Search results

Pretty much all of them. You can keep thinking that, but the fact of the matter is - they love him. They think he is by far the best QB in the league. There's no way they are letting him leave and there's no way they draft an obvious replacement. Health issues excepted of course. They'll deal...

But dude... We're breaking records of bad from the 40s and 50s now. Not just recent ones.

Please give one example of it happening in the NFL. Really. 1989 Cowboys?

Even stupider than that - bitching about expenditures already budgeted. It's not like we dipped into some emergency fund for the flyovers. LOL

Sure did not. Context is key. Nonsense. Money wasn't the issue, the checkbook was open. Dak's handlers didn't want a shorter deal than 5 years. It was all about positioning him for the even bigger payday down the road. Getting that one extra bite of the guaranteed moneypie.

Because with pretty much this same talent, we weren't all-time bad. We weren't breaking league records from the 40s bad. 300 page playbook they already know? Or a 1200 page one they don't know, written in a foreign language? Which one works without a training camp or a preseason?

Some of that was in Jimmy's book too, especially in the second edition. There's always a proverbial straw, and Richards was the straw. It's the only one the league office called them on the carpet for.

Yeah, and the definition is more in line with Dodger's description of it, than what you think it is. What you think it is, does not in fact, exist.

Can't say won't or will. In fact won't even say it's necessary, in their minds. Tagging him again will be cheaper with the greatly lowered salary cap that's coming. But one thing I AM sure of - Dak is their guy.

Not at all. But there's a huge difference making wholesale changes to a defensive system when you also already have marginal talent when you start. Normally you can get away with it, this year as Dave said, no.

It's documented that Jerry didn't hire them. What MM was thinking, there's no idea. But really, this is what you get hiring offensive gurus as head coach - their passion and knowledge isn't on the D side of the ball. They would rather just win games by outscoring people. Not by stopping them...

Haven't we all known that for quite some time? We're not spending any money on the D side of the ball, for starters. You went from the Legion of Boobs to this Lesion of noobs, and still no matter who we sign we can't get any kind of respectable pass rush, and our linebackers? Walking wounded and...

We CAN be 100 percent sure he's not "tanking for Lawrence."

Freud strikes!

True that. But as that player, you wouldn't do it anonymously.

You may have missed my overall point, but there's no doubt changing the entire defensive system and terminology without benefit of an offseason and preseason is malpractice. Dave Wannstedt agrees, he said so in pregame on FOX Sunday. My POINT was, combining that with poor talent is a recipe for...

If you have the type of player who would intentionally perform badly as a form of rebellion, do you want that player or players on your roster? The case for blowing the whole thing up and starting fresh gets stronger by the hour.

Over time it surely did. I am sure the first time it did was when Jimmy cut Curvin Richards right after week 17.

Filtering out the bullshit and getting to the relevant point is essential. Brevity is king, not mindless word salad. You contradict yourself over and over, then again you don't like it when it is pointed out. Filtering out your platitudes and nonsense helps keep the conversation out of the mud...

I've always thought that was a double-edged sword. Is/are the player or players just making excuses, trying to shift blame for their poor performance?