starrymessenger

Keon’s problem is not his 40 time. Keon’s problem is that he has no idea how to run a route regardless of where he lines up, let alone running routes with purpose and nuance as required at this level. This is hardly surprising given he’s a basketball player with limited coaching/development time as a WR in a big school program. He is about as raw as they come and he hasn’t been brought along properly given his many needs. He was overdrafted. Would have been a good 3rd round pick given the learning curve. Personally I still think he could develop into a productive player. Maybe Brady is the guy who can bring him along. By year 3 he should already be figuring things out.

Shaheed was on track for a 1000 yard season prior to his trade to Seattle - something like 499 yards on 66 targets. In Seattle he’s only gotten something like 26 targets. The Hawks got him because the one thing they lacked in their passing game was a vertical threat. They’ve got the guys who can work the short to medium depth routes and they are even better now because of Shaheed. Not saying he is a #1 receiver but he is probably a fairly solid #2 and a desirable player especially when you add his all pro return skills. Hawks will try to sign him but (understandably) havent yet. Chances are he tests the market. Depending on the dollars I’d be a buyer.

Projections are a bit all over the place but 4.6 ish is what I've seen most often. Looks like the guy's strength are hands and route running, verticals and YAC maybe not so much. It's early and I need to better inform myself but I don't know that I'd want to gave up major draft capital to land him. Seems highly unlikely just based on the order. Wonder how his assessments compare next to last year's top three.

Correct. It's not all but it is sufficient.

I'd have to look at it again because I thought Kupp was tackled immediately. BTW there are other criteria beyond taking additional steps for determining whether the requirements for completing a pass have been met.

Kupp lost possession because of contact with the ground. Cooks lost possession because the DB ripped the ball away after Cooks was down with possession.

Cooks was a completion. Kupp’s did not survive the ground.

Clearly he did not.

Between Raiders and Bills and he has said there are some places he just wouldn’t go. So my guess is Bills.

I think they missed how quick he is out of his breaks. The rap was he wasn’t athletic enough.

Don't know how much he's got left in the tank but if he's not about to slow down mid-year like Emmanuel Sanders did I'd be fine with taking Cooks back as a 3rd-4th guy in the depth chart. He's a really good route runner and he still has some burst. Plus he's a savvy vet and a consummate pro. True he's always been a bit of a bobble king/juggler but he's had a long career as a superior NFL receiver with multiple 1000 yard + seasons. Looks like he can still bring some of that to the table. I think the Bills need to add two top of the order receivers. Don't know for sure how they get them. Neither Pickens or Addison will be available imo. I doubt AJ Brown will be going anywhere next year what with 20MM in dead cap if he's dealt. Aiyuk is likely to be released by the 49rs in which case he will be a free agent. Not sure what kind of contract he will command. Maybe a "prove it" deal. The Bills obviously need to draft one or more WRs but I think they also need to supplement that with a significant free agent signing because you don't often get an immediate impact even from a very talented rookie. It's normal for it to take a couple of years before they successfully transition. I see people mentioning Allen's long ball inaccuracy, which I think is a fair comment. My own view is that this would greatly improve with the right receivers and scheme. This should be job #1 for the new regime. I think the League will have to clarify that from the moment when a receiver is down with control of the ball what you have a completed catch that cannot be overturned because it has been jarred loose by a defender, whether the defender winds up possessing it or not. We see players trying to rip the ball out after the play is over all the time and it does not result in a loose ball or change of possession. The "survive the ground" notion should apply when contact with the ground, and not with the defender, causes the receiver to lose control. The "process of the catch" should not extend beyond when the play is over.

Said he was glad Keon ran a slow 40 because it was more likely he would fall to them.

In deciding whether a pass attempt has resulted in a completion it is not enough that the receiver had control of the ball and was down based on rules meant to determine whether a runner has fumbled. A runner does not fumble if control of the ball is lost after the play is over, that is, after the runner with control is ruled down. While the ground cannot cause a fumble it can certainly prevent a pass from being completed. Assume a receiver dives for a ball while being tackled by a defender. The receiver has full control of the ball with a knee touching the ground as he falls forward. Is the play over at that point and the completion confirmed? Unless I am mistaken, I think that you wait to see whether the receiver maintains control of the ball after coming more fully into contact with the ground before deciding whether a completion has occurred. The so called "process of the catch" must run its course apparently. The question I think boils down to whether the loss of ball control that negates a catch can occur when the defender dislodges the ball after the receiver is down by contact with control. I would think not. What if the Broncos DB had simply jarred the ball loose without possessing it after Cooks was down by contact with control. Would that have been called an incomplete pass? I think that would (should) be ruled a completed pass. The result should be the same where the DB wrestles the ball away from the receiver. A logical and practical point for termination of the action in such cases should be when (if) the receiver is down by contact with control of the ball. Carl Sheffers was of the view that contact with the ground, and not the DB, caused Cooks to lose control of the ball.

Both Carl Sheffers and Gene Steratore say that Cooks lost control/possession of the ball as a result of coming into contact with the ground. That loss of possession is what enabled the defender to assume possession. Looked to me like control was lost by Cooks because the DB wrestled the ball away from him after he was down by contact but I think the rule itself is being interpreted in the same way. It is only the perception of the facts that differs. Some observers (Rich Eisen I think) go further than Sheffers and Steratore taking the view that if the defender wrestles the ball away from the receiver “in the process of the catch” that counts as an interception even if the receiver had possession at the moment he was down by contact. The idea would be that possession must be maintained throughout the “process of the catch” the which “process” can extend beyond the time the play would otherwise be over. A receiver is not a running back after all and whether a pass has been completed is evaluated differently than whether a fumble has occurred (they would say). Some clarification from the League is required.

Agree. Obviously. I hate it when refs decide the outcome.