billsfan89

I still don’t even understand the rule. The defender was squared up and running at Josh and fully seeing what was in front of him. It wasn’t even a blind side hit.

Assuming you have to trade up to 4 or 5 to get Pitts it would probably cost you at best picks 30, 61 and this years third and next years first. That’s a lot to give up for a freaking TE. I get the need for an elite TE and great teams usually have them. However great TE’s are found all over the draft. Gronk, Ertz and Kelce were second round picks, Kittle a 5th round pick and Waller a 6th round pick. Running down the list of the better TE’s in the league and you don’t see many first round picks. TJ Hockenson and Evan Engram are just two good but not elite TE’s in the league drafted in the first round. The history of the position just isn’t strong for super high draft picks. So while I like Pitts I just don’t see him being worth the risk. Take the best players with your first three picks and hope they make the impact needed to help the team short and long term. He might have a nice season 50+ receptions, 600 yards and 5-7 TD’s but that’s not going to live up to his hype. In order for him to live up to expectations he is going to have to push 1000 yards and 10 TD’s.

Ideally in the draft I would like to see them add a pass rusher at pick 30, a CB or NT at pick 61 and a OT in round 3 and then some depth at Safety and CB or NT (whichever they don’t take in round 2.) I think that would round out the roster nicely. Sure up the defense and Oline depth. I still think McBeane is in on Ertz but just playing the waiting game. If they can get those defensive needs solidified in the draft and add Ertz I think this roster is as good as any in the league and building towards longer term contention still.

Wouldn’t mind the move as a Lee Smith replacement, much more receiving upside than Smith. Good low cost move if they decide to go that way.

I wouldn’t say he took a step down or back, more so that he didn’t progress much due to a variety of reasons. Hopefully he doesn’t have to play out of position and can blossom.

I do think they will draft an NT somewhere in rounds 2 to 5 to add some depth and get a replacement for Star long term.

Good Brian Winters replacement.

The Falcons are likely going to want this years 1st, 2nd and 3rd along with Edumonds and a 2022 1st and a 2023 2nd to go all the way from 4 to 30. I don’t like the idea of giving up all of that for one non-Qb player but especially for a TE. Just take the best player there at pick 30.

I think Darnold could pan out for them, Robby Anderson, DJ Moore and CMC are a good complement of weapons, their offensive line is not bad either (ranked mostly around mid-level) use pick 8 to find another weapon if an elite WR falls or add an OT to get the O-line in better shape and I think they will be giving Darnold a fair shot to have success. It is better than picking the 4th best QB. Lawrence, Wilson and Fields are the top QB's and I think they will be gone. I would rather give up a future 2nd and 4th for a two year commitment on Darnold than trade additional capital and pick 8 to get Mac Jones or Trey Lance.

He is more like a less mobile Tyrod. Trent seemed completely unable to throw deep, Bridgewater is more like Tyrod where he has decent to solid arm strength but he is so averse to risk that he choose to not take risks even when he should. I think Bridgewater will make for a fine backup or placeholder for a rookie QB but you won't be able to win with him putting up a lot of garbage time stats and avoiding turnovers to the point of crippling your offense.

Once the 49ers traded up to 3 the options as far as drafting a QB were pretty dry. Taking a two year experiment on Darnold was a serviceable plan B. They can use pick 8 to fill another need. Overall it isn't a tragic option in my opinion. Not ideal for sure but not the worst pivot either.

I honestly think he would fit well with the Pats. I think of Jimmy G as a high end game manager. He isn't a dynamic QB like Josh, Mahomes, Watson or Rodgers but he rarely makes mistakes/turnovers and can execute a scheme and has a knack for making clutch plays now and again. He is like a very very poor mans Brady in that sense. I think he fits well on a team with a very strong defense and some decent offensive pieces. I hope the Pats don't get him because he would be enough of an upgrade at QB to make those two games a lot tougher.

Pass rush always fixes coverage issues. That being said I do think that the coverage of TE's last season was suspect, but I chalk that up to Milano and Edumonds being banged up and the inconsistent pass rush. I also wonder if TE's got a lot of garbage time yardage or not? This team will go into a defensive shell late in games and is willing to give up shorter plays over the middle to chew up time. I think part of the issue is scheme as well. This team was able to cover TE's effectively in 2019 for the most part. So I think if Edumonds and Milano are healthy they are good enough.

It only takes one team foolish enough to make it happen.

Sensible for both sides, The Jets set themselves up to help their new QB in the 2022 draft having extra selections in the first, second and fourth rounds. The Panthers get to kick the tires on Darnold for fairly meager draft compensation.

The key to the defense being next level in my opinion is finding that dynamic pass rusher. I don't think LB play is as big of an issue nor do I think generally it is an issue. If Edumonds has good or even decent NT play in front of him he is a very good player. I think Edumonds and Milano are a top 5 4-3 LB tandem in the league. What I see from my fans eye is the lack of a game changing pass rusher. Other teams have pass rush players that can consistently take over or impact games. Jerry Hughes flashes that once or twice a season but he isn't that guy that can have an impact on a consistent basis. This team really needs that big time edge rusher. A guy that can command double teams and make an impact frequently. If this team somehow found that guy and the defense stayed mostly healthy it would take this defense back to being a top 5 defense. Having that big time pass rusher let's Hughes get more one on one play and frees up the rest of the pass rush. A better pass rush eases the coverage job of the secondary and LB corps. It trickles down. Whereas even if this team replaced Edumonds with a Kuechly type MLB it certainly helps but it still doesn't help this team generate more of a consistent pass rush. And to be clear I wouldn't be opposed to letting Edumonds walk if the cap demands it. I just think that MLB is not the position that is holding the defense back.

The WR corps was banged up which killed the game for the Bills offense. Beasley and Brown were banged up going into the playoffs, Davis got hurt during the Ravens game and Diggs got dinged early in the KC game. When teams were double teaming and taking away Diggs Josh was able to get Beasley, Davis, Brown, Mac and others involved. But against KC almost all of those guys were hurt and less effective.

Having Confederate statues up is the equivalent of Germany leaving up Statues of Nazi's and defending that in the name of if you let them take down the Nazi statues then they will just go after the Bismarck statues. It is a very foolish argument as each issue is isolated and mostly regional. Once again if you can't stop them anyway why not at least let them do the right thing in this instance? Just a question to you personally do you feel that the statues should be kept up?

I just don't see the "hold the line" argument. If you take down Confederate statues because they are absolutely horrible (and you can preserve history without them) then how does that stop you from stopping them from taking down a Lincoln statue? They are two completely different things. Also it isn't like all this resistance to tearing down Confederate statues are stopping the "wokeists" from going after other landmarks so what success is "holding the line" even having?

Small chance Josh does it but given that Mahomes has reset the market there might not be as much union pressure to set the market with his deal. I don't think he gives a steep discount but I could see Josh taking 40 million a year instead of 42.5. Not much but it is something.

I would have OT in the preseason come down to a coin toss and the winning team gets to go for two points, if they miss the conversion the other team gets two points and wins. It's super gimmicky but it gets you a winner while only adding one play (so not a big injury risk.) And it adds a lot of excitement for the real diehard fans that actually stayed for the last plays of a pre-season game. The rest seem like pretty good small changes.

So how does that justify keeping statues of the Confederacy up? Why does capitulating on something so obviously heinous keep you from making your stand on another issue? You take down the Confederate statues because they are horrible and then you make your stand on Abe Lincoln and other historical figures who served America and we honor them despite their flaws? It isn't a real coherent argument. Black people and any sensible people ask to take down Confederate statues that were erected in response to the civil rights movement decades after the war and your best argument is "what about the left doing other annoying things?" One has nothing to do with the other.

Solid first two picks. Helps get younger and more dynamic on the D-line.

I assure you Germany doesn't need to make status of Nazi's to be able to teach history about WWII and the US doesn't need to have status of literal traitors to be able to teach history about the civil war. Slippery Slope arguments are facile, just because there are people that will take it too far doesn't mean you have to have statues to people who fought a war to preserve a states right to slavery in public spaces. There is no argument to the benefit these statues provide other than to glorify traitors to the country. Draw the line at people who were in the Confederacy shouldn't have statues of them in public spaces that many including black people pay for. The Confederacy is to many black people in America (my wife included) as to what Nazi's would be to Jewish people in Germany. There is no coherent argument as to why they need to stand. Put them in museums if you are concerned about preservation. But there is no reason why tax dollars should go to glorify their cause to separate themselves from the country over the states right to slavery.

Is Germany unable to teach the history of WWII without status of Nazi's in public places?