01-05-2020, 02:54 PM
(01-05-2020, 02:09 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: 1.) Passing on Burrow is not going to help the team in the future. 2.) If they take the 17.5 million they save from cutting Andy and spend it in other areas of need the team will be more successful.
1.) Has anyone called for that? Passing on Burrow. I certainly wasn't and haven't seen anyone else either. I'm not sure who this in response to.
2.) Same thing as above. This thread and discussion is not about starting Andy, keeping Andy, or anything of the sort. It's simply about whether Burrow is an immediate upgrade.
I often see posts about why we'll improve in 2020 and many start with basically "We have Burrow..." That is what is being questioned or examined.
"I think we will be better in 2020 because...."
-Our O-Line will be better. (I would agree)
-Our defense will improve. (I agree it certainly can't be worse)
-We have had a full year for Taylor to impliment his plan. (I agree)
-We will better utilize our running game (I agree)
-Our WR corp, with or without AJ, will be improved. (I agree)
-We have Joe Burrow. ( I do not agree. I think its both premature and wishful thinking to consider this an immediate upgrade in year 1)
Thats the crux of the argument. Many lead off with the Burrow statement as to why we will be improved in 2020. That's what I'm questioning. None of this other stuff...
I really believe some either don't read what's written, or are so sensitive to anything thats not bublegum and rainbows that they manage to completely miss the actual topic at hand.
Nowhere did Luvintz call not draft Burrow. And neither did anyone else. Who exactly are you debating?
