A Continuous Journey: 2024 NFL Offseason Thread

I know this is a classic can't-prove-it hypothetical, but I feel like those Cowboys would have won four straight Super Bowls if Jimmy stays HC. They were still ascending in '93.

 

They should have anyway had they called PI on Deion. [/stillbitter]

 

Well, the QB (Jimmy G) was the problem.

In this case, I suppose I'll wait to see who Shanahan hires.

Wilks was not in a Bowles/Fangio/Spags tier of DCs.

 

Incredible talent. Bears could not fully unlock it.

 

I understand the situation in SF - they kept "their system" but brought in Wilks who couldn't bring in his own staff or run his scheme. It was a bad match. It still looks bad for Shanahan.

 

I'll believe it when I see it. It would be incredibly stupid. They would be giving up the draft capital and committing to his fifth-year option at about $22 million in 2025. This is also a coaching staff that is so allergic to turnovers that they hamstrung their 2022 first-round pick, but they supposedly want to trade for an erratic passer who can't take care of the ball. His passing numbers aren't great and they were inflated by two big games. He threw four touchdown passes in two consecutive games, against a terrible Washington defense and a Denver D that struggled at the time, then had only eight more in the other 11 games combined. The dimension as a runner helps, but it also brings an additional risk of injury.

Supposedly, Tomlin loves Fields. Then again, he supposedly loved Malik Willis, too, and then they passed on him to take Pickett.

 

What do you think they'd have to give up for him? Not sure it would even be a No. 1. The Bears have little leverage here. It's possible it would be stupid for Pittsburgh to trade for him, but I think the Bears would be stupid to trade him.

 

If you like one of one of the QB’s coming out then you deal him. There’s nothing more valuable than a good QB on a rookie deal.

 

https://x.com/donatkinsonnfl/status/1758158822470816133?s=46&t=L4EPA_yaT-JOIW0PJLAOaA

This a good explanation on why Wilkes was let go. It wasn’t about the Super Bowl.

 

I get the rookie deal part, but you still have to pay the other guys. Isn't Harrison on a rookie deal worth roughly the same, relatively speaking, considering how much they'll have to overpay to get a WR in free agency when they don't draft one? Especially considering Fields isn't likely to command top-scale. Or do you just deal Fields, even if what you get back isn't all that enticing, and take your chances with a guy who might be awesome but might not even be as good as Fields? This stuff fascinates me. Glad I don't have to do it.

Where rookie deals go, the idea of trying to win with a guy like Purdy is logical. But Mahomes has been in the AFC title game or won the Super Bowl every year of his big-boy contract. Seems to be working out for them. Teams winning Super Bowls with bargain basement QBs seem to be outliers. Besides San Fran, which is loaded at every other position it seems and can't win a title, outside of the Texans, what teams have a QB on a rookie deal with any hope of winning a championship? Jacksonville? They have one year and aren't close. Green Bay? Is Love even still on his?

 

I don't think much of Fields. I think people were fooled by two big games. He isn't progressing as a passer, so he puts a ceiling on how far the team can go with him at quarterback. I think they would be better off giving Pickett one more shot or even using him as a bridge before making another run at a quarterback of the future in a year or two. Spend this draft continuing to build the rest of the team. Center is their biggest need, one they are likely able to fill in round one or two. They also have needs at cornerback, inside linebacker, offensive tackle, defensive tackle, and safety. Focus on some of those rather than rolling the dice on a turnover-prone, erratic passer nearing the end of his rookie deal.