Thurman#1

You don't quite seem to get this, but what you're saying is that McD is going to leave behind his system and go to yours. And good luck on that. He doesn't "like" to have a rotation. It's how his defense works and always has, including his time in Carolina. You don't like it? Fine. But you'd better learn to deal with it, unless you can persuade the Pegulas to fire McD and put you in his place.

First, that would open up nothing like $35M. You're leaving dead cap out entirely. In fact, cutting Star (which makes no sense in the first place because if we found out one thing this year it's that he's extremely valuable) would actually cost more than it would save. Second, cutting Hughes doesn't make sense. He's the only guy getting consistent pressure and he's doing it at a very high rate. They will not do this, nor should anyone with an ounce of sense. Nor will they ask him to take a pay cut. Extend his contract and re-negotiate some money down the road with him, without asking him to take a pay cut? Yeah, possible. That could save us maybe $3 mill or so. Third, if you cut all those guys, you do open up some cap space .... and create holes which if you want to fill them only with players just as good, no improvement at all, would cost pretty much all of that cap space to replace them. They'll do some cutting. But they're very unlikely to be able to bring in any more than one of the guys you are thinking of, and even one would probably be difficult. It would prevent us from re-signing guys like Milano, Feliciano and Darryl Williams, which would leave yet more holes. And it would eliminate any sense of continuity going forward, in a season when we are likely to yet again have problem with getting enough off-season workouts in. Are one or two of those guy likely to go? Sure. Not Star or Hughes, but yeah one or two of the others. It won't open up enough to bring in tons of high-priced FAs, though.

No, you're not. You're going extremely far out of your way to blame Biden for something which - as yet - he has virtually zero control over. You're trying to give political meaning to something which at this point is biologically and mathematically determined. As time passes, Biden's policies will begin to have a larger and larger share of blame/credit for the change in infection rates. As yet, they have not had much effect, nor could they have. Nobody should give Trump all the blame for the deaths that happened during his administration. Nobody. It's a pandemic. Pandemics by their nature spread like crazy. That's what they do. But Trump's whole whole deal about how it's not important and how masks weren't necessary absolutely over time had vast effects on the numbers. Which is why the U.S. had far far worse numbers than we have here in Japan where I live, which had a fast start on the virus from many visitors from China, but which then had a massive effort to wear masks and act safe show huge effects. And that's despite the fact that Japan has much more population density about ten times higher than ours. Japan is nearly exactly the size of Montana. So in the size of Montana they have a population of 126 million, about 40% of the population of the U.S. Know how many COVID cases they've had? 416K, total. Just short of 7,000 deaths. And frankly their leadership was solid and decent, not great. Whereas our President actually told people this wasn't a big deal, don't worry about masks, and come on to my large public events without masks. Again, nobody should blame Trump for the whole situation. It was always going to be bad. But he does deserve a large share of the blame, as his policies didn't effectively fight it As Biden's policies change the federal government's response and the national situation, the situation will more and more be able to be correlated to his actions. As of yet they realistically can't. Infection rates are going down, very significantly right now, but that's not to Biden's credit, the rate had been going down since about Jan. 7th. As time passes, we'll see his policies effect things signficantly. We have not seen that yet. That's a statistical, a biological and a logical fact. Blaming Biden, at this point, for the deaths that have taken place since his inauguration is like blaming a dock for getting wet as the tide comes in. That chart is purely an attempt at political spin.

No, just the opposite. The best-run teams don't find a way to do things and then settle down and never change. They're in a constant state of self-evaluation and adaptation. They're adapting to changing conditions and to their own successes and mistakes and what those can teach them about themselves. It is exactly the best-run teams who will succeed best in this new environment. You're certainly right when you say this doesn't make things easier. Correct. It makes things harder. But difficult situations are exactly when organizations that are run well show themselves as excellent. The best teams are precisely those that adapt best to changes and situations. Make it harder to adapt to situations ... and the teams that are best at it will be more successful.

Right, blame the guy who inherited a raging pandemic for the people who die from catching it after a day that, as far as the disease is concerned, is completely inconsequential? Ask a doctor if that makes sense. He'll tell you it doesn't. And that'll show the obvious ... that this is a purely political thread, a desperate attempt at a spin job, that doesn't show anything related to Joe Biden. Now, a few months down the road, if Biden's attempts at fixes don't work ... that'll be the time to start blaming him. But blaming him for these numbers you're counting above is like when a guy drops a safe off a 50 story building and you blame the guy on the third floor who notices it's falling and tries to get the people on the street below to move out of the way in time. Trump inherited a handful of cases and turned it into millions, telling people this wasn't anything to worry about. Biden inherited millions ... and we don't know yet how well he'll do.

The Chiefs had "an offensive line that was missing four starters — right guard Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, who opted out before the season, along with left guard Kelechi Osemele, right tackle Mitchell Schwartz and left tackle Eric Fisher, who were lost to injuries. Lucas Niang, a third-round offensive line draft pick from TCU, also opted out before the season." https://www.kshb.com/sports/road-to-repeat/chiefs-offensive-never-gets-untracked-in-super-bowl-lv-loss Their OL problems were huge in this game. And when your starting OTs are gone, it puts more pressure on your guards, and nobody can help them the way they could if the tackles weren't needing help with the outside rush. And for whatever reason, Mahomes was moving well against us, but limping and limited against the Bucs. That made a difference too, made it easier for the Bucs D. You say the Chiefs were stopping the run with their front four, and that's not true, it was their front seven. And we saw Mathieu make a bunch of tackles on run plays in that game. And we did that as well, though not as efficiently as the Bucs did. And again, losing Lotulelei was huge. The rest of our front four were smaller guys. People have screamed and moaned about Lotulelei for years here, because they didn't get his role in the defense. We saw this year how much it affected the LBs with Star not in there. I'm not saying our DL is OK and doesn't need work. Not at all. I am saying that we need another pass rusher, at least, and that getting Lotulelei back will help, and that the Bucs DL was in a much better situation with the extra tackle out and with Mahomes not as able to move.

After the first six games our defense played well even against the good teams, doing very well against Arizona (minus the lucky INT), the Steelers, the Niners who were playing really well at that time ... Not good enough to beat KC, of course, but still very good. Despite some very real DL problems, particularly Lotulelei's optout and the lack of a pass rusher on the other side. A lot of the success that the Tampa defense had may well have come down to the Chiefs OL injuries. It would have been interesting to see what happened if they'd been healthy. I'm happier to see KC lose, though.

Looking at the Super Bowl games - in isolation - is nearly always greatly misleading. Individual games are deeply affected by matchups, but bad bounces, by the way the refs call pass interference, by stuff. The 2018 Patriots were the 21st ranked D. They were better than that, Belichick's always been a bend-but-don't-break guy, but they weren't great. And this year's Bucs were a very good defense but not elite. Not sensational at 6th. I don't especially buy Brady as the GOAT, it's not all that obvious how to compare guys like Unitas, like Otto Graham to modern guys, but he's certainly one of the best of all time. Unfortunately. Very glad to get him out of the division.

Oh, please. Can we give up on the idea of trading up in that way? Particularly this year., Beane trades up ... but only one way ... if he only has to give up a late-round pick. He tells us how much he values draft picks. Then after each draft he says it again. Yet every year people pretend we're likely to make a draft trade-up that's big. He's never traded away a lot to trade up with the one exception of the year that he assembled all the draft capital to trade up for a QB. And he particularly isn't going to do that in a year when our lousy cap situation means we can't bring in a lot of FAs to fill holes. Not gonna happen. Now, would he trade up to #26 or something if he had to give up maybe a 4th or a 5th? Frankly I doubt it this year, but at least this is the kind of thing that he does. The draft is absolutely crucial for us this year. We're going to have to get guys who can contribute their first year. We'll need our first three picks to do that. I'd love Kyle Pitts, too. Don't get me wrong. But it's not going to happen this year unless he drops like a stone.

Eli Manning's passer rating topped out at 77.0 in his first three years. Many wanted to label him a bust. Steve McNair. Guys like that are out there. And the only thing that's substantively different about a guy picked in the top ten from a guy picked later is the perception of that guy. Top ten guys may get wasted more profligately, put to start on bad teams when they'd be better off taking the Drew Brees / Patrick Mahomes route. And then it's also pretty fair to say that their development years are treated as their ceiling more than for guys drafted a bit later. People say, "hey, we've seen this guy for three years, we know who he is," which many times just isn't true. Guys like Brees, Alex Smith, Eli and many others take longer to develop sometimes than would be ideal. A guy like Jake Delhomme, on the other hand, because he's not thrown right away to the wolves, gets to sit and learn for a while and can become a pretty good quarterback later in his career without the "top ten" perception forcing him in too early. Same for Aaron Rodgers. Brett Favre. A very significant number of bust top tens, if treated the same way, might well have become good QBs. Or if given a second chance might have proven themselves later.

Your being "pretty sure" amounts to you having an opinion. And everybody does. You might end up being right. Equally, though, you might not. And yeah, buyer beware. Which is true whenever you get a QB, regardless who he is or how much you give up.

No, for many reasons. Got one in Edmunds, and he's not an OLB. Kuechly's retired, and it would be expensive at a position where we have no real need besides.

Well, yes, but they didn't disagree. Cosell said he played fast right from the start, that he moved unnecessarily, that "he was anticipating and perceiving pressure even when it was not there," (a very common symptom of QBs who are pressured a lot in a game, by the way), "and he missed about three or four plays, including what would have been a touchdown to Tyreek Hill because he moved when he did not have to." Kimes said that Mahomes wasn't in the top ten of reasons they lost. Both of those things could easily be true. They are not logically contradictory. I think Kimes was exaggerating, myself. He probably was among the top ten, but not among the top five, IMO. I don't think he was in a position to get them to a win even if he'd played the best possible game under the conditions.

Regardless of how you consider it, it's speculation. Either way. He didn't say anything that would make anyone think that. Reading his "attitude," which is where you said the problem was, that's speculation.

Gotta disagree with you about the turf toe. I was really hoping to see him limp against us. He didn't. It looked like he'd recovered. Then against Tampa he was limping a lot. Maybe someone stepped on him or he kicked the turf or something but it was immediately clear that he was suffering from it much more against Tampa than he had against us. And I wouldn't say his worst game as a pro. That's significant exaggeration. But yeah, the pressure really did affect him, but it will affect any QB, really. Still, not his best game, but I agree that he was not one of the major reasons they lost.

Yes, he's saying don't anticipate things because they're not going to happen. He doesn't "keep expectations low." Or high or anything else. He's always been open and honest. You're right that if the price is right, he'd be willing to pick up spectacular bargains that fell in his laps. But the odds on it happening are miniscule. What we'll do, we'll bring in a bunch of guys to fill holes, low- and maybe a few mid-priced guys. The money isn't there for more.

"This is not going to be a free agency that we can be as aggressive. We've been aggressive with that because we've built up the resources and you can only have so many drafts. At the end of the day, we still want to draft, develop and sign our own, and we're getting to that point where now we don't have to go out and add pieces from free agency, we've got to see how many of the guys we can retain. "We'll fill in here and there some holes, but I would not anticipate any blockbuster moves of Stef(on) Diggs type, or some of the moves we made the year before in free agency. It's really gonna be plugging some holes depending on who we lose, and then the onus is on us to really to have a strong draft." Who was it who said this again? Oh, yeah. Brandon Beane.

First, when we move a little money around and change some contracts ... that will allow us to sign our rookie draft class, to re-sign whoever we re-sign of Milano, Feliciano and Darryl Williams and the others we'll have to re-sign such as Bojorquez, Barkley or a replacement, Levi Wallace, Taiwan Jones, Yeldon or a replacement, Marlowe or a replacement, McKenzie or a replacement and Boettger or a replacement. Enough with the idea that a few wiggles and we'll be rolling in it. We won't. But will we bring in a few low-level FAs? Bet on it. Maybe even a mid-level guy or two. Absolutely. But they won't be fighting for the expensive guys. Even less so than normal. Beane has already said so. But yeah, worth talking about which bargain guys to bring in. There will be a ton of them out there this year.

Yes, this looks like it precisely.

Yup. It's deliberately related to whether (pass) blocks are won within 2.5 seconds or not. You can win or lose and it might not mean a sack, or everyone could win but if they're rushing six a guy could be unblocked and get a sack. It's a stat with a specific context. It's interesting, and it lines up reasonably well with what I saw. Yes you did. You didn't get a sack, but you may well have done a terrific job. If you beat your guy but the QB gets it out in under two seconds to a guy running a slant that's not the pass rusher's fault. This one is a bit misleading as it's a raw number, not a measure of efficiency. If you get 250 pressures, that can have a totally different meaning if you faced 300 passes or 700 passes.

Not on his own, no. But he's a lot better than you're saying here, and it shows. The whole defense is elevated when Milano's playing. He doesn't deserve top pass rushing LB $, but he absolutely deserves to be in the $11 - $13M a year range, and I'm hoping they can sign him with a smaller hit this year and more guaranteed money down the road. IMO they'd love to get him back, but injuries are a legit concern with him.

Coming to Buffalo ... from Tampa Bay ... is going to make him bigger as a brand? Um, OK. Too expensive this year. Can't see him leaving Brady.

Where a guy fits in the rankings at his position in any given year matters not at all. Being the 5th best WR last year (according to draft position) meant you were Justin Jefferson. The year before it meant you were Mecole Hardman at #56. The year before that, Christian Kirk. The year before that Curtis Samuel. That's some major variation, and that's how it goes. There are good years and bad years for position groups. Being the 5th best DE last year meant you were AJ Epenesa (again going by where they were drafted). The year before, Montez Sweat was 4th. Frank Clark was #10 his year and Arik Armstead was #4 the same year. What matters is how good a guy is compared to all players in positions of reasonable need that year. I'd answer yes to your question in a second because I don't think RB is a position of reasonable need. Now, if they think Harris is a top ten player and that he sticks out way above everyone else at #30, I'd expect them to grab him. But I don't think they'll feel that way even if he's available.

IMO wildly unlikely. Never say never but IMO we won't pick an RB on the first two days. First round would shock me. That's not poor depth, it's a poor top end. From what I'm hearing (not an expert, nor much of a college fan) the depth at pass rusher is really good this year, but with no Chase Youngs up top, which wouldn't matter to us anyway at #30.

Again, I'm not arguing that we were really good the whole year. Clearly we weren't. But the last ten games they really were. Certainly not elite. But very good. Also not arguing we don't need improvements on D, and on the DL even with Lotulelei coming back which alone should really help us. We do need a pass rush. We may well see a guy or two go that didn't really live up to his salary this year creating an opening or two. Anyway, I've clearly assisted in thread-napping -shame on me - and I've said enough here.