Thurman#1

With hindsight, I think you're right. But Bass is so damn good, so consistently, that I had no problem at the time. So I can't blame them.

My guess is we'll still be a top ten defense with McDermott in charge, because of his schemes and his ability to coach up defensive backfields. But I'm thinking it will take a week or three to get to that level.

This isn't on Bill Belichick the coach, IMO. Or at least not primarily. It's on Bill Belichick the GM. He used to be a really really good GM. He's just not anymore. At his age he doesn't have the juice to do both. That roster mostly just sucks.

What would make anyone think Frank Clark is elite this year? Or even better than Kingsley Jonathan? He's been healthy all year, unless I've missed something (which is definitely possible, please tell me if I missed some news about the guy). He's played like 30 snaps all year and doesn't have a sack. a QB hit or a pressure. Why didn't Denver play him if he was still looking good? In the day, he was a hell of a player. Is he now?

IMO, not obvious at all. Maybe they wanted to re-work the position. Or maybe they didn't think Lotulelei was playing well anymore but would have happily kept Phillips up to a certain price and Phillips got more on the open market. But with his bonus paid by another team he's now below that price. IMO they're not going to get him back but they like him. Hard to say for sure, though.

It's what we brought in Poona for. Most were happy here to get him. He's played very well for a long time. We'll see how he does.

According to this, all three types can have surgical solutions. https://www.howardluksmd.com/torn-pectoral-tendon-treatment/

It's absolutely not all about offense. It never is. Defense has its part to play. Philly, for one, has been neld to 23 points and 25 twice. KC has been held to 17 And to 23. SF hasn't been held yet, but they will be, especially when they go up against some decent defenses. That's the way it works. Look at last year. Look at every team every year, really. Even the best offenses will have some bad offensive games. But yeah, we'll find out about Poona and Williams. Damn shame about those injuries, though. Yeah, we'll know when they announce it. That's an absolutely crucial cog, though. He's been terrific.

Screens aren't easy to run with Josh Allen. They work well when DLs pin their ears back and rush like crazy. They don't do that with Josh because if they do he'll run right past them. Screens also don't work nearly as well against zone coverage as they do against man-to-man. And very few teams run a lot of man against us, partly to stop Josh from running and partly because man is less confusing to the QB and teams want to slow Josh's processing as much as they possibly can. The Bills have thrown a bunch to TEs. We're 9th in the league in passes to TEs, with 19 to each guy. Our primary receiving TE is a rookie and that is going to delay things. There's a good chance that as he figures things out, our TE usage will go up quite a bit.

Oh, nonsense. Dennison was the guy who was going run-run-pass over and over and over, to the point where teams knew what we were doing to a near-certainty. Dorsey is far far better, right now. This team is scoring at a very high pace. And while Dorsey certainly deserves his share of the blame, this loss was mostly about poor execution.

Allen played decently, but not as well as he has been, IMO. That first drive-ending drop is a good example. Cook got his hands on it, but for a very short pass, it was drilled and enough off-target to make it a hard catch to make. There were a few others like that. He really got it together late, but it was just a bit too late. Lots of blame to go around, especially on the offense. The whole group just looked jet lagged through most of the game. I'd throw some of the blame on whoever decided to wait till so late in the week to travel. That was hard to watch.

So, a guy with just about the poorest judgment on these boards is unsatisfied with our draft. And can give no reason, just a general feeling of dissatisfaction? Wow! This is huge ... at least in one person's mind.

Is there word on DaQuan after "doesn't look good"?

Stats for TEs in their First Five Games Pat Friermuth 100 yards, 1 TD Kelce missed his entire first year Dallas Goddert 106 yards, 1 TD Hockenson 187 yards, 2 TDs, significantly better, and an 8th overall pick. Kyle Pitts 308 yards, 1 TD, significantly better, and a 4th overall pick Dalton Schultz zip Darren Waller 18 yards, 0 TDs Mark Andrews 135 yards, 1 TD George Kittle 166 yards, 1 TD Two guys have signficantly more than Kincaid in their first five games. And they were a 4th overall pick and an 8th overall pick. Kittle is on the edge of significance, so let's give him credit also. The rest are in Kincaid's range or below. You can argue that Kincaid doesn't have a TD and several of these guys do. Fair enough. And yet, Diggs admitted he stole that in week 4 from Kincaid. Kincaid was wide open in the end zone two steps to the right. He would likely have had that TD if Diggs hadn't changed his route and run to the daylight Kincaid was in. Point - AGAIN - being that it's too early to understand anything, regardless of the fact that he hasn't stood out.

I rule? I mean, thanks, but not really. Compared to you, of course, yeah, I make a ton more sense, but so do most on here. Overall, I'm just a person who uses common sense as most on here do. Shouldn't be anything special about that. And if you want to prove that wrong, go back and find all the threads where I started threads asking dumb questions like yours about guys who have been in the league for five weeks. I don't do that. Because it's dumb. I also made my argument about a second-year guy who has proved something by playing very well for a short period of time. He hasn't proven enough, but something. Not you, though. You popped off about a rookie, a five-game rookie. Dumb. Bernard is a second-year man who looked like a failure as a rookie, by the way. Can you think of anyone else who might be like that? I do sometimes enter dumb threads and point out how stupid it is to be even thinking this so early. That's what you see. And if you can find threads I started asking dumb questions like this so early - conditionals or not - you will indeed have won an argument. Should I wait?

Yup. You just didn't feel the need to respond with anything responsive or relevant. Yeah, we get it. It's a loser's argument. We see it here all the time. Sad you have to keep going back to Edmunds in a Kincaid thread as if you're making a point. It's what people without a decent argument do, distract as much as you can and hope people won't notice.

Again, dumb. Saying someone "looks like" he will be a good one after a small sample is reasonable. I didn't say he is going to be great or even good. I waffled, very deliberately, because we can't be sure yet. And yes, really good production for a short time does say more than really bad production for the same short time. Good production at least shows you have the capability of performing really well. It doesn't mean you will continue to do so, but since you've already shown you can do it, your chances of continuing to do so are better. Short-term bad production might mean you're just not good enough. Or that they don't trust you enough yet. Or that you're not quite ready yet, and might take another week or two or another year or two. Or that you need another off season in a real strength program. Or that they don't want to put some of his abilities on film yet because they want to use him as a surprise in crucial games later in the season. There's a million possibilities. We don't yet know which one is correct. With Bernard we at least know he's capable of being really good for a short period of time. "If he stays healthy Bernard looks like he will be a really good one." Two conditionals in a short sentence. And for a reason.

It does not mean anything. You're right, I can dismiss it. Anyone with triple digit functioning brain cells should. He has been here five games. That's all that needs to be said. The fact that you don't understand this is really sad. Again, he has out-produced Tony Gonzalez in Tony's first five games. That's because the first five games, if not very good, mean absolutely nothing. With this record of production, he could have a terrible career, a Hall of Fame career, or absolutely anything in between. And yeah, Moss does look good. He was never going to be used as a bell cow, the way that he apparently needs to be used. Remind me, did Moss look great when Daboll was here? Blaming Dorsey for something that as yet means absolutely nothing is just dumb.

Yup. typical strategy for a sad guy with a pathetic losing argument. Change the subject without admitting what happened. As for Edmunds, I was. Everyone bright should have been. He was a very good player who priced himself out of this team. But I didn't declare this year a disaster now that he was gone, either. I said it should be interesting to see how they replace him. I sure did NOT think they'd replace him so beautifully so very quickly. If he stays healthy Bernard looks like he will be a really good one.

McDermott isn't winning only because of Allen. Not even close. Allen wasn't Allen his first year when they made the playoffs. They won more games than the roster McDermott is a terrific coach, and the idea that they will have to rebuild to replace the aging defensive backfield is utterly ridiculous. That will be a reload, not a rebuild. Would he be winning this many games without Allen? Hell, no, but no teams are consistently excellent without a really good QB. That's just the way it goes. Look at the Ravens. The year before they won the SB with Dilfer they were 8-8. Two years later, 7-9. Allen is the crucial piece, but this is a great roster playing really well very consistently. McDermott is a very very good coach.

No, and the idea's dumb. And they had very few injuries in their first 2 - 3 years and a bunch the last two years. Which makes it look like ordinary statistical variation.

Kinda sad that you don't even understand how pathetic this thread is. The questions was dumb, as are all questions whose answer is, "Um, obviously not. Duh." And that is indeed the answer to this stupid question. That question was about as thoughtful and on point as a parent looking at his 18 month old spitting out his first word and asking, "Any reason to think this kid isn't headed for a future as a ditch digger so far?" Pure dumbage. Too early to have any idea, and it's sad that you don't get that. Again, he's out-produced Tony Gonzalez's first five games. And I didn't come up with "Maybe he'll be better in the future." What I came up with was closer to "Asking this early shows far more in a sad way about the guy who asked the question than it does about Kincaid." Oh, and your title was even more pathetic than your post.

Yes, there absolutely is. We're five games in. We still don't have any idea what he is. This is a dumb thread. If it had been a couple of years it would have made some sense. Frickin' Tony Gonzalez put up fewer yards in his first five games than Kincaid has, and equalled Kincaid's zero TDs. Am I saying Kincaid is Gonzalez? No, though some feeb would probably accuse me of doing so if I hadn't put this sentence in. I'm saying the first five weeks mean squat.

See, that housing problem, you missed out on the easy part. Just become a Baltimore Raven for a few years and earn enough to put you in beds and blankets for decades. Congrats to Urschel, that's great news. He is one of the more fascinating football players ever.

With just a super-quick look, I see he's 14th in Air Yards this year, but was 1st last year. I'd rather see Air Yards per Attempt or Air Yards per Completion, but can't put in any more time on this. https://www.ftnfantasy.com/air-yards?fppg=PPR&years=2022