Articles from around the Web
PDF VERSION NOW DISCOUNTED OVER 30%
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Andrew Healy: @AndHealy
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
23 Apr 2012
Jacksonville wants out at No. 7, Michael Brockers visits lots of places, the Rams try to settle on a receiver at No. 6. Plus, you know, more Ryan Tannehill rumors.
Posted by: Rivers McCown on 23 Apr 2012
13 comments, Last at
28 Apr 2012, 8:51pm by
why would setatle want tannehill when just sign M. Flynn? Did not reaf P. king article yet. Maybe he expkaubs it there . Keep hearig this Tannehill to seattle talk but don't quite understand how it make sense. Team have decent backup for Flynn and also Charles Manson looking 3rd syringer. Why a need for a 4 th qb? Is Seattle looking to copy Jets and use multiple QBs regularly?
The scuttlebutt is that Seattle settled for Flynn knowing that they couldn't trade up for Tannehill, but when they went to Tannehill's pro day they were completely gaga about him. Carroll was reportedly giggling like a schoolgirl.
It would be irresponsible and stupid, but hey, that's Carroll and Schneider when it comes to dealing with their QB position. Remember, this was the front office duo that got rid of the most popular and successful QB in franchise history after first bringing in Whitehurst to 'compete' with Hass, and then settled on having TJax as their QB of the whenever. They've not done a great job with the position so far.
sorry, usually im pretty good at this, but.....
Hey, the gist was pretty clear to me!
Sorry hit wrong keyss
You don't say!
" I think one thing about the release of the schedule last week that struck me was how quickly the NFL takes the upstart teams and makes them national teams. The 49ers, for instance, have a full complement of five primetime games ... "
Yeah, I would have thought it would take the NFL like three years after the 49ers went to the NFC championship game to realize they were good enough for prime time...
Giving upstart teams too many primetime games the year after they do really well is an issue. I remember in 2008 the Browns got a bunch of primetime games after their 10-6 season, only to return to playing like the Browns. Not that I expect the 49ers to suddenly suck, but it can happen.
Fair point, but 10-6 is quite a bit removed from 13-3 and going to the NFC Championship game. He also thinks Detroit is getting too much exposure. Who would he have put in primetime in place of the 49ers and Lions? Would he rather have a random drawing determine it? As with many of PK's takes, he offers no solutions for his perceived problem.
I wish they still had the rule where every team was guaranteed at least one prime time game a year. There's some teams I just never see these days.
Did you *really* want to see any Colts game last year? Or any Jags game? Are you a Catholic who practices self-flagellation too?
The Lions at least offer some exciting offense play, unlike the Browns.
The link for King's comment 10m "Any adults here?" is, if true, pretty appalling behavior by some NJ state highway troopers. Only peripherally football-related, but interesting nonetheless.
The Vikings need offensive line help, while the Bears, Lions, and Packers have significant defensive concerns.
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties