Thurman#1

Put Tyrod in an offense with really good players around him and he'd probably have a career year? I doubt it. I don't doubt for a second he'd have an excellent chance to play better than he has the last two years but I doubt he'd be as good as he was before they figured him out his first year. Foles, though, is greatly benefitting from several things. First, he's played both playoff games at home. Second, teams have very little film on him in that offense. Given a bit of time, they'd adapt and figure them out. In fact, it's a pretty good bet that Belichick will do a pretty good job of that. Foles has always been very very good if you can give him a clean pocket. And pretty bad if you can't. They've done a great job giving him time these past two games. And this is a classic bad argument you make here, "the QB of the team that lead the NFL in big plays offensively in 2014? Nick Foles." Seriously? How many games did Foles play that year? Oh, yeah, eight. And eight to Sanchez. Pretending it was Foles who made that offense good is utterly ridiculous. Sanchez had more yards, more TDs, a better completion percentage, a higher YPA ... You go on to pretend Shady had a bad year that year to imply that all those big plays that 2014 team had were on Foles despite him only playing eight games ... man are you building a house of cards there. About Shady, you said, "in 2014 he had the fewest yards per touch of any qualifying player." What the hell are you talking about? Qualifying for what? He had a terrific year. He ran for 1319 yards that year, put up 4.2 YPC. He kicked ass that year and so did Sproles, going for 5.8 YPC. Giving the credit for that offense to Foles, I have to shake my head at how dumb that is. Think that Foles offense will score 38 on a neutral field against that Belichick defense? The problem for Keenum is that they couldn't protect him. He was moving that team but they pressured him, hit him, sacked him, moved him on nearly every drive. It's nonsense that he can't win a shootout. They've scored over 30 with him five times this year.

That's not being real, John. It's being partial. He wasn't asking for a contract that was out of line. If there's one thing the Pats don't do, they don't overpay big FAs from other teams. They paid him a big salary. Because he had shown he was worth it. And now he's living up to that contract. And yeah, he had a bad beginning of the year in N.E. Again, he wasn't fitting in, hadn't absorbed the system. But since about halfway through the year he's figured things out and is playing extremely well, very much playing up to the contract. Yeah, Tre might be better. But nobody else on our roster is. If we'd been able to keep Gilmore and pair Tre with him it would have been a terrific CB duo. We probably would have if Whaley hadn't left us in such crappy cap shape.

You're clearly sitting in your Bills shrine crying like a baby when anyone good gets away. And if you said that Gilmore is inconsistent and a poor tackler and is not worth what he got ... you're wrong and making a dumb point. I didn't say he's great. But yeah, he's very good. Worth his contract. Still waiting for your list of all the bad plays he made in that game. You were pretty quick to point out one. So there must have been a ton of others you found while you were looking? Right? I look forward to the list.

Peters wildly outplayed his contract. The reason he demanded more was because the Bills signed him to a pretty good contract for an RT where they played him and right after signing him to that contract they switched him to LT where he was instantly one of the best in the league. LT contracts are higher. Peters was outperforming that contract from about five weeks in. And yet he was hated. Is a pretty likely hall of famer at this point. Gilmore is proving worthy of that contract. The Pats are perfectly happy with having made that move.

Yeah. The good CBs in this league never get burned for 29 yards. That's a well-known fact. Not to mention that Gilmore was actually ahead of the receiver on that play. Bortles made a really nice back shoulder throw. It was good coverage. So, tell me, Gilmore being so bad must've been toasted a lot during this game, right? Could you quick post the other ten or twelve completions a lousy CB like him must've allowed into his coverage? Because he had two terrific coverage plays, the one to seal the game and the one at 6:41 in the 4th where he was again running ahead of Westbrook and almost picked one off, though Westbrook reached in and knocked it out. So according to your five to one ratio, he must've had 10 bad plays. Could you list them?

Again, oh, please. Tre White is on Gilmore's level. Possibly better, Tre's been terrific. Our others are not. Gilmore played here with awful safeties and still played well. The young guys now have terrific safeties helping them out. Makes them look good, and makes the backfield look good. And he's been graded right up there with or above Butler since coming back from the concussion that seemed to give him time to finally figure out the Pats system once and for all. Just as one quick example, PFF had him graded as the fifth best player at any position in the divisional weekend games. http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000000906894 Not a big fan of the guy's personality, but he's an excellent player. Says the guy whose contribution to this thread is: "The guy makes 1 big play and gets burned for 5, then tells everyone he's a top 5 CB and wants to get paid like one. He's slightly above average"? And it's me who should be criticized for not bringing in facts? Jeez.

Well, someone has to think so. Guess it might as well be you. Gilmore was our #1 and everyone knew it. Of course it hurt to lose Gilmore. Both of them, really. But saving the money helped. At least we're now back in good cap shape but we needed to let some good young players go and they were two.

Of course there will be good plays on a highlight film. You said it yourself, but then ignored what you said. He isn't a consistent decision maker in the NFL mold. If he makes it, it will be the result of a lot of development in areas that are the hardest for QBs to develop in. No thanks, for me. He's like a better Cardale Jones. Both physically terrific, both with holes in the decision-making process and with decent but not NFL accuracy.

Oh, please. He's an excellent CB. It hurt to lose him, but Whaley had put this team in cap shackles and they wanted out but quick. It took Gilmore nearly half the season to fully absorb the Pats system but he's played terrific the second half of the year, same as he did for pretty much his whole career in Buffalo.

Again, it wasn't Tyrod who won or lost. Win-loss is a team stat. It just is. Nor did Tyrod "ultimately made the postseason." Again, that would be the Buffalo Bills. And while the defense was really inconsistent and not great, they were far better than the offense. They had that one absolutely awful three-game stretch in the middle of the season against the Jets, Saints and Chargers. But for the rest of the year they were pretty good. Turnovers were a part of that but far from all of it. The defense was pretty solid. The offense was OK and most of that was the run game. The defense was 4th in yards (HELLO!!!) this year and 11th in points. The offense was 29th in yards and 22nd in scoring. And the run game gets the lion's share of that. Tyrod deserves a ton of flack. Again, I get it that you understand we are moving on and for good reason. But you're still giving Tyrod more credit than he deserves.

This is the problem with arguing for Tyrod, Stank. You can't really claim he played well, so you have to use sarcasm like "Taylor played awful during the 5-2 start," and hope nobody notices you haven't said much. During the first seven games Tyrod had a 63.8 completion percentage, a 6.8 YPC and a passer rating of 91.43. And threw for 206 yards per game and had a TD:INT ratio of 7:2. If that looks familiar it's because that's pretty much what he did all year with around 20 extra yards per game because he threw it a bit more. And it ain't exactly like the passing defenses we were up against was a Murderer's Row type of group. We played the Jets, Carolina, Denver, Atlanta, Cincy, Tampa Bay and Oakland during those first seven games you mentioned. They managed to rank this way, respectively, in defensive passer rating: 19th, 24th, 20th, 21st, 13th, 27th and 30th The best was 13th. Every other one was 19th or worse. Five out of seven in the twenties or thirties. That was a pretty weak group and Tyrod performed just about as well as he did the rest of the year ... below average but not all that far below. Not throwing INTs, but also not producing much. People got excited about the 5-2 start, but it was much more about our opponents averaging 16.4 PPG (would've ranked us 2nd in the NFL this year) during that stretch than it was about us averaging 21.8 PPG (would've put us 16th). I get that you're willing to move on, but you're still trying to say more for Tyrod than can be reasonably backed up. The guy's going to be a career backup or desperation starter for a year or two around the league before his teams replace him.

You folks keep throwing up the Foles/Keenum/Bortles argument despite the fact that it pretty weak. If Tyrod had ever developed to the point that he was playing like Keenum has this year he'd have the Bills desperate to sign him to a long-term contract at well over $20 mill a year. But he hasn't come anywhere close, despite the fact that Tyrod's been in the league seven years and started more games than Keenum. Keenum is playing really well. Tyrod is, well, not. Bortles is probably a bit better than Tyrod this year, but in the same ballpark. He's the best argument for the fact that you can get to a conference game at least once with a QB who's not real great. But this is only his fourth year. That's the time of your career when you often see guys making major improvements. Bortles has absolutely gotten better, and could still get a bunch better. But Foles isn't the reason that team is in the conference championship game. If they hadn't given up major pick value in their move up to get Wentz, they wouldn't be here today. Philly's excellent QB play this year has been 90% Wentz and 10% Foles. Foles is the backup. If you throw Tyrod in with the Foles/Keenum/Bortles group, Tyrod has the most time in the league. That's the problem. We know who he is.

Past NFL statements referring specifically to the fact that concussions haven't been proven the specific cause of CTE look much better. But that wasn't all the NFL said. But there's worse news too. Now playing football, a sport which has more cases of repeated head impacts than it does of concussions, looks more likely to cause CTE, not less.

When he says that concussion is not linked to long-term disease, he is saying that some guys without concussions can get CTE. From repeated hits to the head which either don't cause concussion symptoms or don't cause concussions. What he is absolutely NOT saying is that if you get a concussion, you don't have to worry about it because it won't cause CTE. He isn't saying that at all, in any way. "Get a concussion? Buy some ice cream, set off some fireworks, no problem," is not the message. It also isn't saying that a hit to the head that causes a concussion is less dangerous than a hit to the head that does not cause a concussion. As for your summary of what the NFL said, "the league was accused of hiding evidence that concussions caused these neurological diseases later in life for players," what they've said has been more specific than that. For example, "In 2004, a league study had found "no evidence of worsening injury or chronic cumulative effects" from multiple concussions." Think this new study would back them up there? That because concussion symptoms were present in those multiple cases," there was no causative probability there? Quotes above and below from here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/10/07/frontline-documentary-nfl-concussions/2939747/ "In a study published in 2005, [the NFL's MTBI committee] said players whose concussion symptoms go away while a game is in progress can return 'safely' to that game. It noted the 'possibility' that the same might apply to high school and college players." Think this study backs them up on that?

I think Rosen is going to work out great. Unfortunately I don't see him falling even out of the top two. If you're worrying about his attitude, listen to this about him. Listen to the stuff about his confrontation with Dilfer. Rosen has matured and is going to be a very very good player, IMHO. https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2018/01/18/fantasy-lab-podcast-matt-waldman-on-the-2018-qb-class/#respond It's around 9:50 and lasts around five minutes.

Well, yeah, but you're really slanting things your way. Sure Stafford was a 57% passer - career - but he improved every year and his senior year he was a 61% passer while holding a superb YPA of 9.0. His 57% had a lot more to do with his 51% freshman year when he had almost a 1:2 TD:INT ratio. Awful. But by his last year he was much much better. Had a few positives too, though. "STRENGTHS Positives: Perhaps a bit shorter than preferred, but has excellent bulk and strength for the position. ... Durable performer who never missed a college game due to injury, despite a leaky offensive line. ... Efficient footwork and depth on his drop from center. ... Quick to scan the field and go through his progressions. ... Elite arm strength. ... Can make all the throws and shows power and toughness getting the ball deep even when defenders are closing and making contact. ... Consistent with excellent accuracy to all levels of the field. ... Consistent placing the deep out on the far shoulder of his receiver, away from the defender. ... Has good deep accuracy and trajectory. ... Lofts the ball high enough to allow his receiver to run under it. ... Aggressive, but has developed into a smarter passer over his career and will take what the defense gives him by dropping to his second and third options. ... Learning to look off the safety. ... Underrated core strength. ... Keeps his eyes downfield and will step up in the pocket and is willing to take a hit to complete the pass. ... Surprisingly nimble in the pocket and can avoid the rush. ... Underrated straight-line speed and will take what the defense gives him. ... Takes his own success and that of the team very seriously. ... Extremely competitive. ... Team captain. ... Undefeated in bowl games. Negatives: Can get fundamentally lazy... ... Though he has an efficient overall release, should be able to speed it up for underneath screens passes to take better advantage of the surprise to the defense. ... Sloppy footwork. ... Will get lazy and throw off his back foot, which could lead to turnovers in the NFL... ... Willing to throw into tight spots, though more often than not he places the ball where it needs to be... ... Not great accuracy on crossing routes. ... Too often leads his receivers too far or forces them to reach back, slowing their momentum and limiting their ability to generate yardage after the catch."

Heh heh heh.

Agreed that it isn't no tradeups whatsoever. Fletcher Cox was brought in by moving up three spots at the cost of a 4th and a 6th. Fine!! For Matthews, it was no 1st rounder, it was a 2nd and two 3rds. But don't trade two 1sts up for anyone but a QB. There's a reason it's the rule. If they end up having a shot, I hope they do, but no thanks on Allen. They could get him later.

And people sometimes win a lot of money when they bet it all on double-zero. But that doesn't mean an intelligent person determined to maximize his chances of success should make that bet. Same with major tradeups of two 1sts or more for non-QBs. It's possible to win one. It just happens around 20% of the time, and therefore is a terrible idea. And the academic Massey-Thaler study, the Harvard Sport Collective study and more and more every time someone does a new one keep showing why it's not a good idea. Jax tried to find a Luck or Rogers. Bortles was their attempt. He may yet work out well, or not. But we have no idea whether Jax is a one or two-year phenomenon or a long-term success. Till we know, unless they win a Super Bowl this year, they make a terrible example for either side. We don't know what they are.

No, just the opposite. It's saying that even if it's not serious enough to cause concussion, repeated hits to the head can cause CTE. "Previous studies have shown that repetitive hits to the head -- even without concussion -- can result in CTE, but scientists said this is the most definitive study to date to find this connection." This isn't good news for the NFL in any way. And your headline is really misleading. This study doesn't show that it's "Confirmed Concussions don't cause CTE." Concussions do. But so do even lesser impacts, if repeated.

Holy cow! Man, that was too long and rich for me, but well worth a skim. The surprise to me was how well Mayfield came out of the comparisons, but he's not being compared to guys like Darnold. Very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Yeah, but Bortles is still young and visibly improving quite a bit. We know Tyrod's ceiling. Have for a year and a half, really. Kornheiser's statement is an obvious exaggeration at a moment of excitement. He doesn't even rule out 3rd stringers. Clearly an exaggeration. I'm actually a Kornheiser fan. I lived in Northern Virginia and worked in D.C. for many years and read his stuff in the Post. Also have bought a couple of his books. The guy is genuinely funny. A hell of a writer.

Obviously Julio isn't a flop. But the huge host of picks they had to give up caused Atlanta to be pretty bad for three years. And Julio hasn't won them a title; if he had you'd have to say it was a good trade, as a title justifies pretty much anything, as I'm sure Belichick would agree. There's still a really good argument that the Jones trade was a mistake, as good a player as he is. They gave up the 2011 #27, the 2011 #59, the 2011 #124, the 2012 #22, and the 2012 #118. Just look at what they might have gotten for only the two 1sts and one 2nd they gave up. For the 2011 #27, they could have gotten Anthony Castonzo, Cameron Jordan, Jonathan Baldwin, Mark Ingram, Carimi, Muhammad Wilkerson or Cameron Heyward. For the 2011 #59 they could have gotten Marcus Gilbert, Randall Cobb, Terrell McClain, Justin Houston or DeMarco Murray. For the 2012 #22 they could have gotten Riley Rieff, David DeCastro, Dont'a Hightower, Whitney Mercilus, Zeitler, Harrison Smith or Fleener. And yeah, it's easier for me to pick after the fact, but all of those guys were available within 10 or so picks of where the picks the Falcs gave up were. That's a major harvest, and doesn't even count the two later picks. And the Julio trade is a rarity. Most trades of that kind are obvious horrible flops. Only a small percentage of trades of that much draft ammo can be considered even possible successes. You're taking a low-odds gamble by doing something like this.

It's not never trade up. But yeah, you don't give up two firsts except for a QB, you just don't. It's why the Sammy trade was mostly panned from minute one. Picking Sammy was good, though Mack might have been better. Making the trade up to get the #4 pick was really bad. Same with trading up for Roquan unless it's like a 1st and a 4th or something, which I doubt puts them in a good enough position to get Roquan.

Yup, this. I totally buy this part of that recent expose. The reporter had a lot of sources and the coverage was slanted towards Belichick, so some of the sources were almost certainly guys in Belichick's camp. In any case, I just don't see Garoppolo being available in any way, at any price.