Richard Noggin

I work a second job most Saturdays. Paint is expensive.

I'll commend the OP for presenting a claim that I initially laughed off. Would have replied with a smug, "Probably." But upon actually reading the support for his claim, I'm actually at least considering the possibility of Moss having a chance to be more effective this season. One counter is that the WIDE zone asks for RBs with more speed/burst than we've seen out of Moss to date.

But doesn't that greatly disadvantage the player and the team? Obviously the team likes having the flexibility of moving cap money around to create space, BUT we often forget how advantageous these restructures are for players: get MORE guaranteed money up front in a lump sum (the first priority in all contract negotiations in a league where deals are not, for the most part, guaranteed), AND make it more likely you'll actually stay employed to see those higher salary numbers in the back half of the deal (restructured contracts are more costly to terminate). It's a win-win for players AND teams to allow for widespread freedom to restructure.

Look at the tip of his nose for eff's sake.

Why? I found it comforting. In a world where marriages are a 50/50 proposition, it's nice to imagine these two together for the long haul.

I think your question-and-answer could grammatically/logically suggest that Beane doesn't negotiate contracts, and instead follows social media to gauge which way the wind is blowing. Obviously I know that's not the intention, and likely just my stupid former English Prof brain putting more pressure on that first comma+conjunction construction.

The rare Win-Win scenario. One of the less heralded benefits of organizational "culture" might be represented by the structure of this extension. Fair deal for both sides without any unnecessary distractions. Could he get more elsewhere? Yeah, possibly. But he didn't want more elsewhere.

Y youse 1 why when you can use too

Maybe this was more broadly understood to be true, as the deals are almost always more team friendly than initially reported, but...this is a good looking extension.

I remember the agility numbers at the combine being the loudest criticism. His numbers tested out as only straight-line speed. Therefore, route running and separation became loud concerns. At least in the media (although his draft fall suggests GMs shared these concerns).

This draft would be insanely ideal, without being video game unrealistic. For sure the 4th and 7th round picks seem completely unlikely (The Punt God falls to pick 231?! and the trait-monster "modern" NFL LB falls to the late 4th?). But as far as mocks go, that's pretty reasonable. Would be amazing to land two prospects at WR AND CB. Afraid that the 2nd guy at each position (especially WR) would be at risk of poaching, however.

It seems HIGHLY unlikely that any NFL franchise values Tremaine Edmunds enough to ship off a TOP-5 draft pick THIS season plus a valuable starting CB for Edmunds (who will NEED to be resigned to big money as part of the deal) and a basket of blech (1st next year has some value, but yikes).

That's the problem with conspiracy theories. They rely on cognitive dissonance or incongruous logic. It's all a cover-up masterfully orchestrated by large groups of people I think are too incompetent to pull off such a scheme.

I think Jordan Philips and Shaq Lawson were brought back for reasons that are at least adjacent to the OP's. McD calls it juice. (Energy + Emotion)Physicality = Juice.

Based on QB play, sure. Buuuuuttt we should expect that BB sees value in Parker, and has a plan for a guy who he's had to spend prep time on every season since 2015. Plus there's WR trade precedent here. The Patriots gave up a little bit more (2 + 7 vs just a 3) for Welker, to be fair, but definitely had a plan for him. Interestingly, Parker has only had 3, maybe 4, solid games against the Pats in 12 matchups. And only 1 TD.

Where's the wisdom in this particular move? Dumping salary to create a gaping roster hole at a premium position doesn't make much sense in a "window" year. So they'd have to use whatever draft assets they acquired to replace Dawkins. And that's no sure thing.

Go on... (I know squadoosh about RB prospects this year.)

And I quote, "The senior caught 156 catches in his career, including 86 alone in 2019." Emphasis mine. The audible reactions in the room are priceless.

Eh Matt Jones had some issues with too much "want to," if you know what I mean...

We'd likely find out very quickly if the Edmunds criticism was warranted. My guess, from the small sample size of games and snaps withOUT Edmunds in the lineup, is that we wouldn't miss him as much as we'd benefit from NOT paying him upper-echelon money.

My point is that your point, in the quoted post, is obviously ignorant of certain human realities we've seen play out over the past 3-5 seasons.

Are you ACTUALLY arguing that production alone, especially much earlier in his career before he outed himself as a toxic force incapable of adhering to any semblance of organizational structure and professional decorum, is enough to convince reasonable people that this declining narcissist would be a POSITIVE influence on our favorite team's outlook? LOL

The guard projections are almost disqualifyingly uninformed. That Boettger would be listed as a starter, despite his unavailability due to a LATE season Achilles injury, AND the new multi-year deal for Bates who was better as a replacement, AND the acquisition of the obvious new starter at LG...that's a lot of wrong. Also, Matakevich as backup at WEAK side LB? That's wrong, too. Minor point, but depth charts are about details.

Traded back a bit in the 4th. Nothing too crazy.

I look at this draft as conservative and solid for long-term roster building. Obviously some insane value fell to rounds 2 and 3. Probably unlikely, but definitely no-brainers at those picks.