Thurman#1

That was an interesting question. I googled Eagles HOFers and came up with one guy I had virtually never heard of. Steve Van Buren. Check this out: "INDUCTED: 1965 When Steve Van Buren retired from the NFL in 1951, he was arguably the greatest player in NFL history. Not only was Van Buren the best running back in the NFL, he shattered any rushing record the league ever had. In eight NFL seasons, Van Buren rushed for 5,860 yards and scored 464 points (69 touchdowns). He averaged 4.4 yards per carry and left the NFL as the league's all-time leading rusher and scoring leader. "Van Buren saved his greatest performances for the NFL Championship Game. Van Buren scored the game's only touchdown in a blizzard at Franklin Field to give the Eagles a 7-0 victory over the Chicago Cardinals for the franchise's first NFL title in 1948. Van Buren was even better in the 1949 NFL Championship Game, rushing for 196 yards in a rain-drenched Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum as the Eagles defeated the Los Angeles Rams 14-0. Those 196 rushing yards are still a NFC Championship Game (inherited the only NFL title game records) record. "He was named to the NFL's prestigious 75th-anniversary team in 1994 and was a selection on the Pro Football Hall of Fame 1940s All-Decade Team. He was the Eagles first inductee into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, elected in 1965. 'I've seen them all -- Jim Thorpe, Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski,' said former Eagles head coach Greasy Neale to the Philadelphia Daily News in 1957. 'But Steve's the greatest.' " https://247sports.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/ContentGallery/Philadelphia-Eagles-in-the-Pro-Football-Hall-of-Fame-120385491/ Another I found was Pete Pihos, who was All-Pro (not Pro Bowl, but All-Pro, considered the best at his position in the league, for six of nine Eagles seasons. That's dominant. He played receiver, but went two ways as a DE. Sonny Jurgenson? Tommy McDonald? McDonald in one six-year period averaged 1.1 TDs per game, and that was when the passing game wasn't anywhere near as prevalent as it is now. Bob Brown, a first-team All-Pro seven times at OL? In any case, though, Peters has been a sensational player and a historical Eagle. By all accounts a terrific team guy. Will almost certainly rank in that team's top five or six players.

Most years Roethlisberger hasn't been ranked in the top five in contemporary rankings. Some years yes. Most years more like six and seven. Even further back lately. Very questionable. And by your definition of sustained excellence, the Chiefs have been consistently excellent in the six-year Andy Reid era and look to continue that and again, did not have a great QB till last year. The Seahawks very easily qualify over the Carroll regime, without a top five QB. And one of your top examples, the Saints in the Drew Brees era, do not qualify, having made 6 of 13 division championship games. Sorry, but with this definition, your contention still doesn't hold up. Having that "excellent non-future HOF QB" you talk about (that's so unclear I return to my definition of what you need) a top ten to top twelve guy gives you a chance every year. As I said above, " Not that you'll be good every year, but you'll have a chance if you can put a solid team around him." The Lions certainly have not put a solid team around Stafford in the large majority of the years he's been there. Same with those Bengal teams around Palmer. You saw in Arizona what happens when you put a decent team around Carson Palmer. Cincy improved a bit at scouting after that but they've been a team that has settled for mediocrity and saving money in player acquisition. The Ravens have made your benchmark for a long time without a top five QB. Ozzie simply put an excellent roster on the field for years. Even really good QBs can't rescue bad teams as Rodgers and Rivers among others have showed.

You are what your record says you are. And while I think this is the best Bills team we've seen in quite a while, we've got a chance, but it isn't a likelihood, or close.

Yes, and the same can be said for all QBs.

I think you're drinking the Kool-Aid. Not so much predicting that the Bills win. That could happen, thought he odds are high against it. But in thinking there's no way to defend Josh Allen, even if you're Bill Belichick. There is, and Belichick will find it and it will likely include confusing him, as it does for most 2nd year QBs. And secondly in putting "articles" in your headline. It was mostly the one article.

IMO they should be working out anyone they think might have a chance to upgrade the lineup, at any position. Always. Due diligence.

Brady really is showing amazing longevity. But at his age, injuries start becoming a factor, and they're not predictable. I doubt we see a few more, personally. My bet is this year and maybe next year. And I'm not one of those guys who has been predicting his downfall for a decade. Just the opposite, I have always said that you can't predict it with him, as he doesn't get hit much. But we've finally started to see his arm strength lose the top few percent, and I don't see him thriving at 44, I just think the odds against that will finally be too high. An opinion? Absolutely. But a reasonable one.

While you're right that having a top QB is huge, I disagree that it needs to be a top 3 or top 5 guy. Roethlisberger, for one, isn't top three, or even top five. Top ten? You betcha. And Russell Wilson is another terrific example. They've been consistently competitive right since they got him, and no he's not top five either, though close. I'd further argue that Rivers has been a top five guy for a very long time now and it hasn't got that team consistency. Oh, and in your first paragraph you say that "Fans seem to be hanging their hats on the concept that there somehow there is a requirement to have short term mediocrity or failure in order to build for a period of sustained excellence. Not sure 21st history really bears that out." But then you hang your hat on the Steelers, Manning's Indy, the Pats and the Saints. But the reason they Colts got Manning was that they were so very very bad the year before they drafted Peyton that they got the first draft pick. The Steelers were also consistently good before getting Roethlisberger. Wasn't till they had a bad year and got the 9th pick in a year where Eli and Rivers were also coming out that they finally got their first Super Bowl titles since Noll. More, the year before the Saints got Brees and got good, they went 3-13. They were lucky enough to get Brees without having to draft him, but they were still bad to mediocre for a long time before that, and that had a lot to do with how they were able to put a pretty good team around Brees almost instantaneously. And the Pats sucked pretty good in Belichick's first year too, going 5-11. I don't think your best examples bear you out very well, even though the Pats and Saints managed to get a top five QB without having to draft him very high, a rare feat. Get a top ten or top twelve QB and you'll have a chance every year. Not that you'll be good every year, but you'll have a chance if you can put a solid team around him. Below the top ten or twelve and you have to have not a good team but a sensational team to have much success and it's likely not to be very consistent. If you can get a top three or five guy, you're even better off, but it's not necessary for consistent competitiveness, as your own example, the Ravens, show.

Yeah, you see how little energy I thought replying to this dumb idea was worth. Didn't check it even once. Must-wins are must wins. If you can lose and then have even a theoretical chance at making the playoffs it's not a must win. An important game? Yeah, maybe. A game with major implications? Sure, possibly. There's a million ways to say it, but must-win is the usual over-exaggeration, especially this early. Rubbish. If we do look back at the end of the season and see we just barely made the playoffs, it will have been all 10 wins that got us there, not any particular one of them and certainly not one from the beginning of the season. In that case, if we go into week 17 knowing that a loss will eliminate us, that final game and that game only will be a must-win.

How many QBs manage to be in the top third three games into their 2nd year. Please. Which is not a QB stat, it is a team stat.

There's no such thing as a must-win in Week Two. That's like being partly pregnant. But if such a thing did exist, this would not be one of them. Nice. And also correct.

Way way too early.

At age 31? For $12 mill this year and a ton more next year unless he's only here this year? Expect them to build their core through the draft as they've said they would, and to continue their responsible handling of the cap.

Yeah, cause our weak point is defensive backfield. Oh, wait. They're building their core through the draft. Won't trade the second for a position at which we're already very strong, much less give up a starter besides.

Way way too early in the season for stats to mean much. The sample size is too small, and as you yourself said, we've faced two bad defences. I'm happy with Josh so far. I really am. I see some improvement. But it's just about impossible to know how much of the improvement is from bad defences and a small sample size making luck and situation too big of a factor and how much means something. How much is from shorter passes than most (his AY/A is 6.7, very short) or defensive game plans? Hell, who thinks Gardner Minshew will be #2 on the list at the end of the year, or Dak Prescott #1 or Sam Darnold #5? Or Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes, Rivers and Ryan all outside the top seven? But I personally really do think we'll see some genuine improvement that will still be there by midseason and even at the end of the year.

Unfortunately, yeah. And as for the OP, no, Singletary's not a secret weapon. But he's a fine weapon and should cause problems. They've seen him catch a pass or two, and they know screen passes and that RBs who can catch can be thrown them. Are they keeping some plays under wraps and only showing them as the season goes along and those plays are part of the game plan? Yeah, sure.

Yup. In baseball, position players often come back as soon as six months, and while pitchers take longer, throwing a football isn't as biomechanically difficult and wearing as throwing a baseball at 90 mph.

Have you got more sources? I'm not unwilling to believe that, but what is in that article is anything but definitive. It's a GM who had heard that Whaley loved him. There are such things as smokescreens and disinformation in drafts. A GM, "... believes the Bills could be the one team to take a quarterback before the 20s based on what he's heard about Doug Whaley's feelings on Clemson QB Deshaun Watson. Miller added: The wild card, he said, is Buffalo at No. 10 overall if general manager Doug Whaley is "as in love with [Deshaun] Watson as we hear he is." There's a lot of waffle words in there. "If". "based on what he's heard." "believes." "The wild card is." "we hear he is." And why should the Bills have paid much attention to Whaley's opinion on QBs? He was all in on EJ Manuel. I believe what McDermott has said on this, that he'd had too much on his plate getting the foundation of the team in place and simply hadn't had the time to put in to make a decision on that class of QBs. And he didn't say it, but I think it's likely that he wanted another voice he respected to back him up on that decision and that with Whaley and not Beane as GM, he didn't have one.

Not yet. And a guy like Minshew shouldn't be on your list. He's a 2nd stringer. Foles is the Jagz starter, injured or not. Same with Rudolph, Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB, even if the 2nd stringer is playing for the rest of the year. And I find it hard to understand your question about Lamar Jackson. I suspect Allen will in the end be better, but right now there isn't a question that Jackson is better based on how people are playing now, which is all we have to go on for these 2nd year guys taking a step up. Looking at the QBs you list, and putting Roethlisberger and Foles in, as should be done, I'd say Allen's top twelve, with a good possibility of earning a higher place as soon as mid-season as we figure out who guys like Darnold, Brissett, Mayfield, Lamar Jackson, Flacco in the new offence, Rosen, Mariota, Carr and for that matter Josh Allen really are. Two games - particularly when teams don't yet have video on most of them in their new offenses or after important offseasons.

I've seen many people with your concern. Seems obvious and easy to me. He is released. At 4:00 he was free to sign with anyone. The Pats notice, call him and work out a contract quickly, and it's a good contract for both sides. I hate the Pats, and I think they've cheated in DeflateGate, Walkthrough-WatchGate, and a few more besides, but this seems like it could easily be worked out between two sides who are both motivated to find a deal quickly. It's a two-year deal, but the Pats didn't worry about the second year (offering $20 mill as salary in year two, when they expect to cut him or re-negotiate) , which greatly reduces the complexity. Under time pressure, with two willing parties, this could have been worked out easily.

Either Nsekhe or the blocking scheme got Allen knocked down but not sacked at 1:10 in the 2nd quarter. It's on the NFL highlights package. They put the RB outside Nsekhe and he chipped the rusher on the way out for a pass and Nsekhe went and blocked nobody in the middle leaving Allen to get popped just after he threw a completion to Brown.

You're right that Doug Williams "didnt" take the Skins to the SB that year. He QB'd them very successfully in the playoffs, but that's it. Williams didn't "take them" to the Super Bowl. During the season that year he started two games. Very questionable if they'd have made the SB with Williams at QB all year. Like Hostetler's Giants, if Simms doesn't get them to the SB, we probably wouldn't even know Hostetler's name. During the season that year, Jay Schroeder went 8-3, someone I don't even remember named Ed Rubbert went 3-0 and Doug Williams went 0-2. You have to give Cam credit for QBing them to the SB.

Nicely put. Good post. It's hard to get a sense from the outside of exactly how much of a tactician or master of the mental game he is, but he's never given much of an indication that he's really good at that area, and you're right on that you've got to improve there as your physical abilities wane, which they will. Never liked Cam as a person, but he was fun to watch in the games. Not so much so far this year.

Those were hardly the most optimistic reviews. You could probably say those were the most likely positive career scenario for Josh, something like that. And again, the MVP indicates clearly that Cam was very good in his time. If he has indeed run out of gas, that wouldn't mean that Josh is also going to run out of gas after his ninth year. Plenty of other paths to success for Josh. Yes.

Yup. Winning the NFL MVP also a reasonably good indicator.