Trevor Lawrence and the Jags - Year 4 (T-Law is what he is)

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

Doesn't matter to me, personally.

We don't split off INTs that are really the WR or OL's fault. And if I do this for Trevor, I have to do it for everyone.

Hell, even if they are his fault - he can fumble all day long as long as he produces good stats and doesn't actually turn the ball over, imo.

It's the 50+ tYPG dropoff this year in order to limit those turnovers that's more concerning imo.

Putting the ball on the ground and being careless doesn’t matter? 

If dropped interceptions were an easily accessible stat, I’d absolutely incorporate it into my opinion on how I view a QB, particularly with ball security. Like, two QBs make the exact same throw into a defender’s chest: one bounces off, one gets returned for a pick six - I’m supposed to think one guy isn’t turnover prone or careless with the football based on whether the defender could catch or not? It’s the same thing with a fumble vs fumble lost. Careless with the football is careless with the football. No, they’re not all created equally and not always on the QB, but a trend is a trend is a trend. Those are better this year, seemingly at the cost of whatever else TL was really bringing to the table (good, but not elite bulk stats).

And yeah, I don’t see anyone comparing Trevor’s fumbles to everyone else’s fumbles lost. It’s pretty consistent, I think. Josh Allen was getting the same chatter. 

[Soggust]

54 minutes ago, Soko said:

Putting the ball on the ground and being careless doesn’t matter? 

If you were to guarantee me that it wouldn't go to the other team, then no, apart from loss of down + yardage, which would be reflected in the stats.

And when it does go to the other team, we punish him in the stat sheet with a turnover.

 

54 minutes ago, Soko said:

If dropped interceptions were an easily accessible stat, I’d absolutely incorporate it into my opinion on how I view a QB, particularly with ball security. Like, two QBs make the exact same throw into a defender’s chest: one bounces off, one gets returned for a pick six - I’m supposed to think one guy isn’t turnover prone or careless with the football based on whether the defender could catch or not? It’s the same thing with a fumble vs fumble lost. Careless with the football is careless with the football. No, they’re not all created equally and not always on the QB, but a trend is a trend is a trend. Those are better this year, seemingly at the cost of whatever else TL was really bringing to the table (good, but not elite bulk stats).

Sure, but since we don't have access to dropped picks, then when we lump them into "turnovers" and include theoretical fumbles but only actual interceptions, aren't we weighting the balance of turnovers to where fumbles are somehow worth like twice as much?

[Soko]

19 minutes ago, Soggust said:

If you were to guarantee me that it wouldn't go to the other team, then no, apart from loss of down + yardage, which would be reflected in the stats.

And when it does go to the other team, we punish him in the stat sheet with a turnover.

To each their own, then. To me, being careless with the football is a knock on a QB. 

In terms of the football game, sure, the turnover (result) matters more than just the ball being put on the ground (method). In terms of how I view a QB, though? No way. A QB generally isn’t in great control of who recovers a fumble. After the ball’s on the ground, generally, it’s out of their control. So yeah, I’m gonna think negatively of a guy who’s putting the ball on the ground. Maybe the end result (offensive recovery) doesn’t drastically hurt the team, but I don’t see how that’s not a negative compared to a guy who isn’t putting it on the ground at all. Like, no good reasoning for ignoring it, whatsoever.

When looking at the QB (not the end result for the offense), why should a ball that fortunately bounces straight to an offensive linemen be viewed as so much less careless than a ball that unluckily bounces to a defender? Yes, yes - the end result is different, but that’s not really up to the QB…for the most part (looking at you, SB Cam Newton). 

Doing something careless often carries different results/consequences depending on the result - that applies to law, safety, workplace SOP, virtually everything. But putting the football on the ground with an offensive recovery is like driving down the sidewalk with your eyes closed and saying “yeah but I didn’t hit anybody, so no big deal”. I’m not knocking him for X turnovers. I’m knocking him for being a careless QB.

19 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Sure, but since we don't have access to dropped picks, then when we lump them into "turnovers" and include theoretical fumbles but only actual interceptions, aren't we weighting the balance of turnovers to where fumbles are somehow worth like twice as much?

Well, I wouldn’t count dropped picks/turnover worthy plays as turnovers. Nor would I count fumbles. But I wouldn’t exclude fumbles (or turnover worthy plays) from the “this guy’s careless with the football, here’s why:” discussion. It can’t possibly not be a bad thing to be careless with ball security.

[Soggust]

58 minutes ago, Soko said:

To each their own, then. To me, being careless with the football is a knock on a QB. 

In terms of the football game, sure, the turnover (result) matters more than just the ball being put on the ground (method). In terms of how I view a QB, though? No way. A QB generally isn’t in great control of who recovers a fumble. After the ball’s on the ground, generally, it’s out of their control. So yeah, I’m gonna think negatively of a guy who’s putting the ball on the ground. Maybe the end result (offensive recovery) doesn’t drastically hurt the team, but I don’t see how that’s not a negative compared to a guy who isn’t putting it on the ground at all. Like, no good reasoning for ignoring it, whatsoever.

When looking at the QB (not the end result for the offense), why should a ball that fortunately bounces straight to an offensive linemen be viewed as so much less careless than a ball that unluckily bounces to a defender? Yes, yes - the end result is different, but that’s not really up to the QB…for the most part (looking at you, SB Cam Newton). 

Doing something careless often carries different results/consequences depending on the result - that applies to law, safety, workplace SOP, virtually everything. But putting the football on the ground with an offensive recovery is like driving down the sidewalk with your eyes closed and saying “yeah but I didn’t hit anybody, so no big deal”. I’m not knocking him for X turnovers. I’m knocking him for being a careless QB.

Well, I wouldn’t count dropped picks/turnover worthy plays as turnovers. Nor would I count fumbles. But I wouldn’t exclude fumbles (or turnover worthy plays) from the “this guy’s careless with the football, here’s why:” discussion. It can’t possibly not be a bad thing to be careless with ball security.

If we agree that fumbles shouldn't be considered "turnovers", then I agree with everything you are saying here.

Being careless is a "knock" for sure, but remember my original quote was:  

3 hours ago, Soggust said:

Hell, even if they are his fault - he can fumble all day long as long as he produces good stats and doesn't actually turn the ball over, imo.

So I'm not saying being careless isn't a problem. I'm saying it's not a problem if he were to produce good stats and continue to not actually turn the ball over. That's a reflective view of performance, not some perception of how I view a QB going forward.

For example - I absolutely agree that I might have some concerns deep down, but as long as Mahomes keeps winning super bowls and MVPs then I won't complain about the dropped picks during the season.

 

[Soko]

13 minutes ago, Soggust said:

If we agree that fumbles shouldn't be considered "turnovers", then I agree with everything you are saying here.

Being careless is a "knock" for sure, but remember my original quote was:  

So I'm not saying being careless isn't a problem. I'm saying it's not a problem if he were to produce good stats and continue to not actually turn the ball over. That's a reflective view of performance, not some perception of how I view a QB going forward.

For example - I absolutely agree that I might have some concerns deep down, but as long as Mahomes keeps winning super bowls and MVPs then I won't complain about the dropped picks during the season.

When you say “care” do you mean as a fan of that team trying to win? Because that’s not really where I’m getting at it. Like yeah, if Daniel Jones fumbled 4 times (let’s say offense recovered) but also led a GWD and won a 13-10 ball game - I’m psyched if I’m Giants fan. But I’m not going to enter a discussion centered around Daniel Jones’ QBing ability and say that him fumbling is a non-factor either. I feel like the difference we’re having is that I’m getting at it as a QB overview kind of thing (where his carelessness with the football = problem), and you’re going at it as a pseudo-Jags fan (if he keeps the ball moving and doesn’t send it to the other team = no big deal). An objective view of his performance is that he was careless with the football and got lucky - not that he didn’t turn it over. Anyone’s issue with Trevor (which has been mitigated this season) should be that he has ball security issues, which lead to turnovers…not that the offense luckily got them.

As a fan that just wants their team to win, I get it. But as someone who’s looking at Trevor’s QBing, I’m looking at his ball security, which is objectively bad whether the offense recovers the football or not. 

[Soggust]

30 minutes ago, Soko said:

When you say “care” do you mean as a fan of that team trying to win? Because that’s not really where I’m getting at it. Like yeah, if Daniel Jones fumbled 4 times (let’s say offense recovered) but also led a GWD and won a 13-10 ball game - I’m psyched if I’m Giants fan. But I’m not going to enter a discussion centered around Daniel Jones’ QBing ability and say that him fumbling is a non-factor either. I feel like the difference we’re having is that I’m getting at it as a QB overview kind of thing (where his carelessness with the football = problem), and you’re going at it as a pseudo-Jags fan (if he keeps the ball moving and doesn’t send it to the other team = no big deal).

Why is carelessness a problem?

And please try to answer that without telling me that it will lead to or predict future turnovers or bad stats because that changes the hypothetical.

 

41 minutes ago, Soko said:

An objective view of his performance is that he was careless with the football and got lucky - not that he didn’t turn it over.

Well, he has two fumbles on the year and one was a blindside hit by Myles Garrett on 3rd and 8 on a blown block by the LT and the other was on a lateral play trying to Stanford marching band it at the end of the HOU game, so I think this is not necessarily an objective view and is also an example of why assuming all fumbles are pure carelessness is flawed. 

timestamped fumble 1:
https://youtu.be/X2qNkNUIMZU?si=MGNS7w3fPVtI9Upe&t=319

timestamped fumble 2:
https://youtu.be/fVkhBUFQZ4I?si=Ae3qh8vFxcXNSoE_&t=656

I supposed you could give him blame for #1, but even that one imo is a tough grading scale and if that's his only legit fumble on the year, then the defense will still rest its case.

 

43 minutes ago, Soko said:

 Anyone’s issue with Trevor (which has been mitigated this season) should be that he has ball security issues, which lead to turnovers…not that the offense luckily got them.

I've been arguing Trevor has ball security issues for 3+ years lol. Definitely no disagreement there.

But I have gone to war with Jags fans who claimed that most QBs only lose 30-50% of their fumbles and Trevor was losing like 70% of his, so clearly it was just an "unlucky" thing. I can't now, in good faith, turn around and say, "well he actually hypothetically should have had more" (even when, in this case, he really shouldn't).

I don't know how I'm getting roped into defending him for simply trying to be consistent, but I want out of the Trevor Lawrence business lol.

[Soko]

25 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Why is carelessness a problem?

And please try to answer that without telling me that it will lead to or predict future turnovers or bad stats because that changes the hypothetical.

Why is being inaccurate a problem if in this hypothetical world, he makes a throw? Why is going slow through reads a problem if in this hypothetical world, he hits his third read? Why is not being able to identify blitzes a problem if in this hypothetical world, he doesn’t get sacked? 

I know you’re not really trying to argue for an incredible flaw that, in your hypothetical scenario, doesn’t go catastrophic? I mean what else? What’s wrong with an 800lb wide receiver that, in this hypothetical scenario, catches a 40 yard TD pass? 

25 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Well, he has two fumbles on the year and one was a blindside hit by Myles Garrett on 3rd and 8 on a blown block by the LT and the other was on a lateral play trying to Stanford marching band it at the end of the HOU game, so I think this is not necessarily an objective view and is also an example of why assuming all fumbles are pure carelessness is flawed. 

timestamped fumble 1:
https://youtu.be/X2qNkNUIMZU?si=MGNS7w3fPVtI9Upe&t=319

timestamped fumble 2:
https://youtu.be/fVkhBUFQZ4I?si=Ae3qh8vFxcXNSoE_&t=656

I supposed you could give him blame for #1, but even that one imo is a tough grading scale and if that's his only legit fumble on the year, then the defense will still rest its case.

I said the issue has been mitigated this season, so yeah. Four games isn’t really enough for me to say I’m confident he’s gotten over it, though.

25 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I've been arguing Trevor has ball security issues for 3+ years lol. Definitely no disagreement there.

But I have gone to war with Jags fans who claimed that most QBs only lose 30-50% of their fumbles and Trevor was losing like 70% of his, so clearly it was just an "unlucky" thing. I can't now, in good faith, turn around and say, "well he actually hypothetically should have had more" (even when, in this case, he really shouldn't).

I don't know how I'm getting roped into defending him for simply trying to be consistent, but I want out of the Trevor Lawrence business lol.

We’re not saying he should’ve had more. We’re saying putting the ball on the ground is a problem, period. Fumbling 25 times and losing 20 is bad luck. Fumbling 25 times and losing 2 is good luck. The problem or lack thereof isn’t in the 20 vs 2, it’s in the 25. Losing 20 is no more or less careless than losing 2 if you’re putting it down 25.  

[Soggust]

54 minutes ago, Soko said:

Why is being inaccurate a problem if in this hypothetical world, he makes a throw? Why is going slow through reads a problem if in this hypothetical world, he hits his third read? Why is not being able to identify blitzes a problem if in this hypothetical world, he doesn’t get sacked? 

I know you’re not really trying to argue for an incredible flaw that, in your hypothetical scenario, doesn’t go catastrophic? I mean what else? What’s wrong with an 800lb wide receiver that, in this hypothetical scenario, catches a 40 yard TD pass? 

But remember - the original quote you have latched onto was:

Quote

Hell, even if they are his fault - he can fumble all day long as long as he produces good stats and doesn't actually turn the ball over, imo.

It's been a hypothetical to start. If you want to say "that's an unrealistic scenario", okay, but it was never intended to be literal.

But it feels like now your position is: "Yeah, but what if he doesn't produce good stats and he starts turning the ball over",....and it's like "Yeah, I agree, but then that's not my original take" so I don't know why you are framing that as my position lol. 

 

54 minutes ago, Soko said:

I said the issue has been mitigated this season, so yeah. Four games isn’t really enough for me to say I’m confident he’s gotten over it, though.

Agreed.
 

54 minutes ago, Soko said:

We’re not saying he should’ve had more. We’re saying putting the ball on the ground is a problem, period. Fumbling 25 times and losing 20 is bad luck. Fumbling 25 times and losing 2 is good luck. The problem or lack thereof isn’t in the 20 vs 2, it’s in the 25. Losing 20 is no more or less careless than losing 2 if you’re putting it down 25.  

Once again, I'm not saying fumbles aren't relevant at all. I think they can often, but not always, be predictive of future turnover problems.

But no coach or fan in the league would rather their QB have 20 fumbles and 18 lost instead of 25 fumbles and 2 lost. And frankly, I think the one with 18 lost might be more concerned about the fumbling issues, simply due to impact.

At the end of the day - all I'm saying is that "fumbles" aren't turnovers and that, in hindsight, I personally don't care how much a qb fumbles as long as he produces good stats and doesn't actually turn the ball over. When he starts turning the ball over, I turn on him.

I do understand that perspective is not realistic when predicting a QB's future ability (which I don't believe we were doing), but it is realistic when evaluating a prior performance, such as Trevor's 2024 to date (which I believe we were doing) where we do have the benefit of hindsight.

And to date, the 2 theoretical fumbles lost are like the least offensive thing on his resume this year.

Edited Friday at 08:32 PM by Soggust

[Soko]

13 minutes ago, Soggust said:

But remember - the original quote you have latched onto was:

It's been a hypothetical to start. If you want to say "that's an unrealistic scenario", okay, but it was never intended to be literal.

But it feels like now your position is: "Yeah, but what if he doesn't produce good stats and he starts turning the ball over",....and it's like "Yeah, I agree, but then that's not my original take" so I don't know why you are framing that as my position lol. 

That’s actually not the original post I responded to at all, and my original post was outright stating that the issue isn’t an outcome problem. It’s a method one. So yeah, I’m not going to be held to your imaginary hypothetical, lol. 

Whether he puts up stats or not is irrelevant to “he is careless with the football”. 

13 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Once again, I'm not saying fumbles aren't relevant at all. I think they can often, but not always, be predictive of future turnover problems.

They’re random. It’s a weird shaped ball. The only thing that guarantees you don’t lose fumbles is not fumbling. Trevor has majority control of the latter and virtually no control over the former, so that’s what I’ll hold him to.

13 minutes ago, Soggust said:

But no coach or fan in the league would rather their QB have 20 fumbles and 18 lost instead of 25 fumbles and 2 lost. And frankly, I think the one with 18 lost might be more concerned about the fumbling issues, simply due to impact.

It’s an issue either way. Obviously that’s an extreme example, 18 vs 2, but the point is that the lost part matters for the end result, but that end result is random. Ball security isn’t random. 

If a fan of any team said “my QB fumbled 25 times, but since it was mostly recovered by the offense, then he’s not careless” I’d call them an idiot.

13 minutes ago, Soggust said:

At the end of the day - all I'm saying is that "fumbles" aren't turnovers and that, in hindsight, I personally don't care how much a qb fumbles as long as he produces good stats and doesn't actually turn the ball over. When he starts turning the ball over, I turn on him.

QBs control the fumbling, usually. 

QBs don’t control recovers, usually. 

Why would I give them a pass for screwing up the thing they can usually control, and then judge them on the mostly random event? It just doesn’t make sense.

 

13 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I do understand that perspective is not realistic when predicting a QB's future ability (which I don't believe we were doing), but it is realistic when evaluating a prior performance, such as Trevor's 2024 to date (which I believe we were doing) where we do have the benefit of hindsight.

And to date, the 2 theoretical fumbles lost are like the least offensive thing on his resume this year.

I wasn’t predicting anything. I’m saying Trevor has a ball security problem (which has looked better so far). If the ball’s on the ground, it isn’t secure. That’s really it.

Your stance on judging him (or anyone) by the recovery instead of the fumble is inconsistent from the stance you took from the other Jags fans saying he loses them at a higher rate. The consistent stance is ball on the ground = bad. Recovery = relevant for the team, irrelevant for the QB’s ball security issues.

[Soggust]

3 minutes ago, Soko said:

That’s actually not the original post I responded to at all, and my original post was outright stating that the issue isn’t an outcome problem. It’s a method one. So yeah, I’m not going to be held to your imaginary hypothetical, lol. 

I didn't say "responded to".

I said latched on to because it's obviously the quote we've been going back and forth over.

But if that's not the case, no problem my friend.

 

38 minutes ago, Soko said:

Whether he puts up stats or not is irrelevant to “he is careless with the football”. 

They’re random. It’s a weird shaped ball. The only thing that guarantees you don’t lose fumbles is not fumbling. Trevor has majority control of the latter and virtually no control over the former, so that’s what I’ll hold him to.

It’s an issue either way. Obviously that’s an extreme example, 18 vs 2, but the point is that the lost part matters for the end result, but that end result is random. Ball security isn’t random. 

If a fan of any team said “my QB fumbled 25 times, but since it was mostly recovered by the offense, then he’s not careless” I’d call them an idiot.

QBs control the fumbling, usually. 

QBs don’t control recovers, usually. 

Why would I give them a pass for screwing up the thing they can usually control, and then judge them on the mostly random event? It just doesn’t make sense.

 

You can judge QBs by whatever you want, homie.

I actually wasn't judging any QBs. I was simply tallying Trevor's turnovers on the year, so idk.
 

Original Quote You Responded To:

Quote

Turnover = fumble lost, not just fumble - so you're actually being a bit harsh on him. 

1 turnover in 4 games as far as I'm concerned and I've been a day one hater.

I did later make a statement about not caring in a hypothetical sense, but I know you just said you weren't responding to that or playing hypotheticals, so obviously that isn't relevant.

 

40 minutes ago, Soko said:

I wasn’t predicting anything. I’m saying Trevor has a ball security problem (which has looked better so far). If the ball’s on the ground, it isn’t secure. That’s really it.

Your stance on judging him (or anyone) by the recovery instead of the fumble is inconsistent from the stance you took from the other Jags fans saying he loses them at a higher rate. The consistent stance is ball on the ground = bad. Recovery = relevant for the team, irrelevant for the QB’s ball security issues.

Nope, I'm not "judging him" at all lol. I'm counting the turnovers.

And I'm not making any statement on fumbles outside of the hypothetical I proposed.

[Soko]

5 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I didn't say "responded to".

I said latched on to because it's obviously the quote we've been going back and forth over.

But if that's not the case, no problem my friend.

 

You can judge QBs by whatever you want, homie.

I actually wasn't judging any QBs. I was simply tallying Trevor's turnovers on the year, so idk.
 

Original Quote You Responded To:

I did later make a statement about not caring in a hypothetical sense, but I know you just said you weren't responding to that or playing hypotheticals, so obviously that isn't relevant.

 

Nope, I'm not "judging him" at all lol. I'm counting the turnovers.

And I'm not making any statement on fumbles outside of the hypothetical I proposed.

I quoted your entire post and was clearly responding to your first sentence “doesn’t matter to me, personally” when asked whether it’s a ball on the ground issue vs a ball on the ground that goes to a defender. You responded by cutting out your hypothetical afterwords. You latched onto your own imagination, lol.

My first post (and some after) said that yeah, just fumbles aren’t turnovers, but in the interest of discussing that, I said it’s not really an issue of whether there’s +1 TO in the stat sheet as much as it is that Trevor is just careless with the ball. No worries if you’re not interested in that avenue, but the “he sucks at holding the ball, but let’s pretend it works out” path is kind of right on the cusp of being overrated because you might get hurt.

[Soggust]

2 minutes ago, Soko said:

I quoted your entire post and was clearly responding to your first sentence “doesn’t matter to me, personally” when asked whether it’s a ball on the ground issue vs a ball on the ground that goes to a defender. You responded by cutting out your hypothetical afterwords. You latched onto your own imagination, lol.

I'm saying "Doesn't matter to me personally" in terms of despite whether the reason is valid or not, it's still a turnover.

That's why I followed up by pointing out how we don't make exceptions for INTs in terms of turnovers and how adding them would disrupt the ratio of turnovers between fumbles and picks.
 

9 minutes ago, Soko said:

My first post (and some after) said that yeah, just fumbles aren’t turnovers, but in the interest of discussing that, I said it’s not really an issue of whether there’s +1 TO in the stat sheet as much as it is that Trevor is just careless with the ball. No worries if you’re not interested in that avenue, but the “he sucks at holding the ball, but let’s pretend it works out” path is kind of right on the cusp of being overrated because you might get hurt.

I'm choosing my words carefully because I'm usually inclined to take hot positions just for debate's sake and I don't want to play that game with you because I will lose if I don't keep my story straight.

And I don't want to defend Trevor because I am with you in thinking he is a turnover machine.

[naptownskinsfan]

On 10/3/2024 at 5:58 PM, MagicMT said:

Not saying he has a good O-line (he doesn't) or a good coach (Press Taylor or Pederson are terrible at play calling) but man look at what Jayden Daniels is doing in Washington. Commanders have a poor O-line and Kingsbury (who has been decent this year) and they're making magic with what they have. 
You shouldn't need for everything to be perfect around you to be a decent QB. 
Lawrence isn't in the best situation but at some point he has to play good enough to elevate his teammates and he's just not doing that. 

Valid point.  While the interior of the line has been great- and Allegretti was a fantastic pickup- Wylie is average at best at RT, and LT is a timeshare between a tweener veteran and a mid-round rookie.  

One thing I will say- Bobby Johnson is a much better coach than a lot of people thought he would be, and this group has been ready to play.  They’ve performed well, especially in the running game.  

[Dr A W Niloc]

=  PFF Offensive Starting Jags Rankings Vs Average  = 

1005  QB  RB1  WR1 WR2 WR3  TE1 |  LT  LG  OC  RG  RT
                                | 
Jkvl  24  *33   27  51  84  *34 |  48  24   8  43 *67
Avrg  16   16   16  48  80   16 |  32  32  16  32  32

     Of their offensive players only two, C Mitch Morse and LG Ezra Cleveland, are above average.  The three with asterisks, including their RB1, are not starter quality at their position.  Oh, and their defensive DVOA is dead last.

      The question isn't "Why are the Jags 4-0 in 2024?"

      The question is  "How did Trevor Lawrence get this offense to 21st in DVOA now and this team to 9 wins in 2023?"

 

[LinderFournette]

8 hours ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

=  PFF Offensive Starting Jags Rankings Vs Average  = 

1005  QB  RB1  WR1 WR2 WR3  TE1 |  LT  LG  OC  RG  RT
                                | 
Jkvl  24  *33   27  51  84  *34 |  48  24   8  43 *67
Avrg  16   16   16  48  80   16 |  32  32  16  32  32

     Of their offensive players only two, C Mitch Morse and LG Ezra Cleveland, are above average.  The three with asterisks, including their RB1, are not starter quality at their position.  Oh, and their defensive DVOA is dead last.

      The question isn't "Why are the Jags 4-0 in 2024?"

      The question is  "How did Trevor Lawrence get this offense to 21st in DVOA now and this team to 9 wins in 2023?"

 

I think ettiene is definitely a top 32 back in the league.  I do think tank bigsby has been the more effective pure runner. 

I do think you can put an Asterisk at TE cuz Evan Engram has missed the last few games. 

Cam Robinson and Harrison need to play to their potential.  If cam can't step up this week I would bench him for little and see what he can do at LT and see if he's worth resigning(if the numbers are reasonable I would).