Thurman#1

"An offense that was among the league's most effective"? That is utter nonsense. They were an offense that was good at running and below average at passing, an offense that wasn't able to catch up when they fell behind, and an offense that was greatly helped by the very solid defense, and an offense that though it didn't turn the ball over much consistently left the defense with crappy field position despite receiving good field position from that same defense. Not that the rest of your post is any better, though. You've missed the point, again. They got rid of most of those guys for the very very obvious reasons that you still appear determined to pretend don't exist ... that they were in very bad cap shape and were determined to fix that extremely quickly, and that they needed to make trades to get them in position to have enough draft capital to get one of the top QBs the next year in a QB-rich draft. The Eagles, Rams and Niners? You mean the two teams that had already got franchise QBs the year before and the one that lucked into Garoppolo from Belichick and had terrific draft spots besides? They had franchise QBs and of course they were quicker. None of them rebuilt because none of them needed to rebuild. The Bills did. Rebuilds take time. The Rams started the year in 2017 with around $44 mill under the cap and the Niners had around $93 mill. All those teams did a great job but they had franchise QBs or (Niners) extremely high picks. And yeah, McDermott and Beane did self-mutilate the roster. That's what rebuilding does for the first couple of years, especially when you have an atherosclerotic cap situation that you need to remedy on top of the complete lack of a franchise QB. That's just wrong. A few rebuilds have gone faster, but looking at the history, those are very few and far between. They do exist, and the Walsh 49ers rebuild that went 2-14, 6-10, championship is the poster child. But the Bills are around the 95th percentile putting up 10 wins in year three. More, the Bills rebuild was handicapped compared to most quickly successful rebuilds by never getting a really good draft pick. Walsh had the first overall pick two years in a row coming in, while the Bills in their first two years came into draft season with #10 and #21. Not to mention I can't think of another quickly successful rebuild that started the first year with a new coach working with a GM he clearly didn't trust or want to work with. Yes, there are plenty of turnarounds that have been faster. But not rebuilds. People who try to refute this generally use as their examples teams that suddenly improved by a bunch of games in one year but were either reloading, just following the plan or were in years 4, 5 or 6 of their rebuilds. The 2008 Pennington Dolphins that improved by 10 games are often mentioned but that's a perfect example of a turnaround that was not a rebuild.

Nonsense. They're absolutely a top 3 defense, any way you look at it. I mean, if you want to say they should really be ranked at #4 or something, then OK, maybe. But they're a terrific defense right here and right now. But that doesn't mean you can just stop working on that side of the ball, of course. The guess would seem to be that they will do more work on offense, though. But that big 'ol hunk of salary cap money available is just what we need, not to mention that it's evidence of intelligent design.

'Cause he's helped a lot more than he's hurt. That people know that is why he's getting interviews.

Thanks, I'll take a look. The in-depth stories on the guy do seem to show a kid who started out as a genuinely good kid. As a big tough kid (high school, I believe), he was threatened with a knife and just handled it really well, non-violently, and with no retribution. Losing his dad really seemed to have bad effects, as did his choice of friends as he grew older. Sad story. Agreed. And it wasn't just psychological issues, it was physiological brain damage.

Duplicitous? As in "lying"? Please. Where are the examples? Yup, just like Tannehill. Oh, wait.

Look at Tannehill when he got put in the right position. He could develop into something. Or not. I thought he could become something but he absolutely has been handicapped by his situation. But on the other hand, Arizona had the choice of keeping him and building around him, and they didn't. It's an interesting question, but at this point really hard to say.

I think it's really overstating it to say he has awesome instincts. He overran plays and hit the wrong hole an awful lot. He's got a lot of upside but it isn't a sure thing he's got the instincts to play LB at the NFL level.

You act like it's either/or. It's not. Some talented guys are leaders and vice versa. And what's proven isn't that he places a premium on old less talented leaders. You have to spin like a dervish to pretend that's proven. You look at the leaders they brought in and some did really well. Some didn't, but the ones who didn't weren't especially high-paid. What was proven was something more like, um, maybe ... ... In a specific rebuild situation with massive turnover, McDermott and Beane valued and made a real attempt to bring in a leader at every position group. Will they continue to place such a strong emphasis on this as the culture develops and solidifies? Will they start developing their own leaders rather than feeling they have to bring them in? I guess so.

Yeah, I think they see the needs. We'll see, I guess, but I'm confident they do. Average roster turnover in the NFL is around 1/3 every year. You can be below average and remain more intact than most and still see 15 new guys. With our salary cap situation, even after we extend/re-sign some of our own guys, I expect a lot of new faces.

Genuine #1 with a large catch radius isn't a bare minimum thing. It isn't even a need. It's a want. You don't need one to win a title. Very few SB winners going back quite a way have had a guy like that. It's a legitimate thing to want. If we got a guy like that it would be great. But it's not a need ... and thank goodness for that because getting one is extremely tough. There are so few to go around. What we genuinely do need is an upgrade at #3 WR behind Brown and Beasley. If that guy turns out to be the type of guy you want, fantastic. But it's unlikely. And if we instead get another genuinely good receiver, or maybe even two. that would be plenty. I'd expect Beane to bring in a big radius guy, unless they really think Duke Williams is going to improve enough that they'd be happy with him. I wouldn't expect the guy they bring in to necessarily be a true #1. That would be lucky.

Well, first, he was very good. Not outstanding, but very good. He tied that line together, a line that had not had a single guy ever play beside either of the guys he was next to. But yeah, by NFL free agent standards, he's medium-priced. The top 100 players, by average salary are nearly all on second or third contracts, either FAs or guys who were prevented from going to FAs by being re-signed. Morse doesn't make that list. For OL FAs, he was medium-priced.

No, that's not putting words in his mouth. He's specifically said that they have to have the talent, that without the talent they don't get into the room.

If by splash signings you mean guys like Clowney, or guys who are the #1 FAs at key positions, I really doubt it. They've said all along that they will build through the draft and supplement with low- to medium-priced FAs. If you mean medium-priced FAs, guys like Morse, like Brown and Beasley, I'm totally with you and would expect to see more than a couple. I could see one really expensive FA. Most of the best teams do this, they build through the draft and supplement, but some of them bring in a big-ticket guy every 4 or 5 years or so. I could see that happening here, though I'm not sure this is the year.

I'd root for Brady. I hate him because he makes the Patriots win. If he didn't, I'd have no problem with him. Belichick I just don't like, also. I respect him, but he's so contemptuous. Yup. Refs gave Michael Jordan the benefit of the doubt. It's stars that get that. And home teams.

"Boy, that was so well-said." - Sully And Hap, it wasn't a 15 minute rant. It was a 2 minute rant in the first 15 minutes of Jerry's show.

That call's been working all year on third and long, and it should have worked again. That was on the players for drifting back too far.

If that were a particularly reasonable conclusion, I would, but it's not. Our coaches made some mistakes but also a lot of good moves, and O'Brien didn't come out looking like a genius or anything close. Sure seemed to me that the best part of his coaching was having Deshaun Watson at QB. Nice.

I wish I was as confident as you. Brady certainly has gone downhill but a lot of the offense's problems weren't on him, IMO. Just not true. Peyton had three game-winning drives and three 4th quarter comebacks that year. In nine games, seven of which were wins. Yeah, the defense was the main reason that team was good, and yeah, his arm wasn't close to what it had been. But they don't win that title without him there, they just don't. He rode his smarts, game sense and he maximized what physical gifts he still had. Compare his winning percentage with Osweiler's the same year and his point scored as well, and Osweiler played a significantly easier group of games than Peyton did. Again, they don't win that Super Bowl without him.

I'd disagree. He's been used a number of times on outs this year. You said, "never has been, " so I went back and the first old one I found had some good boundary play and a few leaps besides. They do need another guy or two to give Josh more choices and defenses more to think about. No question. I'd guess maybe another mid-priced FA and maybe a pick in the top three rounds as well.

He is absolutely a top 22 - 23 guy. All you have to do is look at his yards (21st) and TDs (tied for 24th), and his production. That's where it puts him, and again, he's being thrown to by Josh Allen, and he's on a team that throws less than most of the league. He's already there and he'd be higher if Josh had hit him on say half of the 5 or 6 go routes he threw to Brown open well beyond his man but Josh overthrew him every time. Brown's a #1.

Oh, you didn't understand? If it wasn't clear enough, I'll try to explain again. You said this in explaining your rules: Hill isn't a guy who "extends catch radius," a phrase that makes no sense by the way. He's a guy who gets open a lot with his speed and shiftiness. But he doesn't fit your rules here. Sure he occasionally jumps for a ball. So has John Brown. Wat. Know whose catch radius extend beyond the length of his arms? Octopuses? Guys using long sticks with stickum on 'em. That's about it. Guys with long arms have longer reaches. Nobody catches stuff beyond their reach, though. And for sure not Tyreek Hill. Nor does Tyreek Hill "fight through defenders" or anyway no more than John Brown or most smaller guys. Hill is faster and better than Brown, but he's not the kind of guy your rules describe. You include Tyreek Hill because you like him, which is fine, but he doesn't fit your own arbitrary qualifications. He's just good.

Yeah, everybody builds at least somewhat through FA. But the way the best teams consistently do it is to use FA to bring in low- to mid-level guys. Maybe a high-level guy once every four or five years. That's the way I expect them to go. Whether this year is one of those fairly rare exceptions when they bring in a high-paid guy, to me that's the question. I doubt it myself, but it certainly could happen.

That'd be free agent-crazy. Those are probably the top guy available at three different positions. That's not how they work, or will work in the future. One of them? IMO unlikely, but possible. Two or three? That goes up to wildly unlikely.

Haven't even watched it yet, but if that's a fair summary, it's perfectly in line with what they have said and done from moment one. It's also industry best practice. Me likey.

I don't mind Barkley. Brown and Beasley were on the bench and a couple of other starters. Wouldn't be shocked to see them look around, though.