Thurman#1

That's not a claim, it's a guess.

It certainly could go that way, but I think in a good situation Wentz could be very good.

Fair enough. I don't know that they smoke them - the Titans are a good team and match up well with the Bills with the smashmouth run game behind Henry - but I sure like our chances over the Titans. Over anyone but the Chiefs, really, and I think they've got a really good shot there too.

I totally get why as a fan you'd want your team to lose more to bring in a guy like that. I was there for most of the second halves of the year during the drought. But blaming the players for trying to win? Completely nuts. It shouldn't have to be said for the eighteen millionth time, but there is no such thing as a tank in the NFL. It doesn't exist, and won't as long as there are no guaranteed contracts. Rebuilds? Yup. From the GM's perspective, this makes sense. But the players and coaches know they're competing for their careers on every play. Their film is their resume and the last thing you want to show is a resume with major recent regression.

Yup. 0-2 in playoffs and 1-6 against the Pats ... ... in the first three years of a near-complete rebuild. Being bad that early in a rebuild is and by anyone with any sense should be completely expected. Nice necro-bump. This. It's an old thread, but it was ridiculous the instant he posted it.

Yeah, I'm Ok with it too. Remember one of our TEs fighting for yards when surrounded and he literally got picked up in the air by four or five Steelers so he couldn't end the play by going down? And they just held him up and had their way with him till he fumbled? Happened five or ten years ago and I still remember it painfully. Plenty of times going down is smart. It's not as if he's not excellent at YAC. He is. He's great at it.

It'd be $24.85M in dead cap, but again, they'd also avoid paying his $9.5M salary, a $500K bonus and a $10M roster bonus, a total of $20M saved. Financially very doable. That's why Spotrac has 2021 listed as a potential out for Stafford. And you watch, if Stafford goes somewhere with a program that has a clue, he's going to unexplainably be better than he ever was when he was working in that dysfunctional Detroit environment. And if Stafford went to the Pats, he'd be going to a team that is going to have a sensational chance at picking up FAs to fill their many holes. The Pats optouts killed them this year but also put them in a much better situation for next year. They have the 4th most unused cap space this year ($25M), and they will roll it over into next year. In a year that looks like it will have very little money available for teams league-wide, the Pats will have plenty in a buyer's market. They'll be able to shore up receivers, TEs, and fill their holes about as well as anyone in the league.

That's what I was wondering about. In terms of skill, there's nothing to wonder about with Allen unless he gets injured or something.

Harbaugh certainly had a great record there. But they were in free-fall there before he left. IMO his record was more about great GMsmanship. He did a good job but also infuriated everyone around him. My team? Not interested. I don't know how you can make this determination without an interview and more info (who would be Frazier's OC?), but I'd lean towards Frazier. Some of that is not knowing enough about most of the other candidates, some is in believing he's an excellent leader who if he gets good players can coach an excellent team. I would want to know his OC before making final determination, though.

That's not good news in terms of keeping Daboll. It'll make it easier to wait to make a hire even if the coach is on a team that's still in the playoffs. Beane and McDermott (my guess) will likely give permission to Daboll for a 2-hour interview, and that could allow a hiring team to think "He really is as good as we thought, worth waiting for."

I'd argue that spending one 1st round pick on WRs (N'Keal Harry) in Belichick's 20 drafts has a major part of that bad record in drafting WRs, not to mention their tendency to want to rely on TEs rather than WRs.

Yeah, I'm with you on this. If they bring in Stafford, for example, they're not going to be a seven-win team. IMO they'll be good again, though not as good as they were for so long and with such consistency with Brady there. I thought Newton was a great choice when they brought him in. But I don't think he was even replacement-level.

Yeah, you're not being salty: So, what is this? This is you being not salty? Know what, never mind, don't bother explaining. I wasn't talking to you. You come in and reply to me and you tell me I'm wrong in saying something or other. But I'd never said that. If you're going to reply to a guy, reply to what he said. If you don't, expect people to wonder what the hell you're up to.

Fine, you're not worth having a conversation with. You still haven't disagreed with a single word I said, and yet you're still salty about ... I don't know, something. Thanks for letting me know who you are.

Holy crud, man. That is fantastic. I'm welling up a bit over here.

Jesus, dude. One more time. According to you, we disagree that "if they had a Tom Brady led offense [they'd be able] to overcome that." For what is now the third time, could you please point out to me where I said that? I choose my words very carefully. If I didn't say something, don't assume I meant it. If I'd meant something, I would have said it. Now, I've tried with you three times. If you yet again continue on and pretend I'm making arguments I've never made, I will clearly see you're not worth having a discussion with.

Let me try one more time with you. I'm "touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked," hunh? Could you quickly please point out where I said that? For the second time, I thought what I really said, word for word, was that "defense really was part of the issue." And it absolutely was. If you want to talk about turnover differential, fine, go tell it to someone who cares. I'm talking, as I said, about the defense and the fact that it "really was part of the issue."

Good point. To say that 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading indeed. Could you real quick point out where I said that? I thought I said it was "part of the issue," but if you can find where I said it was "why," I'd love to see it, and I'd be willing to correct it. As for 36 not being sustainable, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Long-term, no, but for another year or two? Maybe. But a lot of the reason they had 36 was that they were a terrific defense, strangling offenses slowly and making them take dangerous risks to break through. 36 was more than they'd gotten before. They were a much better defense than they'd had before.

Up to this year cutting or trading Stafford was prohibitive. If they'd cut him this year, he'd have cost them $47.5M in dead cap. Next year, though, it's very doable. $24.85M in dead cap, but they'd avoid paying his $9.5M salary, a $500K workout bonus and a $10M roster bonus. Very doable if they want to go that way.

Defense really was part of the issue. They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems. They also had 36 takeaways last year, compared to 20 over 14 games this year. That's huge.

I wonder who you've been watching. I've seen people refer to Brady in that story maybe a thousand times. Are they talking about it less as the season goes along and there's more to talk about post-Brady? Sure, but that's what should be expected. Agreed that losing Brady was huge. Not convinced it's been proven yet that he was the bigger part, though that's the way I've always leaned. And I'm guessing that next year they get Matt Stafford or Sam Darnold or someone like that and win significantly more than nine games. But I agree with you this far, I don't think they're going to be anywhere near what they have been in terms of being one of the Super Bowl contenders every season without Brady.

Nah.

Peter still does an excellent job consistently. Thanks.

They chose them for a reason. The reasons are still in place. More, the players are being tested once every two days. Say Barkley and everyone else on the team tests negative on a Monday. So we switch the two on that Monday. Then Wednesday, Barkley and two other guys test positive. Now Barkley, our safe guy, has COVID, and Fromm has been exposed to a locker room where people were sick but asymptomatic and maybe he now has it too. And we're screwed. Doesn't make sense. Jerry Hughes might be happy. He'd maybe be the QB and they'd run the wildcat. And that's beyond the fact that Barkley is better right now and if anyone gets any reps it should be the guy who will be out there in the playoffs.

Yeah. I've heard it many times. When he talks mechanics, that's mostly who he's talking about, though he got some tips from Romo this year. Not that Palmer is teaching anything the Bills don't want taught. But Josh goes back to Palmer each offseason because he's getting what he needs there and he knows it.