Watkins101

I believe Carson Wentz said something about having a a conversation with DJ about it.

I would expect something similar to what hockey is trying to do (pending player vote) with a flat cap for the next 2 years.

I am not 100% sure, but I don't think the leagues immediately see much of the increases in TV revenues. The channels pay millions for the contracts, and the rights to broadcast football. The increase in viewership then Increases the amount of money the channels make. So, the increase in TV viewership would not impact the salary cap now, but later on it might when the TV contracts are up, and new ones need to be made. The only thing I could think of that would change this is if the NFL actually made a percent of the TV revenues in addition to the money initially paid by the TV stations. I am unaware that this is the case.

MetLife needs all 16 games as they support both the jets and the giants home schedule.

I don't really know for sure, but I would suspect that is not the case any longer. These charts only goes through early June, and do not have as much of the spike as there has been as of late. I would think that the 18-45 age group has likely have increased in the amount of people showing up positive.

I don't see us being #1 in rushing. Unless Lamar gets hurt, the Ravens look like they will run away with the rushing yards total.

You have to remember that expanding rosters is a double edged sword in this case- more players practicing together = more total exposure for each player. Unless you plan on expanding the roster and making it so some players don't practice with the team, you are increasing the chances of more of your team getting covid 19.

Most Rookies do not make an immediate impact. They drafted a slot Wr, and a Wr in the 6th. round. It's reasonable the slot Wr plays, but the 6th rounder is unlikely to significantly contribute. They lost their #2 Te, their 3rd best recieving option. They run a lot of 2TE sets, so that will be a significant loss.

I would not make that swap. For the Ravens: Rb: among the best in the league, likely made better by adding Dobbins, though Ingram may lose a step. Te: last year, among the best in the league, traded away one of their The for a second, so likely a downgrade from last year. Wr: among the worst in the league. Last year, their top Wr had 584 yards. When I was trying to look up their Wrs, there were numerous articles about the Ravens should trade for X receiver. You don't see that with a good recieving corps. Two of them he Ravens top 3 recieving options were Te last year, and one left. In the author's mind, Wr is likely the most important position out of the three, and because of that, the ranking does make some sense.

Baltimore's offense was based largely on an elite Oline, and a QB that performed at an extremely high level as a dual threat. That team could run the ball, which opened up the passing game. It was not mainly because of the positions being evaluated in this article. They contributed, yes, but if Josh Allen and our Oline had those weapons, we wouldn't really be special on offense. The scheme, the base of the Oline, and the elite athleticism of Lamar Jackson made that offense. They had good quality running backs and tight ends, but their wide receivers are iffy, and I would guess those matters the most to people evaluating the rosters at the positions wr/te/rb.

Well, it is a Syracuse news paper. I doubt a whole lot of NYC people see/care about it.

NFL owners push ro stadium upgrades/new stadiums for the club seating/boxes. Ordinary ticket sale revenues are split evenly among the league, but the owners pocket their club seats/boxes revenues. That's one of the main reasons new stadiums are beneficial for owners, because they tend to have these options.

The bolded may or may not be true. If you knew your performance could largely impact your draft stock, I think that may get some adrenaline going.

Well that was expressed pretty poorly. Basically, you say, look if Josh completed more passes, he'd have a better completion percentage. He might be alright because he doesn't throw as many checkdowns or screens. Your only evidence of this is Free Brees on the basis of him having a higher completion percentage, but less yards. This terrible evidence as some have noted: Drew Brees played 5 and some change less games than Allen. If you look at yards per attempt Brees is over a yard over Allen. You also say Josh suffers from drops, but give zero evidence of it. So in summary, you think Josh might not be bad because 1. He threw less checkdowns according to bad evidence, and 2. He had more drops. (no evidence) And if you are going to say, well, everyone knows he had more drops, because we've seen those stats and everybody knows, what was the he point of this thread? It's already a repeat of multiple past threads.

I think these threads are hilarious. Look guys, Josh wasn't that bad, as you can see, if he did better, he would be good! Don't get me wrong, I support Josh. But these threads where people say if he made 2 more completions per game and then point that he's good because of that are pretty dumb.

He's trying to play for the whole AFC East.

We will not keep 10 DL on the roster. McBeane have kept 8 DL on the roster. It might be reasonable for us to keep 9, with how deep we are, but we will not keep 10. I would think that we would keep 9, and then 6 lb. Matakevich has played little LB, he is more of a special teams ace. I would think we wouldn't go into the season with only 4 viable LB, especially with Milanos injury history.

Addison has had more sacks every single year that Trent Murphy has been in the league. I am not a Murphy hater, I think he has a spot on this team, but in no way is he a better pass rusher than Addison, which is Murphy's strength, as he is better at pass rushing than defending against the run.

I'm curious, how many of those farms have you been to?

He was also undrafted. Teams passed on him because they likely didn't believe he would be 100% in the reasonable future.

I'm curious where you see him being a first/second round talent. I looked at draft profiles of him, and most said 7th round or undrafted. Yes, that is lower due to issues, but nothing about the profiles demonstrated first round talent. They said he would have a difficult time getting separation at the NFL level, and he would have to make his living on contested catches. That doesn't show 1st/2nd round talent to me.

McKenzie would not get anything in a trade. We signed him for next to nothing. That means that if a team wanted him, they easily could have given a bigger offer and not had to give up a pick. I also don't think teams value the return game enough to give up picks for whatever upgrade Roberts gives.

Couple things: 1. 5 Cb is not a baseline, as we have carried 4 on the roster for good stretched before. 2. Kr/Pr will play other positions as well, he may not see much time on the offense/defense, but he will count for depth at some position I would think of it more like ranges, rather than just a baseline. QB: 2-3 Rb:3-4 FB: 1? TE: 3-4 OL 8-10 Wr: 6-7 baseline total: 23 likely total: 25-27. DL: 8-9 Lb: 5-7 Cb: 4-5 S: 4 baseline total: 21 likely total: 23-25 P:1 K:1 LS:1

Do away with comp picks, add an 8th round.

Most of the year, poor quarterback play plagued a mostly decent roster. Drew Lock came in and IIRC went 5-1 to close out the year. They also gave him a lot of weapons, having an improved running backs corps, took a receiver in rounds 1 and 2 (both among the best route runners in the class), and had a first round rookie tight end last year that preformed well, and likely will get better. There is a reasonable chance that they are significantly improved this year, and that would be largely due to their offense improving.