LB12Diamond said:

---

What in the world has happened to the Eagles? Talk about a team falling apart. Crazy

---

Them and KC have both swooned the 2nd half o the season, but KC figured it out yesterday at least.

Sounds like Brown and Hurts are not so much best pals anymore, and Brown is hurt.

Wow Eagles take points off the board for a second time and dumb it up again.

They could be down 25-13 right now, instead it's 25-9.

Eagles just look bad.

As Ray Lewis said the players are not busting to the ball on defense. Missing tackles. Fundamental stuff.

KCs defense has been consistent all year at least with fundamentals and hustle.

Be pretty funny if the Bucs won the Super Bow the year after Brady retired.

4th down and you throw an out 5 yards short of the line. Not exactly MENSA level play.

the second contract to Hurts...looking very shaky

Damn I was wondering between Miami, Cleveland, and Philly how the tiebreaker went to see which draft pick we got 21-23

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Crazy how many teams picking very high up already have a QB they are supposedly committed to. Seems like it might be a really wild night at the draft.

---

1. Chicago I think has to trade Fields and draft a QB because even though he's improved they're about to have to pay him second contract money. They get to reset the clock on that and get to use another team's pick to do it.
2. Washington will take a QB.
3. Patriots need a QB
4. Arizona has Murray.
5. Chargers have Herbert
6. Giants need a QB but if they're already down to QB4 by pick number 6 they might be more apt to draft OL or WR. Unless they're able to trade up I think they have to go with Jones another season.
7. Titans have Levis
8. Falcons need a QB, my gut says they try to trade for Fields unless their new coach thinks a guy like Cousins makes more sense.
9. Chicago's 2nd pick, not here
10. Jets have Rodgers
11. Minnesota, Cousins is a free agent but I could see them doing a short term extension.
12. Denver is stuck with Russ unless they're going to throw in the towel with that experiment
13. Raiders need a QB, possible Fields trade partner?

In the top 13 picks there's 8 teams potentially in the long-term QB market, which is crazy. I could see Williams, Maye, and Daniels going 1-2-3. After Daniels is off the board the other teams really have to think about whether any of the other QBs is really worth a first round pick. I'm not sold on Penix or McCarthy in the first round but it'll probably happen just due to need.

Houston is going to have options at 23, there's a lot of depth in this class at WR, OL, CB, and DE. Biggest needs at the moment are on the defensive side. They'll likely be deciding between DL and secondary at pick 23 is my guess. I don't think this is a good draft for DT or S but there will be guys at DE and CB worth the pick at that spot. There's going to be value here with the pick, trading back.

Chicago will most likely take a QB bc of the difference in money.

All those QBs wanting to be drafted and all those teams wanting to draft on. Odds are 2 out of every 3 are busts and half of the non busts are average. Finding the CJs of the world are so rare. You almost need to find a nugget in the 3rd or 4th round and pray. It's the biggest crap shoot in sports.

Max Power said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Crazy how many teams picking very high up already have a QB they are supposedly committed to. Seems like it might be a really wild night at the draft.

---

1. Chicago I think has to trade Fields and draft a QB because even though he's improved they're about to have to pay him second contract money. They get to reset the clock on that and get to use another team's pick to do it.
2. Washington will take a QB.
3. Patriots need a QB
4. Arizona has Murray.
5. Chargers have Herbert
6. Giants need a QB but if they're already down to QB4 by pick number 6 they might be more apt to draft OL or WR. Unless they're able to trade up I think they have to go with Jones another season.
7. Titans have Levis
8. Falcons need a QB, my gut says they try to trade for Fields unless their new coach thinks a guy like Cousins makes more sense.

---

I agree with all this, but it's just most those teams having to get raked over the coals by their own fans and the media for giving up on QBs that they very recently drafted in the first round.

Fields is 10-28 in three seasons and has cost the team $45 million for it.

Mac Jones is 18-24 in three seasons and has regressed every year.

Daniel Jones is 22-36-1 and willl turn 27 in May.

Just a clusterf7ck of bad draft choices

I'd lean more towards Chicago not taking a QB. Resetting the QB contract window can be big, but what if you end up with the next Mitch Trubisky, Bryce Young, Zach Wilson, Trey Lance, etc? Trading back would put more talent around Fields and presumably give them another first next year that they use to get a QB if need be.

But I also don't know how strong the 2025 class is supposed to be. This is another good year, and they may feel that it's better to move now plus resetting the QB contract window.

Fields probably deserves a better shot on a decent team of those guys. He at least had DJ Moore this year but pretty much a bare cupboard before that. Chicago is poorly managed and coached.

Mac Jones was a disaster. Daniel Jones got injured this year, coaching is suspect but the Giants are a decently run org.

Then you move on fast like the 49ers did with Lance. Don't force it if a guy does not have it.

the Bears need to take Caleb Williams

definitely don't give Fields a second contract

speaking of the Chargers...

what an enigma Justin Herbert is

all the measurables and intangibles...but he doesn't win games

only 30-32 as a starter in 4 years...despite being surrounded by excellent skill players

100% believe if you don't think your QB can win you a Super Bowl, let them walk after their rookie deal and draft another one. Really, get rid of them the minute you realize it's not gonna happen.

Otherwise you end up like Dallas w/ Dak - paying a QB a lot of money to win you regular season games but never get anywhere in the playoffs.

Mr.Bond said:

---

I dont see it with Williams..... I have been wrong before but the people he surrounds himself with based off what I have seen and read just throws so many red flags

---

100%. bust city written all over him.

Texan_Aggie said:

---

100% believe if you don't think your QB can win you a Super Bowl, let them walk after their rookie deal and draft another one. Really, get rid of them the minute you realize it's not gonna happen.

Otherwise you end up like Dallas w/ Dak - paying a QB a lot of money to win you regular season games but never get anywhere in the playoffs.

---

That's a drastic oversimplification, though....

I mean several QB's show that promise, winning Rookie of the Year for example, then for whatever reason don't pan out. Heck, Dak won ROY.

Then you have the other end of the spectrum with QB's that you'd probably have cut because you didn't think they had it but do go on to win the SB, like Stafford a couple of years ago. I'd say he exemplified paying a QB a lot of money to win regular season games to that point.

Basically, what I'm trying to say it's not that easy to just know if a QB can win a Super Bowl. You have clear cut yes and no guys, but there are a lot of guys in the middle, or could be yes's but fade to no's....

htxag09 said:

---

Texan_Aggie said:

---

100% believe if you don't think your QB can win you a Super Bowl, let them walk after their rookie deal and draft another one. Really, get rid of them the minute you realize it's not gonna happen.

Otherwise you end up like Dallas w/ Dak - paying a QB a lot of money to win you regular season games but never get anywhere in the playoffs.

---

That's a drastic oversimplification, though....

I mean several QB's show that promise, winning Rookie of the Year for example, then for whatever reason don't pan out. Heck, Dak won ROY.

Then you have the other end of the spectrum with QB's that you'd probably have cut because you didn't think they had it but do go on to win the SB, like Stafford a couple of years ago. I'd say he exemplified paying a QB a lot of money to win regular season games to that point.

Basically, what I'm trying to say it's not that easy to just know if a QB can win a Super Bowl. You have clear cut yes and no guys, but there are a lot of guys in the middle, or could be yes's but fade to no's....

---

Not sure i buy the Matthew Stafford angle. The Rams were very good and just an elite QB away form winning a super bowl. So they traded for Stafford and won. Meanwhile the lions then had a down year, rebuilt with the picks and are favorites to face the 49ers in the NFC championship game.

I think the good enough but not big contract guys: Stafford, Flacco, Foles are more of a situational thing. Basically you can't have them winning 7-10 games a year for 3 years, get a big contract and then afford talent around them to make the next step to the super bowl.

Look at KC. That offense has been eh. They have some of the worst offensive weapons left in the playoffs. Kelce old. Rice is coming on. Rest of the WRs trash. RB, pacheco is good but he was a 7th round draft pick last year.

Lamar is one of those guys though. He just has to be healthy.

Stafford was 0-3 in the playoffs before going to the Rams.....

Dak, who's 2-5, was his example of a QB who you're just paying to win regular season wins.....

htxag09 said:

---

Texan_Aggie said:

---

100% believe if you don't think your QB can win you a Super Bowl, let them walk after their rookie deal and draft another one. Really, get rid of them the minute you realize it's not gonna happen.

Otherwise you end up like Dallas w/ Dak - paying a QB a lot of money to win you regular season games but never get anywhere in the playoffs.

---

That's a drastic oversimplification, though....

I mean several QB's show that promise, winning Rookie of the Year for example, then for whatever reason don't pan out. Heck, Dak won ROY.

Then you have the other end of the spectrum with QB's that you'd probably have cut because you didn't think they had it but do go on to win the SB, like Stafford a couple of years ago. I'd say he exemplified paying a QB a lot of money to win regular season games to that point.

Basically, what I'm trying to say it's not that easy to just know if a QB can win a Super Bowl. You have clear cut yes and no guys, but there are a lot of guys in the middle, or could be yes's but fade to no's....

---

The middle is the difference between perennial non-scary playoff teams and ones that are pushing for conference championships and super bowls. GMs that know this difference are the good ones…

Agree it's hard to tell, but ultimately the organization has to decide whether butts in seats and a good regular season is worth not going to the Super Bowl. I think CJ has the stuff to do it, though a lot of others are talented but lack the "it".

htxag09 said:

---

Stafford was 0-3 in the playoffs before going to the Rams.....

Dak, who's 2-5, was his example of a QB who you're just paying to win regular season wins.....

---

Stafford proves my point in a way. Really two ways to win a SB - build it from the ground up with a rookie QB (Mahomes, Brady in NE, Eli, Roethlisboerger) or you build a juggernaut and top the sundae with a a veteran good QB who can take you that extra step (Stafford, Brady in TB, etc).

In any event, if you don't have the franchise qb you can build into the champion, better off selling to someone who thinks he's the missing piece.

htxag09 said:

---

Stafford was 0-3 in the playoffs before going to the Rams.....

Dak, who's 2-5, was his example of a QB who you're just paying to win regular season wins.....

---

The point is that with the Lions they were never good enough to challenge for a superbowl nor bad enough to rebuild to make a run. Now the Lions have a young team with a cheap stafford knock-off. Instead of having a terrible defense they have a stout one. They also have great weapons Amon Ra, Laporta, Montgomery and Gibbs. I think they might be in the reverse situation looking for a QB next year to make a run.

The Rams built a team then found a qb that they could plug in. Little bit different.

So you're saying the Lions knew Stafford wasn't a QB they could build around to win a SB?

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Not sure Kelce got old. Just the reason to stay in bed is suddenly equally or more compelling than the reason to get out of bed.

---

He still gets randomly wide open like he always has, but he definitely is getting less separation on routes this year

The problem with KC on top of Kelce slipping a bit is that that don't have anyone else but Kelce.

There's no Tyreek Hill and Kareem Hunt that you have to worry about too.

No one is game planning around Rashee Rice. They're one dimensional. Stop Kelce and you stop the Chiefs.