thebandit27

For a team with needs at speed WR, pass rusher, and coverage 'backer, I could see Buffalo being interested in any or all of the 3 Rams that could be released: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/02/06/tavon-austin-could-be-on-the-outs-in-los-angeles/ Bonus: none of Austin, Barron, or Quinn would count as compensatory FAs

Let's also remember that Groy is a UFA after the 2018 season; it's not a lock that he stays. Drafting a center would be a prudent move.

They don't need to tear things down and re-build; they need to make use of their draft arsenal and re-stock the young talent on the team. They currently have 8 draft picks in the first 5 rounds; if done well, they can add between 3-5 key players under the age of 23. Obviously QB is a priority. The other smart move would be to put together another FA period like they did last year, where they add value signings at key positions of need like DT and speed WR, possibly a LB as well.

Camera angle is tilted a bit, but the rule is that Jeffery's helmet needs to be breaking the hip line of the center. It's pretty close

Usually it's because they neglect to ask, as was the case with Seantrel.

The point is that WRs check if they're good nearly every play, and the linesmen will almost always give them a thumbs up or down. Some guys are going to call it closer than others.

I agree with everything you said I just worry that he's constantly nicked up

He checked with the linesman; WRs do it every play If you want to complain about penalties that aren't called, the conversation cannot begin anywhere except at Ineligible Lineman Downfield; it happens on every screen pass in the game and is NEVER called

Stop He played outstanding last night I can't get on board with paying him $10M AAV when he misses all of 5 games and parts of 3 others with injuries Dude gets hurt every other game. Literally

Not sure about Buyler, but the Raiders just cut David Amerson He's a perfect fit for this D and would make a great insurance policy in the event that Gaines walks in FA

Correct Had he been too far back in the ref's opinion, he'd simply have moved up A penalty was never in play

Dude...not okay

There's no reason to get upset. The entire crux of our exchange stems from the idea that his approach to the final 2 minutes was a departure from the way he coached the rest of the game. I actually have no idea why you're so dug in on having to defend the other 58 minutes of coaching. Yes, exactly. I was surprised by the radical shift in philosophy.

The original post of yours that I responded to said nothing of the like: Philly didn't have a "legendary" D; especially not last night; they forced zero punts. I think you've gotten yourself a bit too deep in defending a stance you don't need to take. My point was quite simple: the guy coached an aggressive game for 58 minutes, and yet when he had the chance to make the aggressive call (by having 2 shots at a first down to keep Brady off the field at the possible cost of 45 seconds and 20 yards of field position), he decided to go conservative. We can laud his aggressive moves for the first 58 minutes, but I think it's just as prudent to recognize that, while doing so, we should also acknowledge that he passed up a very real opportunity to carry his aggressiveness through.

Teams that want to ground and pound as their long-term success plan probably don't swing a midseason trade for Kelvin Benjamin.

Yes, that's correct... Didn't take a risk; by your own definition above: conservative. Taking two shots at gaining 6 yards is, IMO, not insane in comparison to running the ball, attempting a 46-yard FG with a rookie kicker on a night when kickers were having below-average success, and then giving the ball to the best Super Bowl QB of all time with a full minute on the clock. We can certainly agree to disagree regarding whether or not it was the correct call, since that's an opinion statement. I'd respectfully submit that whether he took the aggressive or conservative route, however, isn't really up for debate.

I didn't say it was wrong; I said it was conservative, and not the aggressive approach he took all game. And that's true.

Yep...exactly my sentiment as well

Oh I agree that he's aggressive; the reason I keep mentioning his approach to the game's ending is that it was a total departure from the way he coached the rest of the game...in other words, in the most critical moment, he went conservative. I find it more interesting than anything.

Actually, that's not what happened. NE got to midfield and had a chance at the end. My point is this: would you rather have 2 chances to gain 6 yards, or Tom Brady with the ball and 1:00 to score and convert a 2-point attempt? The aggressive move is to take your 2 shots at getting 6 yards; that's not what they did.

Aggressive would be going for it to keep Brady from getting the ball back; he played it conservative. Now, it worked, so that's fine, but let's acknowledge that even Pederson's aggressiveness has its limitations.

Is it though? This is coming from the coach that had a chance to put the game away by throwing for a 1st down on 3rd-and-6 with 1:56 remaining, but instead chose to run the ball, attempt a non-chip-shot FG, and give the ball to Tom Brady. An unrelentingly aggressive coach would've taken his 2 shots at getting 6 yards to keep Brady off the field.

The Bills may indeed move up to get Mayfield, but do you really believe that the Jets will trade down to 21/22 so that their divisional opponent can get the QB that they want?

Before we all start piling on Buffalo's coaching staff, there's a big difference in playing aggressive with a cast like Blount/Ajayi/Jeffery/Ertz/Agholor/Torrey Smith and Nick Foles playing the best football of his life vs. playing aggressive with guys like Deonte Thompson and Andre Holmes with Tyrod at QB. Some teams have one formula for winning; for McDermott's team this year, his conservative approach was the correct one. What's most important is that he learns to adapt as the makeup of his team changes.

Well, consider that for a moment... Suppose Denver lands Cousins, that takes one obvious QB team out of the question. Then there's the question of how teams like Cleveland and Arizona handle their situations. It's entirely possible that one of them makes a move for a guy like McCarron. Then you're looking at 3 QBs in the top 6 (assuming the Giants take one and Cleveland loses out on McCarron to Arizona--just as an example). If a team picking in the top 10 wants to drive a hard bargain for a trade up, where does the leverage come from? I suppose you're counting on competition from multiple suitors, but who? Obviously Buffalo, but who else is desperate? Maybe Miami. Possibly the Chargers.