Bleeding Bills Blue

I go with Kromer if it means no cutler.

I think lawson would fit on the strong side edge while youd line up Hughes on the blindside. Dareus over center/guard. and KW/dolph/Worthy on the other side. The backers are the tricky part. Mike's gotta be moving here so i dunno if Ragland can play taht way, or if theyd prefer PB there. That would likely plug ragland in at the bart scott SAM spot. We dont really have a will on the roster. I do like the idea of Ragland at Mike only because he's got some thump to him, and doesn't mind blitzing.

It's fairly rare to have the nose tackle drop into coverage. It'd more likely be the ends in lawson/Hughes.

This guy called Swinney a fraud before the national championship... He just says things to get people to click his articles just like everyone else on the internet.

Yeah - Bell and Cousins are prime tag candidates. Zach brown didn't even make honorable mention

Yeah - not a great fit for gilmore so I don't know that I'd extend him. Franchise is tough since we don't have a ton of space to get to 53. Darby might work OK - but we're going to need some work in the secondary. Z-brown would be a solid fit as a will. Seems to fill gaps pretty well and is athletic enough - but im not giving him like... 6-8 mil a year. He fell off a cliff in the 2nd half of the year. I'd bring back lorax as D-line depth though - guys a gamer and plays teams.

Good luck - That offense needs a ton of work. Needs a #1 WR, a TE, a #2 back, and a ton of help on the o-line. I think McVay could be good for Goff though.

I know you guys are joking about trump - but thats who we elected to be POTUS.... so sad.

We said the same thing abuot rex and marrone. Chargers...?

Who was the one with the 4th best defensive DVOA? I'm saying for next year - we are worse off with a rookie. If he plays better - they probably make the playoffs.

It means that wentz threw for 3800 yards on 600+ attempts, and Tyrod threw for 3000 on 430 attempts. Thats another 170 passes for 800 yards. He rushed for 150 to Tyrods 580. And had more sack yardage. He also threw 14 picks and fumbled 14 times... All with Pederson and reich on staff... My only statement is that there's a good chance we get worse at QB if we just go with a rookie. And the veterans available to sign, don't inspire a ton of confidence either. As for Wentz as a future - I don't know personally. I see a bit of bortles in him with the timing issues. We'll see if he can turn out to be someone like a flacco, who's a solid gamer.

I'm saying that if we cut Tyrod and get a rookie - that rookie will probably perform worse than tyrod. As Wentz and Goff both did last year, and many more before them. Dak's had some very good games, but you have to know he's an anomoly. He also had a little stretch of tyrod games where he held the ball and did rookie things. That's going to happen with every rookie. They haven't seen every defense, and they're going to get confused from time to time.

Yeah - thats a hard thing to quantify. Those things that aren't really drops.. poor throws that a receiver snags...

To me it's all about fit. If its true that they gave mcdermott 5 years - then i think he sticks for most of that a la bradley. Success or failure i think he coaches out most of this contract. So he probably likes the talent he has on the line - i'd try and bring lorax back as well. That gives you hughes, lorax, lawson as your primary 3 ends, and KW, dareus, worthy washington inside (worthy is a much better fit for this defense - assumes KW comes back). Linebackers we'll have ragland and preston, but i don't think either are great fits. Ragland seems like a baller so i think he'll be okay, preston seems to miss gaps and plays slow so i don't like the idea of him starting. The will is not even on our team yet which is probably a concern. Not sure who i like at sam and mike between ragland and preston as they both seem like Mike LBs. As for secondary - its a crap shoot. We have no safeties right now (awill is a ?, and graham seems like a cap casualty). I personally think Darby will improve with this as he seemed to struggle behind receivers all year in man under. Gilmore I'm not realy sure since he likes to play a lot of man. Cover 3 is basically man, but its more designed to prevent deep stuff. The secondary did not seem to like the morphing quarters man switching "antiquated" defense we ran this year. Seemed to leave people open all over the place. This is much simpler.

Possibly - but we might be able to upgrade that for cheap. Shaq and ragland are fine, but if we're going to execute a single high cover 3 look... were going to need some safeties that don't suck. And some corner's who thrive in that zone-over coverage.

Still - why can't we add some real spread concepts if that's how we want to run the offense? Why not run some screens to the receivers to make the corners play tighter on the line? It helps open up the down field stuff, and forces teams to adjust out of their base coverages. It also allows you to play with tempo, and are easy single read plays. This guys not on the line - throw it to woods. He is on the line? Fake and run. Or change the play at the line really quickly into something else.

Depends how free agency goes for me... our defense is chock full of holes, and mostly old. I'd like to see a few playmakers drafted on that side of the ball if we can. At least 1 safety, probably a OLB, and even another corner. Rather than our 1st round pick every 3-4 years on corner, i like the corner every year method and hope that you can get some steals.

Because we had a cluster of receivers who can't execute those concepts... Better question - why doesn't roman include screens, bubbles, or swing passes in his offense? Why do we have 90% shotgun/pistol snap formations?

And... Rubs - Need chemistry (same receiver week in week out) Combo Routes - need to get to the line early enough to evaluate the coverage seams - Again need to get to the line early enough to evaluate coverage

Overdraft someone and end up with tannehill/locker/ponder/EJ/gabbert/bortles and so on - and waste a bunch of time and money seeing if he's any good.

I can't say for sure as i don't have the time to watch All-22s on wentz and goff. But i did watch a few eagles games this year... and in those games Wentz misses throws. He's late, he overthrows, he underthrows. He has good pocket awareness but the ball getting out on time is not one of his strengths. He had 12 games with a YPA under 7. 8 with a YPA under 6. He misses easy ones - a lot. Higher INT%, lower YPA, less sacks, more sack yards. Watch week 1 and tell me Tyrod was the only reason we lost... Our line, and mccoy specifically gave up a ton of pressures. Oh and we were still late getting plays in and getting to the line. This causes problems when trying to predict coverage at the line. Also - i don't recall seeing much of those concepts in those games but i may be mistaken. Roman never had those concepts in his offense. He has 900 formations, no audibles, and takes forever to get a play in.

Right, but i see other QBs do the same things. I see wentz sailing passes out of bounds, i see rodgers throw an out route into the dirt, i see Eli throwing a screen at his backs feet. Both the 1st and 2nd overall picks struggled and in the end hurt their teams this year. That alone concerns me when we talk about replacing him wiht a rookie or journeyman. I get that people want a future and whatnot - but are we sacrificing the present to do it?

I'd say 2 years - and in those 2 years you have options to draft other players and fill that hole. If you can't acquire the guy you want this off season, it buys you at least another year to look and develop

I don't consider 2 years to be "long-term"

What about Vick's improvement in philadelphia? He went from a sub 55% passer and 1000 yard rusher to a pretty solid QB under reid.