Quinn lost this game for us


#1

I didn’t want to believe it. I wanted to be under the impression the front office and coaching staff had a plan. That even with trading Tate, they knew better than we did by trading their BEST offensive weapon in a division that was wide open. I was wrong, and so were they.

We might not have beat Minnesota with Tate but it would have been competitive, and we wouldn’t have jeopardized our franchise QB.

Shame on Quinn and Patricia. They outsmarted themselves and very well may have cost us any hope in this season. Or beyond that.

How deflating.


#2

Someone needs to drug test the front office. They must have been high on crystal meth when they made that deal.


#3

Sorry but this game sits squarely on the shoulders of the offensive line. 10 sacks against a 4 man rush is inexcusable.


#4

Not absolving them of blame, just wonder in post analysis how many were coverage sacks. Plenty of blame to go around tho.


#5

Even with Tate, I do not think we had a shot to win especially with 10 sacks by Minny:(


#6

I blame cooter. His plan for replacing Tate didn’t work at all so we had to abandon the short pass which played into MINs strength with Rhodes back.


#7

Both Seattle & Minnesota were better teams. Bigger/stronger/faster.


#8

Maybe Quinn traded Tate for the 3rd rounder AND the incentive to hamstring Cooter and therefore giving him a scapegoat in the offseason… Probably not, but I like conspiracy theories


#9

Tate was not going to help with protection. Time to realize that TJ is damaged goods and Decker would make a decent RT. This line was exposed and JBC makes matters worse. Still have Marvin and Golliday, why not slow the rush with a few quick slants?


#10

We dont know what the slant patter is and if er do, its news to me cause I dont remember running one in years


#11

In defense of Quinn they did offer Tate a deal before the trade. Not sure if it was a fair deal though. But don’t look for me to defend him on most of his decisions. This is his third year and the team is digressing. That is on him.


#12

Soooo… Trading a guy who you tried to resign but couldn’t, who will be a FA at end of year, who would had brought a 5th round comp pick (or none at all if we sign a guy of equal value at ANY position) … Is a bad move???
Keeping him and getting nothing is a SOL and bad move. JBC have no idea how to adjust to Minny D is the bad move.
Getting sacked 6x on 5&7 step drops is a bad idea. Not going to a short passing game is a bad idea.
Trading Tate for a 3rd is what good front office do.
Quinn mistake was keeping JBC


#13

If we’re blaming Quinn than I’d agree it’s not because of the Tate trade. It’s because the OL. We’ve spent way too much resources on fixing a unit that just insist playing well. Which is a shocker. They were playing well as a group and now suddenly with Lang back the group is struggling.

Decker doesn’t look the same since injury.
Wagner’s play has been sporadic. Ragnow I’ll give a pass too since he’s a rookie.
Lang hasn’t lived up to his contract.
Graham has been average in my opinion.

I just feel like the entire team lacks difrence makers.


#14

Perfect way to describe it.

Despite having one of the highest paid QBs in the game and a dude who never plays making $17M this year, yet I don’t really think this team has a superstar on it.


What is Jim Caldwell doing today?
#15

That seems to be by design, and supported by a large majority of our fan base.

Needs based drafts and signing mid level free agents will eventually put you behind the curve on talent compared to other NFL teams.

And even though Hand has looked impressive so far, trading away higher level future draft picks for lower level immediate picks will eventually dig into your talent level as well.


#16

Man, that is a heavy dose of reality right there. The warning every ex-GM has is using those early rounds to fill holes instead of just adding talent.