Let's Play Out the Worst-Case Scenario for 2018 & 2019; It Isn't Disastrous

[Fadingpain]

A lot of the OP's take is grounded in a set of assumptions that don't seem realistic IMO.

 

Here is how I see it genuinely panning out:  Allen will bust ultimately, but we will NOT take another QB next year, whether Herbert comes out or not.

 

When the team does not progress next season, and McBeane show a continued lack of understanding on the offensive side of the ball, I think they'll be gone at season's end, along with us officially back to looking for a new QB with a new regime.

 

In 2020 the regime will come in and start mucking with talent as McBeane have done, making the team their own.  That will hurt us in 2020, when, at best, we'll have a rookie QB (if we do at all).  

 

We're looking at 2021 as probably the first year where we have shot at being decent.  

 

If Allen turns into a good QB, everything I just wrote is moot.

 

I just don't see that happening, however.

 

 

 

[downunderbill]

Everything will be fine. The offence will improve with more talent added. The coaching will improve when there are players that can execute as in the playoff year. That will give the defence some rest and they will improve. The game will slow for Allen and he will improve.

Will it happen? Nobody really knows, maybe not, but might as well be optimistic. 

[Midwest1981]

1 hour ago, Fadingpain said:

A lot of the OP's take is grounded in a set of assumptions that don't seem realistic IMO.

 

Here is how I see it genuinely panning out:  Allen will bust ultimately, but we will NOT take another QB next year, whether Herbert comes out or not.

 

When the team does not progress next season, and McBeane show a continued lack of understanding on the offensive side of the ball, I think they'll be gone at season's end, along with us officially back to looking for a new QB with a new regime.

 

In 2020 the regime will come in and start mucking with talent as McBeane have done, making the team their own.  That will hurt us in 2020, when, at best, we'll have a rookie QB (if we do at all).  

 

We're looking at 2021 as probably the first year where we have shot at being decent.  

 

If Allen turns into a good QB, everything I just wrote is moot.

 

I just don't see that happening, however.

 

 

 

I never said we were taking a QB next draft- I stated that if Allen is a clear-cut bust that we’d take another QB with our (very likely high- if Allen’s bad enough to be declared a bust that soon) 2020 1st, which by inference of what you just wrote is what you think would/will happen too. Allen will get through next year but in the new CBA gone are massive top-10 rookie contracts that meant QB’s get 3-4 years and 40-50 starts, no matter what, because it’s so much $$$ spent for organizations to come to the clear conclusion they’re simply sunk costs.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Midwest1981

[Thurman#1]

On 11/9/2018 at 1:32 AM, iinii said:

Maybe Daboll is why Belichick wouldn’t let McDaniels go to Indy. And you used if twice based on an article. Hearsay times two.

 

 

So, your first sentence is a guess based on absolutely nothing.

 

Your second has no apparent meaning. Yeah, I used "if" twice. And yeah it was based on an article. There's nothing wrong with using "if." Check the dictionary, it's a legitimate word.

 

And yeah, hearsay. I am indeed reporting something that journalists with sources have reported. In court that's a problem. In the real world it means I've made my point. My "if" is based on a source. Your "maybe" has nothing to back it up.

 

Man, that's one horrendous post, dude.

 

 

To repeat:

 

 

Nah. You don't "ride the coattails of Belichick and Saban." They don't hire guys they don't respect and they don't tolerate hangers-on.

 

Belichick had him as a coach from 2002 - 2006 and then hired him again in 2013 and then promoted him. That doesn't happen with Belichick unless you're doing your job and doing it very well. And the Boston Herald reported that if McDaniels left, they would see if Daboll was available. And that if McDaniels had left last year Daboll would have got the OC job.

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/Bolt/Bill-Belichick-would-check-in-on-Alabamas-Brian-Daboll-if-Josh-McDaniels-leaves-the-New-England-Patriots-113078544/

Edited November 13, 2018 by Thurman#1

[iinii]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

So, your first sentence is a guess based on absolutely nothing.

 

Your second has no apparent meaning. Yeah, I used "if" twice. And yeah it was based on an article. There's nothing wrong with using "if." Check the dictionary, it's a legitimate word.

 

And yeah, hearsay. I am indeed reporting something that journalists with sources have reported. In court that's a problem. In the real world it means I've made my point. My "if" is based on a source. Your "maybe" has nothing to back it up.

 

Man, that's one horrendous post, dude.

 

 

To repeat:

 

 

Nah. You don't "ride the coattails of Belichick and Saban." They don't hire guys they don't respect and they don't tolerate hangers-on.

 

Belichick had him as a coach from 2002 - 2006 and then hired him again in 2013 and then promoted him. That doesn't happen with Belichick unless you're doing your job and doing it very well. And the Boston Herald reported that if McDaniels left, they would see if Daboll was available. And that if McDaniels had left last year Daboll would have got the OC job.

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/Bolt/Bill-Belichick-would-check-in-on-Alabamas-Brian-Daboll-if-Josh-McDaniels-leaves-the-New-England-Patriots-113078544/

Repeat it all you want. Belichick always tells reporters the truth. If a pig had wings.....

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, iinii said:

Repeat it all you want. Belichick always tells reporters the truth. If a pig had wings.....

 

 

Yeah, if I'd said anything about what Belichick says, you'd have a point. Since I didn't mention or reference anything about this, as seems absolutely standard for you recently, you're completely off-target and your point is totally irrelevant.

 

I'm getting to the point with your recent posts where I feel I don't have to answer because they don't require rebuttal as they're so far off-point they serve as their own best invalidation.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Thurman#1

[iinii]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, if I'd said anything about what Belichick says, you'd have a point. Since I didn't mention or reference anything about this, as seems absolutely standard for you recently, you're completely off-target and your point is totally irrelevant.

 

I'm getting to the point with your recent posts where I feel I don't have to answer because they don't require rebuttal as they're so far off-point they serve as their own best invalidation.

You said something about what someone said about what Belichick said. Hearsay and you took it hook, line and sinker. 

Opinions are not limited to the op/ed page. Grow up, get out of your Mom’s basement and don’t believe that everything you read is true. 

Edited November 14, 2018 by iinii

[Thurman#1]

On 11/14/2018 at 6:44 PM, iinii said:

You said something about what someone said about what Belichick said. Hearsay and you took it hook, line and sinker. 

Opinions are not limited to the op/ed page. Grow up, get out of your Mom’s basement and don’t believe that everything you read is true. 

 

 

I see. I "said something about what someone said about what Belichick said," according to you, right?

 

Fine. It should be right in this thread. So quote it and tell which post I referenced something Belichick said. As you so consistently do, you've completely misread something I said, and the went off to rave irrelevantly. I mentioned something he did, hiring Daboll twice and promoting him.  So, let's see it ... the quotation from my post where I say Belichick said something.

 

Unless you can manage to finally respond to something I said, I clearly don't need to actually bother responding.

 

 

[iinii]

On 11/13/2018 at 8:51 AM, iinii said:

Repeat it all you want. Belichick always tells reporters the truth. If a pig had wings.....

 

On 11/13/2018 at 2:56 AM, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

So, your first sentence is a guess based on absolutely nothing.

 

Your second has no apparent meaning. Yeah, I used "if" twice. And yeah it was based on an article. There's nothing wrong with using "if." Check the dictionary, it's a legitimate word.

 

And yeah, hearsay. I am indeed reporting something that journalists with sources have reported. In court that's a problem. In the real world it means I've made my point. My "if" is based on a source. Your "maybe" has nothing to back it up.

 

Man, that's one horrendous post, dude.

 

 

To repeat:

 

 

Nah. You don't "ride the coattails of Belichick and Saban." They don't hire guys they don't respect and they don't tolerate hangers-on.

 

Belichick had him as a coach from 2002 - 2006 and then hired him again in 2013 and then promoted him. That doesn't happen with Belichick unless you're doing your job and doing it very well. And the Boston Herald reported that if McDaniels left, they would see if Daboll was available. And that if McDaniels had left last year Daboll would have got the OC job.

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/Bolt/Bill-Belichick-would-check-in-on-Alabamas-Brian-Daboll-if-Josh-McDaniels-leaves-the-New-England-Patriots-113078544/

You can start with the Boston Herald reported.... Who hires assistants in New England? I am not raving about anything, just wondering why you believe everything written in a Boston Herald? About a coach commonly associated with a team that is referred to as the Cheatriots? 

[Thurman#1]

8 hours ago, iinii said:

 

You can start with the Boston Herald reported.... Who hires assistants in New England? I am not raving about anything, just wondering why you believe everything written in a Boston Herald? About a coach commonly associated with a team that is referred to as the Cheatriots? 

 

 

Yup. I asked for where I quoted Belichick. You finally figured out that I didn't. But there's no "Oops, sorry, made a mistake there." Instead it's a guy with zero sources casting doubt on a guy with one source.

You got nothing. And yet won't admit it. Clearly, 'nuff said here.

[iinii]

15 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yup. I asked for where I quoted Belichick. You finally figured out that I didn't. But there's no "Oops, sorry, made a mistake there." Instead it's a guy with zero sources casting doubt on a guy with one source.

You got nothing. And yet won't admit it. Clearly, 'nuff said here.

You referenced a reporter as if it was gospel. It is you who is delusional. So answer the question. Do you believe everything you read?

Edited November 20, 2018 by iinii

[PittsforDave]

8 minutes ago, iinii said:

You referenced a reporter as if it was gospel. It is you who is delusional. So answer the question. Do you believe everything you read?

Its similar to believing every twit out there. Everyone is a reporter now and its 98% BS. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by PittsforDave

[iinii]

1 minute ago, PittsforDave said:

Its similar to believing every twit out there. Everyone is a reporter now and its 98% BS. 

Thank you. 

[Bing Bong]

Having a crapload of cap space doesn't mean dirt if we don't use it well, draft well, etc. It's not a fix all solution, it's simply something that doesn't hinder us. A team with a ton of cap that has a lot of young talent drafted to re-sign is in much much much better shape.

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, iinii said:

You referenced a reporter as if it was gospel. It is you who is delusional. So answer the question. Do you believe everything you read?

 

 

Could you just quick link to where I implied it was gospel?  I'll wait.

 

Yup. Exactly. Once again the smell of steaming horseshit off one of your posts.

 

I didn't treat it as gospel. I treated it as evidence. Which it is. And since evidence is a thing which you have absolutely none of here, you continue with the loser's argument ... you have no evidence so you throw doubt on the other guy's evidence in a completely non-specific way. It might be a lie. Nothing from the media can be believed. The usual loser's horseshit people with no evidence throw out.

[iinii]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Could you just quick link to where I implied it was gospel?  I'll wait.

 

Yup. Exactly. Once again the smell of steaming horseshit off one of your posts.

 

I didn't treat it as gospel. I treated it as evidence. Which it is. And since evidence is a thing which you have absolutely none of here, you continue with the loser's argument ... you have no evidence so you throw doubt on the other guy's evidence in a completely non-specific way. It might be a lie. Nothing from the media can be believed. The usual loser's horseshit people with no evidence throw out.

Again. Do you believe everything you read? 

[Thurman#1]

Again, not a single fact to back up your position. Got a looooooooooooooooooooong history of that. Dumb questions ain't evidence and they say more about the asker than anything else.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Thurman#1