Scottemojo wrote:
Why do you think nobody but us wanted Flynn, and then at a greatly reduced price?

#1 the Peyton Manning distraction. Many of those same teams (including us were after him).
#2 the Kolb effect. Paranoia of a high priced mistake on a relatively uncertain choice.
#3 Strong QB draft this year (min. 3 projected starters in this years draft) and next year at a much lower cost.
#4 Lack of actual playing experience (played behind #1 college QB then #1 pro QB)
#5 He came much cheaper then most expected.

Last but not least...they are all idiots.

Verndog wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:
Why do you think nobody but us wanted Flynn, and then at a greatly reduced price?

#1 the Peyton Manning distraction. Many of those same teams (including us were after him).
#2 the Kolb effect. Paranoia of a high priced mistake on a relatively uncertain choice.
#3 Strong QB draft this year (min. 3 projected starters in this years draft) and next at a much lower cost.
#4 Lack of actual playing experience (played behind #1 college QB then #1 pro QB)
#5 He came much cheaper then most expected.

Last but not least...they are idiots.

Are you kidding? 2 and 5 are contradictory.
I imagine that conversation, just before the owner fires the former GM. Owner: so tell me again why you don't want this certain free agent?
Former GM: He doesn't cost enough. Signing him will leave us well under the cap.
Owner: GTFO!

Scottemojo wrote:Are you kidding? 2 and 5 are contradictory.
I imagine that conversation, just before the owner fires the former GM. Owner: so tell me again why you don't want this certain free agent?
Former GM: He doesn't cost enough. Signing him will leave us well under the cap.
Owner: GTFO!

No they are not. Compare the cost of Luck or RG3 to Flynn (or most any FA) and the cost vs risk is a no brainer to look toward the draft.

That does not mean Flynn is not very capable either!

Also the GM's didn't know the ending price until it was too late...he was signed by us!

Verndog wrote:Compare the cost of Luck or RG3 to Flynn (or most any FA) and the cost vs risk is a no brainer to look toward the draft.

No, not even close. Teams don't have to give up anything but money for reasonably priced free agents. For teams with plenty of space under the cap, you're giving up basically nothing to bring in a free agent on a short deal with not too much guaranteed money. To draft someone like Luck or RG3, the money might not be quite as much, but you're using the draft pick that could otherwise be used on another potential impact player. Look at the Whitehurst deal, for example. We gave up both picks and money for him. Which was a greater cost? The $10 million over two years or the draft position we lost?

Love the discussion in here.

SalishHawkFan wrote:sorry Kearly, but pointing out what a great job they've done building this team isn't addressing the valid concerns people are having right now. No one is unhappy with their ability to build a team. We all Trust Pete and John when it comes to building this team. There are valid concerns, however, when it comes to playcalling (onsides kick anyone? 3rd and 2?). You can go back two years and see WTF? moments in Pete's playcalling which he later - admirably I might add - took the blame for.

But the biggest concern is the choice of starting Wilson now.

FWIW, I really liked the onside kick. I thought it was well timed and it put the odds in our favor, but the Rams got a lucky bounce. I do agree with you that some of the 3rd down playcalling has left me scratching my head, namely the two 3rd and 2 QB draws in the past two games. At the same time, there are many great plays that Bevell has drawn up (McCoy TD, 1st Tate TD vs. GB) that aren't being talked about nearly as much and had much bigger impacts on the outcomes of the games.

As far as Wilson, If he isn't given the starting job, then the "always compete" mantra would have been made to look like a sham. He clearly outplayed Flynn in the preseason. But that doesn't even matter anyway, because Flynn's elbow injury would have kept him from starting anyway. Wilson would have been the starter by default in either scenario. Carroll had no choice, therefore it doesn't make much sense to criticize him for it.

For the record, I am okay with giving Flynn some starts to see what he can do, once he's healthy. Carroll even said that the QB competition didn't end with Wilson being named the starter. I'm also okay with Wilson starting all 16 games. I can see the wisdom of both arguments on this issue. I'm about as committed to the current QB situation as Mitt Romney is to health care or immigration. On this issue, I'm pretty much a human pretzel.

Zebulon Dak wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:All I care about is who gives us the best chance to beat the Carolina Panthers, and IMO that QB's name is Matthew Clayton Flynn.

And yet there is basically ZERO data to back that up.

You don't have to be Vince Lomardi to know that a QB with five years of professional experience in one of the best QB systems of all time is more equipped to run an offense than a rookie QB.

Btw IMO = In My Opinion.....as in this is my opinion, just like everything everyone types on this forum is our opinions.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Btw IMO = In My Opinion.....as in this is my opinion, just like everything everyone types on this forum is our opinions.

well, that's YOUR opinion

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:All I care about is who gives us the best chance to beat the Carolina Panthers, and IMO that QB's name is Matthew Clayton Flynn.

And yet there is basically ZERO data to back that up.

You don't have to be Vince Lomardi to know that a QB with five years of professional experience in one of the best QB systems of all time is more equipped to run an offense than a rookie QB.

Btw IMO = In My Opinion.....as in this is my opinion, just like everything everyone types on this forum is our opinions.

Five years experience and he couldn't beat out a rookie. Sounds an awful lot like Whitehurst 2.0 to me.

What if Carroll would have said it would take 6 years to win.?

Sounds like a built in excuse to fail if you ask me.

Sure, because 1-year plans are all the rage. I mean, Harbaugh did it...

Almost.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:Sure, because 1-year plans are all the rage. I mean, Harbaugh did it...

Almost.

I am kinda liking Harbaughs plan. The man knows how to coach in the NFL.

Not so sure about Pete right now.

Sooo... bring in a coach to a ready-made Super Bowl team and get them within a few plays of winning the divisional playoff round. Brilliant!

Seahawk Sailor wrote:Sooo... bring in a coach to a ready-made Super Bowl team and get them within a few plays of winning the divisional playoff round. Brilliant!

We knew they were talented but nobody thought they were a ready made super bowl team. I am sure you did though. Right.?

Sucks to give someone credit, I know.

I really love this front office and I hope their plan, be it 3, 4 or even 5 years comes fully to fruition and this team is able to compete for and possibly win multiple championships!! Wouldn't that be great?!

FWIW, I think PC/JS has worked miracles on a messianic level to bring back this roster to the level it is at now.......I shudder to think what kind of IED like aftermath we would have been left with if we would have 'stayed the course' with Ruskell and Mora. As pointed out, we have a very good defense, great running game and solid special teams. I don't think we should lose sight of that.....yes PC/JS failed on the CBJ experiment, they signed Flynn to be an expensive backup and Wilson may fail. The law of averages tells us eventually, as long as they keep looking at the QB position, will "hit" on one. I say let him finish his contract.

Holy crap you were a RW supporter Kearly ? I never knew !

Seriously, I agree with ya, I just jumped off the bandwagon about the time we announced a rookie starting at QB. Historically, it's not worked out more than it has.

So, in your opinion Kearly, are Wilson's shortcomings something that he needs to work through by physically playing, or would he have been better served sitting behind Flynn and watching for a year ?

I've always been a big proponent of sitting your rookies, but there are times (like the Panthers last year) where you have nothing to lose and you might as well.

Tech Worlds wrote:

Seahawk Sailor wrote:Sooo... bring in a coach to a ready-made Super Bowl team and get them within a few plays of winning the divisional playoff round. Brilliant!

We knew they were talented but nobody thought they were a ready made super bowl team. I am sure you did though. Right.?

Sucks to give someone credit, I know.

I did, actually. And, PM'd a few hear saying that.

Hawks46 wrote:So, in your opinion Kearly, are Wilson's shortcomings something that he needs to work through by physically playing, or would he have been better served sitting behind Flynn and watching for a year?

I think he would develop faster playing. He's already proved he can play in practice and in the preseason. Most baseball analysts would tell you that if you had a hitter who hit .330 in the minors but hit .230 in the majors, you wouldn't send him down to the minors because he's already shown he's mastered that level and wouldn't gain much by playing against crappy competition again. He'd be better served staying in the majors and working things out because the types of competition he must learn to conquer won't exist very often at the lower levels.

That's Wilson's situation. What he needs to learn is pretty much exclusively from real game situations. If he were benched, he'd still learn a few minor things- he'd still be able to increase his mastery of the playbook and such- but that's a very, very small part of Wilson's problem right now.

That said, what if (a healthy) Matt Flynn is a good fit for this conservative offense? Look at the success Matt Ryan is having right now, and Flynn is a very similar QB. That's why I'm not bashing the Flynn chanters. I think both sides have good points to make.

Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?

knownone wrote:Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?

Apparently he's short.

I'll give Kearly some props for this writeup. I've been critical of his (in my opinion) view of the Hawks, and not looking at reality of this team during some of his posts.

knownone wrote:Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?

I think it is because many feel that starting the rookie is the reason the offense is so conservative. They think the reason the WRs are not performing is because Wilson is failing to identify or hesitant in throwing to the correct WR. The defense and special teams performance has ignited the idea that this team is ready now to contend for a deep run if the QB position was manned by a player who has more understanding of defensive looks.

The big push by local/national and team fans to give Wilson a chance in the unorthodox QB competition and the red hot response to his play left his detractors ready to pounce when the inevitable rookie ramp-up proceeded. Russellmania promoted the kid to a fever pitch declaration of finding a QBOTF and resulted in a fan divide, as those who backed Flynn found themselves having to defend Flynn from denigration.

You find a 3-way split on the QBs now, with those in the middle just wanting the best and most ready QB to be playing now. Each side has some valid points and concerns. The move late in the pre-season after it seemed that Pete had gone with Flynn was accepted as fair though surprising. The impact of Flynn's elbow flare-up has not been vetted well by our press.

This is an interesting quote, though from PFW with Arkush who claimed there was a JS and PC divide, so I take it with a grain of salt:

That's a difficult question to answer, according to team sources, considering that the tendinitis in Flynn’s right elbow that played a major part in him losing the job to Wilson in the preseason is an injury that Flynn has never had to deal with before.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/10/05/seahawks-remain-concerned-about-flynns-elbow

A different circumstance, personal talent and team personnel but A Rodgers, after sitting behind Favre on the bench had a rough 1st year starting so it is no guarantee that Flynn would be gangbusters his first year starting. Cannot offer much analysis on this since I am not very familiar with all that went into the Packers make-up at that time. Just an idle thought.

Hawks46 wrote:So, in your opinion Kearly, are Wilson's shortcomings something that he needs to work through by physically playing, or would he have been better served sitting behind Flynn and watching for a year ?

I've always been a big proponent of sitting your rookies, but there are times (like the Panthers last year) where you have nothing to lose and you might as well.

Let's not kid ourselves: if Flynn takes us deep into the playoffs this year, nobody will want him benched in 2013 just because Wilson's waiting. Flynn isn't old; this isn't a GB situation with a young understudy waiting to replace an over-the-hill veteran. If Flynn can win as the starter, people will want every drop squeezed out of him. He'll remain there for years until he sucks, and Wilson won't see a lick of meaningful playing time until then (short of injury) and will probably be gone by the time his chance comes.

And perhaps that's not so bad for us. I'm merely saying that the whole "let Flynn win now and maybe RW will be the guy later" argument strikes me as pretty hollow. It's one QB or the other, IMO.

CANHawk wrote:

knownone wrote:Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?

Apparently he's short.

Yeah, that's what this is,some people dislliking "short people". Way to go!

It's not about the fact we have yet to win a game via our qb putting up points. It's not about the games being won so far in spite of our current rookie qb. It's not about sketchy, risky, late, ball delivery to receivers who most blindly label "awful" every 3rd thread to cover for the current qb heart throb on the forum. It's not about losing two of the most winnable division games where had even sub-par qb play been in effect we could be seeing W's there. It's not about the fact a shorter, rookie qb should be holding a clipboard in his first 2yrs while getting his game together and being ready for the talent out there.

No, its about disliking short people.

Oh and knowone, yes personally I'd say you're missing something.

Guess PFW loves talking about our QB position. More from them on what they claim to be hearing from inside the building

Tech Worlds wrote:What if Carroll would have said it would take 6 years to win.?

Sounds like a built in excuse to fail if you ask me.

What if he'd said 10? Talk about job security!

Good point Montana. I guess I was kind of thinking that they thought Wilson was good enough to win now, and could be the QBOTF, so if Flynn played well enough, you could trade him for a good pick at the end of the year, draft another decent QB, and start Wilson, while continuing the QB progression at backup that JC likes.

Thing is, I hear a lot of people throwing our WRs under the bus. Saying they get no separation, etc. I see a lot of people like Rodgers and Romo throwing to WRs and TEs that aren't wide open, making throws into tight windows. I also remember a lot of people throwing Jackson under the bus for the same thing; waiting for a guy to be wide open and not seeing much else.

One of Flynn's strengths was that he knows how to throw guys open. I thought at the beginning of the year this would be his strength that would help us now. Yes, Wilson's mobility would be better suited behind our OL. Yes, Flynn would probably take more sacks (although that's looking debatable). But for guys that don't get separation, but are in the right place, you throw to the open spot in the zone, and let the WR go get it. Flynn also has much better deep accurace at this point in his career than Wilson does, and I'd say he's just as good if not better in play action. PC even admitted he was farther ahead in the playbook and reading defenses, and also making presnap adjustments.

I also had suspicions they were making up the tendinitis with Flynn. If he's hurt, there's a reason he's benched, and when you have to replace Wilson, it would be because Flynn is now healthy. I'm not so sure if it's true now, but in looking at Flynn's body language on the sidelines, he looks more unhappy than hurt. Another thing that seems weird....Flynn is healthy enough to throw for the scout team, but not enough to take 1st team reps ?? That seems weird to me.

Hawks46 wrote:One of Flynn's strengths was that he knows how to throw guys open. I thought at the beginning of the year this would be his strength that would help us now. Yes, Wilson's mobility would be better suited behind our OL. Yes, Flynn would probably take more sacks (although that's looking debatable). But for guys that don't get separation, but are in the right place, you throw to the open spot in the zone, and let the WR go get it. Flynn also has much better deep accurace at this point in his career than Wilson does, and I'd say he's just as good if not better in play action. PC even admitted he was farther ahead in the playbook and reading defenses, and also making presnap adjustments.

PC has also said that he would be limiting the playbook as much with Flynn as he is with Wilson. Ergo, Flynn would not be allowed to be throwing into tight coverages, because that's what Wilson is being barred from.

As far as the rest, Flynn's strengths would win him some plays that Wilson is not winning, but the O-line situation would be leaving him in a lot of 3rd-down-and-long situations that Wilson is salvaging. It's a deadly tradeoff. Sacks are a danger because they're a fumble risk, and the pressure that creates them also becomes an interception risk. Flynn has shown a high turnover rate in his limited play.

I actually think of Wilson like Marshawn Lynch in his first game in Seattle, against the Bears. He had terrible stats, but he fought hard for yardage and turned what would have been damaging stops for losses with Julius Jones, into no-gains or small chunks. Didn't seem like a big deal until you realized that Matt Hasselbeck was enjoying a lot more manageable 3rd-and-5/6/7 situations as a result, instead of constant 3rd-and-10+'s. That played a big role in the offense's ability to string drives together. You think Wilson's bad on 3rd down and 6? Try Flynn behind a porous weak-side O-line on 3rd-and-10.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

Hawks46 wrote:One of Flynn's strengths was that he knows how to throw guys open. I thought at the beginning of the year this would be his strength that would help us now. Yes, Wilson's mobility would be better suited behind our OL. Yes, Flynn would probably take more sacks (although that's looking debatable). But for guys that don't get separation, but are in the right place, you throw to the open spot in the zone, and let the WR go get it. Flynn also has much better deep accurace at this point in his career than Wilson does, and I'd say he's just as good if not better in play action. PC even admitted he was farther ahead in the playbook and reading defenses, and also making presnap adjustments.

PC has also said that he would be limiting the playbook as much with Flynn as he is with Wilson. Ergo, Flynn would not be allowed to be throwing into tight coverages, because that's what Wilson is being barred from.
There is a huge difference between throwing receivers open and throwing into tight windows, in fact they are nearly the opposite. Throwing receivers open is what leads to YAC which is another area we are strugling in.

As far as the rest, Flynn's strengths would win him some plays that Wilson is not winning, but the O-line situation would be leaving him in a lot of 3rd-down-and-long situations that Wilson is salvaging. It's a deadly tradeoff. Sacks are a danger because they're a fumble risk, and the pressure that creates them also becomes an interception risk. Flynn has shown a high turnover rate in his limited play.

The o-line play is not nearly as bad as you think either. Wilson is not taking three step drops and hitting receivers in stride, he is having to drop deep into the pocket to aide his vision and giving DC's absolutely no reason not to send the house after him. Those three step drops Flynn was using in the Detroit game were responsible for YAC and backing the opponents defense off the LOS. That is how you burn defenses for cheating the box, add in a nice deep ball every now and then and you keep defenses on their heals. Another team with a less than stellar O-line is the Packers. Rogers has been a pinata behind that line.

I actually think of Wilson like Marshawn Lynch in his first game in Seattle, against the Bears. He had terrible stats, but he fought hard for yardage and turned what would have been damaging stops for losses with Julius Jones, into no-gains or small chunks. Didn't seem like a big deal until you realized that Matt Hasselbeck was enjoying a lot more manageable 3rd-and-5/6/7 situations as a result, instead of constant 3rd-and-10+'s. That played a big role in the offense's ability to string drives together. You think Wilson's bad on 3rd down and 6? Try Flynn behind a porous weak-side O-line on 3rd-and-10.

Other notes, people need to stop with the Whitehurst comparison, it just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.

Anyone on here that wants to put more importance on a preseason game than the real games is a complete moron.

And anyone who is justifying to give up wins now because they are afraid Wilson might not get another chance are no better than the suck for Luck crowd. If Wilson is anywhere near what we hope he is then he will get his shot. His work ethic and leadership will force it. Yes I interpret not giving Flynn a chance when Wilson is ranked as the worst QB in the NFL right now as willing to give up wins. You aren't willing to even look because your afraid that he may prevent Wilson from becoming our hero but the fact is the only way that happens ifs if Flynn is winning. How is this a problem?

RichNhansom wrote:And anyone who is justifying to give up wins now because they are afraid Wilson might not get another chance are no better than the suck for Luck crowd. If Wilson is anywhere near what we hope he is then he will get his shot. His work ethic and leadership will force it. Yes I interpret not giving Flynn a chance when Wilson is ranked as the worst QB in the NFL right now as willing to give up wins. You aren't willing to even look because your afraid that he may prevent Wilson from becoming our hero but the fact is the only way that happens ifs if Flynn is winning. How is this a problem?

He isn't costing us any games, so how is anyone giving up wins?

We're a few misfortunate plays away from 4-0, Wilson is not the issue here.

RichNhansom wrote:Yes I interpret not giving Flynn a chance when Wilson is ranked as the worst QB in the NFL right now as willing to give up wins. You aren't willing to even look because your afraid that he may prevent Wilson from becoming our hero but the fact is the only way that happens if its Flynn is winning. How is this a problem?

Well, I did say "perhaps that's not so bad for us" a couple of posts ago. But I do have reasons for preferring Wilson as a project over Flynn as a project.

However, since you still haven't learned to stop twisting others' words in order to shed favorable light on your own stance, I'll simply end our conversation with a hearty "what Throwdown said".

Not to change the subject much but,
Let’s slow down a bit on the great Green Bay quarterback machine…

Since Matt Hasselbeck left Green Bay here’s the list of great QB’s developed there…
Aaron Rodgers drafted to be (hopefully at the time) Brett Favre’s replacement and
Matt Flynn who we know little about…

That’s been since 2001, eleven years, and they are so good at developing great talent their back up QB is now 27-year-old Graham Harrell who in his four preseason games this year threw 45-of-78 passes for 484 yds a per game average of 121 yds.

Unless Flynn makes a mark as a starter Green Bay hasn’t sent out a marketable QB since the Holmgren/Wolf era and I could argue there where only two, Mark Brunell and Matt Hasselbeck.

So let’s stop with the great QB system over there, they have had two great QBs and developed two more in the last 20 years. Their system is no better than say New England’s or Philadelphia’s…

Throwdown wrote:

RichNhansom wrote:And anyone who is justifying to give up wins now because they are afraid Wilson might not get another chance are no better than the suck for Luck crowd. If Wilson is anywhere near what we hope he is then he will get his shot. His work ethic and leadership will force it. Yes I interpret not giving Flynn a chance when Wilson is ranked as the worst QB in the NFL right now as willing to give up wins. You aren't willing to even look because your afraid that he may prevent Wilson from becoming our hero but the fact is the only way that happens ifs if Flynn is winning. How is this a problem?

He isn't costing us any games, so how is anyone giving up wins?

We're a few misfortunate plays away from 4-0, Wilson is not the issue here.

Some people would disagree with this assessment. Even an average passing offense and we are 4-0

SO CORRECT, edogg.

edogg23 wrote:

Throwdown wrote:

RichNhansom wrote:And anyone who is justifying to give up wins now because they are afraid Wilson might not get another chance are no better than the suck for Luck crowd. If Wilson is anywhere near what we hope he is then he will get his shot. His work ethic and leadership will force it. Yes I interpret not giving Flynn a chance when Wilson is ranked as the worst QB in the NFL right now as willing to give up wins. You aren't willing to even look because your afraid that he may prevent Wilson from becoming our hero but the fact is the only way that happens ifs if Flynn is winning. How is this a problem?

He isn't costing us any games, so how is anyone giving up wins?

We're a few misfortunate plays away from 4-0, Wilson is not the issue here.

Some people would disagree with this assessment. Even an average passing offense and we are 4-0

By average do you mean like New England who averages 294 yds a game and lost to Az by 8 or Chicago who averages 206 yds a game and beat St Louis by 17?

Or maybe you mean like Philadelphia who averages 272 yds a game and lost to Az. by 17 instead of St Louis who averages 183 yds a game and beat them easily?

So listen, I too have been a silent advocate for Flynn to start from the get go, but to think he will be the savior for this team is a little naïve and to think any of us know more about how to win football games than Carroll is a little assuming to say the least…

FidelisHawk wrote:
By average do you mean like New England who averages 294 yds a game and lost to Az by 8 or Chicago who averages 206 yds a game and beat St Louis by 17?

Or maybe you mean like Philadelphia who averages 272 yds a game and lost to Az. by 17 instead of St Louis who averages 183 yds a game and beat them easily?

So listen, I too have been a silent advocate for Flynn to start from the get go, but to think he will be the savior for this team is a little naïve and to think any of us know more about how to win football games than Carroll is a little assuming to say the least…

Yes, I think that is exactly what he means.

With our defense and running game, if we would have averaged 294 yds a game against Az and 206 yds against St. Louis , we would have beat the shit out of both of them.

I will go a step further. With a slightly LESS than average passing attack, we are 4-0. Anything BUT the worst passing team in the entire NFL, we are probably 3-1.

Okay, (I promised myself I wasn’t going to do this but here goes) surely nobody expects Flynn to be the second coming of Tom Brady or Jay Cutler (god forbid) or even Sam Bradford do they?

I contend if our top ten defense had stopped Kevin Kolb for one drive they would have won as well or if our “special” special team had recovered a onside kick we’d be talking differently, if only our league leading rusher had rushed for just ten more yds in either game we would be 4 and 0 just as easily.

The point is “we are what we thought we were” a young team, that’s improving every game, and has yet to reach it’s potential. Wishing we had a top ten passing game, to go with our top ten rushing game, and our top ten special teams at this stage of our development is a fool’s dream at best. Yet for a few more breaks here or there we could all be singing Russell’s praises, instead of caring about many yards he’s averaging.

But for an extra first down here or there, or a third down stop, or one more special teams play we wouldn’t be calling for Bevell’s or Carroll’s or the towel boy’s head, we’d be basking in our lustrous glory at being undefeated while playing a rookie QB. If only "wishes and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas" all the way to the playoffs.

Now let me make this perfectly clear, I was on the start Flynn bandwagon from the beginning and said so here. But all this speculation and palaver on how Flynn would somehow change the situation we’re in is ludicrous, we don’t have Payton Manning sitting on the bench. The chances of picking up someone else’s backup QB and have him be dramatically better than your old starting QB are very slim. Unless his name’s Brett Favre the odds are you’ll only get a serviceable QB for a few years at best.

Shame on my fellow Hawk fans for playing the backup QB card by the fourth game, you guys must kill at Three Card Monte…

I think when i go to my next job that I am just going to tell my boss from the get go that it will be 4 years before my job performance meets expectations.

Tech Worlds wrote:I think when i go to my next job that I am just going to tell my boss from the get go that it will be 4 years before my job performance meets expectations.

Yeah. Your current boss has already figured that out about you.

Tech Worlds wrote:I think when i go to my next job that I am just going to tell my boss from the get go that it will be 4 years before my job performance meets expectations.

Sneer all you want. The 49ers are pretty happy right now.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

Tech Worlds wrote:I think when i go to my next job that I am just going to tell my boss from the get go that it will be 4 years before my job performance meets expectations.

Sneer all you want. The 49ers are pretty happy right now.

Hell ya they are. Coach walks in year one and wins. We may have to do something like that in the near future.

Tech Worlds wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

Tech Worlds wrote:I think when i go to my next job that I am just going to tell my boss from the get go that it will be 4 years before my job performance meets expectations.

Sneer all you want. The 49ers are pretty happy right now.

Hell ya they are. Coach walks in year one and wins. We may have to do something like that in the near future.

You know what I meant.

Tech Worlds wrote:I think when i go to my next job that I am just going to tell my boss from the get go that it will be 4 years before my job performance meets expectations.

Well if you were rebuilding the World Trade Center or the Alaska Pipeline and told your boss you’d be done in one year, you’d probably get the same reaction as if you told an NFL GM you were going to rebuild his team in one year…

Odds are they get a nice chuckle and you don’t get the job…

By the way, now that you’ve moved from GF where are we going to have that beer at???

Screw four years,
this Defense is ready now
this special teams is ready now
if you want "we don't need touchdowns just don't turn it over" offense bring in #15
but Wilson is better than that if you take the reigns off.