie in at LT for last night's game. It did not work out lol.

That was after the worked out Pryor at LT wasn't going to work.  That OL was a mess, esp when going against someone like Bradly Chubb on a short week. The rookie was thrown to the Wolves

1 minute ago, UK Eagle said:

That was after the worked out Pryor at LT wasn't going to work.  That OL was a mess, esp when going against someone like Bradly Chubb on a short week. The rookie was thrown to the Wolves

Yeah and I dont think that line is improving much by the time we play them. Our Dline should feast just as much as the Broncos did.

6 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

That's a really interesting perspective.  With this scenario are you letting the QB contract run out or trading for capital before FA?  Either way, the team is going to have to hit more than miss on the yearly QB sweepstakes.  I know we a lot rag on the Hurts intangibles but I do think it counts for something.  Say you let Hurts walk and draft KJ Jefferson with hopes that he can pick up where Hurts left off.  I don't know anything about Jefferson as a leader but I think you'd see team morale take a huge dip because this team is 100% behind Hurts.  It's a huge risk to take.  

At the same time, you have to wonder.  If the Eagles give Hurts a top QB contract, which position is going to be effected most?  Can they give Hurts a top contract, re-sign DeVonta Smith, keep some of their new talent on defense and so on?

Having Kelce, Cox, BG and even Slay come off the books the next 2 years will free up money.  Re-working AJ Brown's contract after next year should free up money. 

But sooner than later you're going to have to pay Dickerson.  Mailata is already in year 2 of his 4 year extension and he should have his contract re-worked after next year.  Epps, Edwards, Bradberry, CGJ, White..at least 3 of those guys need to be brought back.   Not even counting FA from othe teams.   

I don't envy Howie for trying to figure out how to manage the cap and this roster moving forward.  Having a QB on a rookie contract does give a team so many advantages.  Your proposed idea would be great...if you continually bring in the right QB and the team buys in to the revolving door at the most important position in sports. 

Agreed.  The QB is the de facto leader of the team.  What happens when that position becomes a revolving door?  We heard from Indy how it is affecting them to have a different QB every year (has it been 5 years in a row now?).   

Not sure how that dynamic changes if its a new QB every 4 years... or every 2 or 3 years more on average, because you know that some of these drafted QBs are going to be a turnover machine... just the nature of the beast in the NFL.   And how big a hit does the team's chances to win take when you move on from a QB in year 4 or 5, that's grown into the league, only to turn it over to a QB you just drafted a year before but didn't get significant playing time.    Or do you draft one every 2 years to work them behind the starter... and mitigate against the injury factor and just run the QB into the ground?   

There's no data out there on this.  It works in college, because there are no 'veterans' that have been with the team for a number of years and have to go through the transition from one to another, and in college, its not like the college really has the option to keep the QB around.  When the QB declares or the QB graduates, he's gone.  Nothing the college can do about it.   What happens in the locker room when the front office decides to let the QB walk away (or trades him away) when he reaches the end of his 'cheap' contract?

One thing I do know... a team doing this, and having success would help to bring down the ridiculous market for QBs league wide.  Right now, the cost is spiraling out of control.  Once a team does this and has success, others will follow and the contract demands could dramatically drop.  Of course, the flip side of this is that QBs would become an even higher premium to land in the draft.  You wouldn't have the luxury of selecting a guy like Hurts in Round 2 anymore.  He'd be a top 15 pick, easily.  Especially if even a few of the teams start implementing that process.  Intangibles and ball security start to take on even more meaning.

8 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

That was some bad football. It's a shame it didn't end in a tie. Both teams were that bad. No one deserved to win that one.

Somehow I think the more appropriate ending would have been for the commish to come in and award both teams an "L". 

11 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Seriously, WTF is that

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Seriously, WTF is that

I believe it the answer to the question: What is the worst photoshop job on the internet?

9 hours ago, TEW said:

I agree that moving away from the running QB strategy is an option. But then we are talking about taking away a big part of what makes Hurts special. If that’s the case, do you want to invest $50M a year or whatever it will cost to give Hurts a new contract?

That’s something we need to figure out, especially if we have a top 5 or 10 pick in the draft this year with an absolutely loaded QB group. Maybe it would be better to draft a rookie, keep that QB1 on a rookie deal, and then move Hurts for a couple first round picks. Crazy, I know, but why try to force a square peg in a round hole when you can get a guy who better fits your system, save tens of millions in cap space, and get a slew of draft capital. It’s an interesting thought excitement on opportunity cost.

But alternatively, if you think Hurts can transition into a more traditional pocket passer, then why take WR off the table? If you get a shot to draft someone you think can be a game changer, why pass that up? BPA should be our strategy, and if we move away from running the QB, then there will be more throwing attempts both by design and because the clock will stop more often resulting in more plays per game.

As far as money goes, a rookie WR would be on his rookie deal during Brown’s contract, and Brown would be gone when we need to give the rookie a second contract.

Yes, we need investment in youth across the board, but we have 2 firsts this year, and most of our mistakes at WR seem to come from trying to find a particular skill set instead of drafting BPA.

AJ brown is 25. When his contract expires he’ll be 29. Unless he falls off the side of the earth like Jeffery, he could get a 3 year extension then AND another small extension at 32. No sense in replacing him on a rookie gamble who’d  be lucky to be a quarter as good

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I hate this comment.

It has nothing to do with the day of the week. A bad game is a bad game no matter the day. Broncos/colts would of sucked **** on Sunday, it just would of been hidden with 7 or 8 other games being played

 

If you think having 3 vs. 6 days of rest doesn't affect player performance, I've got some beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

2 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

AJ brown is 25. When his contract expires he’ll be 29. Unless he falls off the side of the earth like Jeffery, he could get a 3 year extension then AND another small extension at 32. No sense in replacing him on a rookie gamble who’d  be lucky to be a quarter as good

I'll take the flip side of that.   His style of play likely means that giving him an extension at 29 is a gamble.  Giving him an extension at 32 seems reckless.  Brown and Jeffery have something in common... they are/were both physical WRs that were often injured.  Jeffery's career took a hard down turn at 29.  I think Brown might follow a similar trajectory... it might take until 30, but I don't see him being in the NFL as a top WR at 32.   There's time to change this opinion, and no decision needs to be made for a few years... but it's a gamble.

 

But, given Howie's track record, we can likely predict what he's going to do.

Brown's cap number rises dramatically in 2026 when he's 29.  Howie will flip that salary to a signing bonus, drop his cap hit down to about $15M or so, and tack on 2 or 3 more years of contract with another 3-5 voided years to spread out that $30M.  

Whether or not this will bite Howie or not, but that's basically what Howie does now, and it burned us badly with Jeffery.  Personally, I'd rather they 'cut' him prior to that year, and rework his deal entirely... and keep the end of the deal from being an albatross contract.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I hate this comment.

It has nothing to do with the day of the week. A bad game is a bad game no matter the day. Broncos/colts would of sucked **** on Sunday, it just would of been hidden with 7 or 8 other games being played

Bull.  The lack of rest exacerbates the bad product.  It would have been a bad game on a Sunday, but it would have at least given them more time to game plan, more time to heal and get fresher for the game.  Tired bodies, with bad game plans on bad teams matching up against one another makes for a dreadful product.  

 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

It doesnt. Bad football is bad football regardless of the rest.

Did you watch the Seahawks Broncos game? they had...(counts on his toes) 15 days before that MNF game and it looked like dog crap

How about the Giants/Cowboys game that had an extra day last week? or the Giants/Bears game that had a normal week F how about any Fing bears game. 

BAD FOOTBALL = BAD FOOTBALL. 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 days, doesnt Fing matter

 

Broncos have been a bad team all year, and that's a miniscule sample size (cherry-picking). Scoring is definitely lower on avg. for Thurs. night games. I'd wager injury rates are higher, too.

9 hours ago, ManuManu said:

Richard Sherman hates Wilson so much that’s he’s talking in loud jibberish. My word. 

He's right though

8 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'll take the flip side of that.   His style of play likely means that giving him an extension at 29 is a gamble.  Giving him an extension at 32 seems reckless.  Brown and Jeffery have something in common... they are/were both physical WRs that were often injured.  Jeffery's career took a hard down turn at 29.  I think Brown might follow a similar trajectory... it might take until 30, but I don't see him being in the NFL as a top WR at 32.   There's time to change this opinion, and no decision needs to be made for a few years... but it's a gamble.

 

But, given Howie's track record, we can likely predict what he's going to do.

Brown's cap number rises dramatically in 2026 when he's 29.  Howie will flip that salary to a signing bonus, drop his cap hit down to about $15M or so, and tack on 2 or 3 more years of contract with another 3-5 voided years to spread out that $30M.  

Whether or not this will bite Howie or not, but that's basically what Howie does now, and it burned us badly with Jeffery.  Personally, I'd rather they 'cut' him prior to that year, and rework his deal entirely... and keep the end of the deal from being an albatross contract.

The decision point for Brown is 2025. By that point, Devonta gets paid. If Brown is good, restructure. If Brown is bad, release.

IMO, the likely scenario is that Brown is good but not great and that he restructures to get more guaranteed, but less total money. 

1 minute ago, RLC said:

He's right though

Not really. It was a bunch of emotional nonsense. He spouting off about how the Broncos should have ran the ball on third down instead of throwing it because they would have gotten the first down and ran the clock out. It was third and four and they just got stuffed for a one-yard gain. It was before the two-minute warning. 

He wasn’t making sense. He was just using the postgame show to grind his axe. 

1 minute ago, RLC said:

The decision point for Brown is 2025. By that point, Devonta gets paid. If Brown is good, restructure. If Brown is bad, release.

IMO, the likely scenario is that Brown is good but not great and that he restructures to get more guaranteed, but less total money. 

That decision point makes for a $30M dead cap hit if they move on from Brown in 2025.  

I hope that the bolded is true.