Shaw66

He might stay in Washington, but I think there are several things causing him to leave, and in particular making Buffalo look like a good choice. First, everything suggests that he's unhappy with Washington. Sure, it's history, but that stuff eats at people. He's had to earn the job, over and over again. I can't remember a franchise being so reluctant to keep a high-performing QB in the starting job. I think that bothers him. Second, he's a mid-western, straight-laced guy. The east coast is different from Indiana and Michigan, and I wouldn't be surprised if he just doesn't like it there. Third, he's a serious Christian. Washington doesn't have much of an ecclesiastical feel to it. Although it's not likely to drive his decision, but in the back of his mind, something about having a serious Christian coach probably appeals to him. (Enter McDermott.) Fourth, I don't know what Gruden is like, but we know what McDermott is like. It's all about the process. He has a process for everything, a reason for everything he does and everything he wants his team to do. That's who Cousins is - constantly planning, organizing, following a process to get where he wants to go. Fifth, Buffalo is the midwest, where he's from. Sixth, he seems like the kind of guy who could buy into the mission - finally win a Lombardi for Buffalo. Seventh, unlike Washington, the Bills don't have an !@#$ owner. The Bills' owners are serious, down-to-earth people who genuinely care about people and show it. That will appeal to Cousins. So, yes, Cousins may very well stay in DC. But if he really wanted to stay in DC, he would have had a contract by now. I think he wants to go. And I think Buffalo may very well be attractive to him.

Thanks. Now people will start arguing other things - wins, playoffs, etc. But I start with the nunsserbers, because I've found that a broad range of stats don't lie. You can cherry pick stats, but if you like at the most important stats, you generally find good correlation between the best players and good stats. Passer rating does it all wrapped up into one number, but you can look at it individually and you get similar results. And here you have it. Look at the guy's numbers - he's right in there with the guys who are in the second half of the top 10, right after Hall of Famers. If he's putting up these numbers and not winning in Washington, what makes him worse than Stafford, who's putting up comparable numbers and not winning in Detroit? I don't get it. But it isn't up to me, or you. It's up to Beane and McDermott. If THEY think he's top 10, then I think the Bills should be serious bidders for the guy. If they don't think he's top 10, they have to move on to another plan.

Can't read the data, but I'm not surprised. Thanks about Schaub. The real point is that you don't many shots at guys who have had success in the league. Heck, when Brees was a free agent, people were worried that he'd bust.

Thanks for making the point about what it costs to re-sign your top 10 guy. As of today it appears that exactly ONE of those guys is on a Hall of Fame trajectory - Brees. The other four got what some people would think is Hall of Fame money. Is it working out in every case? Absolutely not. Was it the wrong move? No. Oakland betting on Carr was a better bet than saving $10 million and having no QB. That's fine with me, too. If you're the GM and you don't think he's top 10, top 12, then I agree you shouldn't spend the money. If Beane and McD don't think so, they should save their money. But if you think he's top 10, you're going to have to pay top dollar, and it's the right move, in the sense that it's a smart bet.

I don't know 26 that well, but I wouldn't dump on him that much. As for Jimmy, I like his prospects, but he hasn't proven anything to me yet. Paying him 25 is a much bigger risk than paying Cousins 25. What he doesn't get is that Cousins is solidly in the range of 5th to 12th best QB in the league. Look at his stats over the past three years. Same as Stafford's, better than Newton's (who's really had only one good year). People rave about Luck - Cousins has been better. Matt Ryan's had one blowout year; otherwise, he's struggled to put up numbers as good as Cousins, and he's throwing to Julio Jones. Cousins isn't Rodgers, I know. But look at the guys who are in the 12 to 20 range of QBs - Eli, Flacco, Taylor, Dalton. I can't believe he wouldn't want Cousins over those guys.

Mismatch offense. That's what the Pats offense is. When they spread the receivers, Brady throws to the mismatch just about all the time. The wideout on the linebacker. Gronk on the 5'10" back. When you have your heavies in, they pass, when you have your quick defense in, they run. They do it all day long. If that's what Daboll is bringing, I'm all for it.

This point is where I disagree fundamentally. This is the core issue. In my opinion, "not worth top tier money" is a concept that doesn't apply to QBs. It may to other players, but not QBs. In my opinion, if you want to compete for championships in the NFL, have a chance to compete every year, you have to have a top 10 QB. There are, in my opinion, only two tiers - the top 10 and the others. If you have a top 10 QB, you have a chance to compete every year. If you don't, you don't. You might get there once in a while with a top 20 QB, but you need a lot of things to fall right. So you gotta have a top 10 QB. Once you've decided that, in my opinion it doesn't matter if you're paying the guy #2 money and he's #8. Sure, you'd rather be paying #8 money to have a QB who's #8, but that isn't what's important. What's important is having a top 10 QB. If you're overpaying, well, that's the price you're paying to have a chance at a title every season. Under which scenario am I going to be the happier fan? (1) My team has a top 20 QB and the paying him like a top 30 guy. (2) My team has a top 10 QB and they're paying him like a top 2 guy. I'll take (2) all day, every day. When the Browns write the big check to get Cousins, am I going to be laughing because they overpaid and the Bills have Tyrod? No. The Bills have Peterman? No. The Bills have some guy they drafted? No, at least not until that guy turns into a top 10 NFL QB. A top 10 QB comes along in free agency maybe once every five years. Brees was the last. People thought Schaub was one but he busted. When that guy comes along, he gets overpaid. That's the way it works. Brees got overpaid when he signed. Do you think Saints fans cared? When you have a top 10 QB and his contract runs out, you have to pay him top 5 money to keep him, because if you don't, someone else will. That's simply the price. He doesn't get the highest salary in the league because people think he's the best QB in the league. He gets it because someone will pay it. Flacco got it, and it turned out to be a mistake. Ryan got it, and it wasn't a mistake. If you don't pay the price, you don't get the guy.

Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger are Hall of Fame QBs. If you're objective is to get a Hall of Fame QB, then Cousins is not for you. You're only chance is to draft one, which means you have to go all in on trading up every few years until you hit one. I don't think that's a good strategy for building a team, but if that's what you want, I won't argue with you. Garoppolo is unproven. Stafford hasn't outplayed Cousins. Cousins actually is a better quarterback than Newton. It leaves Cousins where I've said he is - not a Hall of Famer but a top 10 quarterback in the current NFL. To say that he's a product of a high volume passing attack simply isn't true. His passer ratings have been excellent the past three years, which means he has a good TD to INT ratio and a good completion percentage. So where do you get this Accuracy concern from? He's had several fourth quarter comebacks. I just don't know where you're getting this conclusion that he isn't a good QB. What do you want from the guy? I get that some people think the money will be too much for what you get, but forget the money for a minute. If you don't want Cousins, what's your plan for getting a QB better than Cousins - like a Matt Ryan or better - in Buffalo?

I hear you. I have a slightly different approach. I think the job is so complicated, and there are so many variables (who's the coach, what kind of personnel do you have, who's the QB, what have you learned since your last job, etc.?) that I think there's very little to go on in predicting who's going to do a good job and who isn't. I don't like the trajectory, I like the Belichick and Saban pedigree. I don't know and won't have an opinion until next November.

Thanks for posting this, Logic. Like Elite Poster, I'm always doubtful about amateurs and their analysis, but every time I look at this stuff from Cover1 I think it's pretty solid. Having said that, I agree with Elite Poster that they're generally optimistic. This article keeps talking about bridging the gap between college and the pros as if that's a good thing. Who knows? Daboll could fall flat on his face, again, as an NFL OC. Maybe Belichick didn't want him back. Who knows? What I like about what they do is the video breakdown. They do some solid thinking about what makes plays work and they show you. It's always nicely done. And he points out the great variety of formations, concepts and blocking schemes that Alabama employed, just in the Georgia game, and that's encouraging. Daboll's offense likely will be complex.

12th 7th 5th in passer rating last three years.

Amen

Yes. That's the thing about Cousins. So you pay him $25 million a year with four years guaranteed. Maybe $27 million. He's your QB for four years. If he turns into a superstar, great, re-up him to a really big deal. If not, between now and then you've drafted a couple more guys, so over four years you have Peterman and a couple more who might succeed Cousins. I like Cousins better than the crap shoot that is trying to find a QB in the draft.

This is the point that I think people miss. You're more or less nowhere without a top QB. The one exception is when you can build a GREAT defense, but if you can do it it only works for a year or two. Minnesota isn't going to dominate multiple years with that defense. Otherwise, only a good QB keeps your team competitive. Someone is going to spend the money for Cousins, and that somebody will have a good QB.

I think a lot of people here are reading things into this that the guy didn't say. Read it. He said he tried to make a deal with Cousins and couldn't. He said that the cost of the franchise tag is now prohibitive. What he seems to be saying is that the Redskins won't be able to make a deal with Cousins and they can't afford to franchise him. He said Cousins isn't special. That isn't news. Everyone knows Cousins is not Peyton Manning. So if you're objective is to get a Hall of Fame quarterback, Cousins isn't your guy. But if your objective is more realistic, to get a good QB on your team, this guy sounds completely supportive of Cousins. He's smart, he works hard, he plays well, he delivers. The I think the objective is a top 10 QB. The Bradys, Mannings, Roethlisbergers are leaving the league, and their successors are not obvious. Other than Rodgers, who looks to be the new generation of Hall of Famers? Not Cam, not yet. Not Luck. Not the guy in Philadelphia, not yet. Not the guy in LA, either, certainly not yet. Not Stafford. Who are they? The answer is they're not there. The game was extraordinarily pass-friendly when the retiring QBs were in their prime and late prime, and now that time is passing. So you need a good QB, a top 10 QB. You need someone better than Taylor. Where are you going to get one of those? It's nearly total guess-work in the draft. But there is one who is going to be a free agent - Cousins. Not Bradford or Foles or any of the other guys who haven't had consistent success. Cousins has had consistent success as a QB. I think that's what this guy is saying about Cousins. Someone is going to sign him. That team will do more for their chances of winning in 2018 than any other team in the league. He may not be special, but he'll make a bigger difference than anyone else who joins a team next season. The only question is whether you're a bidder. He's going somewhere, and he's going to be a good QB somewhere. Imagine him on the 2017 Bills. I'd say the Bills win at least two more games: Bengals and Ravens. And, for that matter, maybe one Patriots game. How much would you pay for two more wins?

I don't think I'm exaggerating his value. I think we certainly agree that we are not writing him ANOTHER contract like the last one. And we agree that its okay to pay him 2018.

I said one of the best, not the best. It's really very simple: The way to determine the best running backs in the league is to imagine you're putting together a team for one season, 2018, and you can have any running back you want, for a free. Age isn't a consideration, contract, none of that. Just ask a simple question: which running back do you want? You're taking Orleans Darkwa before you'd take Shady. Good for you. You're maybe the only GM in the country who would do that. If I'm taking a running back, Shady's somewhere around fifth on my list, behind Bell, Elliott, maybe the guy in Atlanta and I'm sure there are one or two more. But Bell and Elliott may be the only two that everyone would agree on. Shady's in the top five of anyone who's thinking clearly about this. It's a simple, demonstrable fact that Shady's been, on average, the best running back in the league over the past seven or eight years. Not the best in every season - in fact - he's had the best season only once or twice over that period. But he's consistently, more so than any other back, in the top 5 over that period. The only question with Shady in 2018 is whether he's lost his edge. Based on 2017, I think the answer is pretty clear - not so much that it matters. In 2017 Shady was, once again, one of the very best running backs in the league. You can cherry pick data, like yards per attempt, but use your eyes and your brains. Those runs for losses, they were largely the fault of the oline. All through the 2017 season, people complained here bitterly, not about Shady but about the fact that the O coordinator and the Oline coach changed the offensive line run blocking scheme. Why did people complain? Because defenders were in the backfield all the time, that's why. I get that there are other considerations. I get that you might believe, and I'll agree with you, that it may not be worth spending top dollar for one of the best running backs, because you can have an Orleans Darkwa for a lot less, and he'll give you nice production. And if Shady had three-years left on a big contract, it might make sense to let him go. But that's not the situation. Shady is a legitimate top-five running back getting paid what top-five running backs get paid. In 2017 he clearly was still in his prime, and there's no reason to believe he won't still be there in 2018. He gives you an advantage over Orleans Darkwa because, well, he's just better. He's been better than just about everyone for several years. He gets yardage that others don't get. He plays hurt. He catches passes. He's just better. Is he so much better that he's worth the extra money he gets? Maybe not. But he's better, and when 1:00 Sunday afternoon comes around, I'm glad the Bills have him on the field instead of Orleans Darkwa.

That's really dumb. The guy is regularly in the top 5 in rushing in the league, regularly in the top 5 in total yards from scrimmage. Over the past 7 or 8 seasons he's probably been the best running back in the league. He plays hurt. Almost all of his negative yards plays come when he has no hole and a lineman has missed his assignment. So the best running back in the league has the second highest running back contract in the league, and you're complaining. He's worth every nickel.

other than this, he'd be perfect.

All the articles say all teams run more or less the same plays. So I don't think Ehrhardt Perkins teams are coming at you with fewer plays or a more simplified offense. It's more that the way plays are identified is simpler. The basic point seems to be that a route tree from half the field has a name, like "slick." If the QB says right slick, the three receivers who will line up on the right know that the outside receiver does one thing, the slot guy does a second and the inside receiver does a third thing. Now, you can do it out of any formation, so if you're in trips, the three receivers all know what's what. But if you have one wideout and a tight end with a guy in the slot, the slot guy still knows what he's doing. But if the slot guy goes in motion to the left, now the tight end is the second guy and the running back is the third. So you can run the route tree from all different formations. If you have six named route trees and four formations, that's essentially 24 different passing plays. And that's just on the right. You're doing something similar on the left. Then, from week to week, they may decide that against the defense they're facing they need a different tree, or they need one receiver to cut the opposite way. So for that week there may a new route tree. Or "slick" might get varied. Over the course of the season, you're modifying and growing the offense. What's nice about it is that it's easier for the QB. Under the other systems, each receiver gets a pattern that's identified in the play call, so the QB essentially is telling each guy what do to on each play. If during the week they add some wrinkles, it's new instructions to give to each receiver. It sounds like it gets really cumbersome, and you're layering more and more stuff on the QB. The EP system makes all of that simpler. It means the receivers have to be doing their homework during the week and paying attention on Sunday, because "slick" may be a little different this week. One of the benefits in the EP system, if you have continuity in the system and the personnel, is that you can install something for week 2 and come back to it in week 17, and it's familiar to everyone. I read somewhere that the Pats will go back several YEARS to bring back a scheme they used in one game or another. Brady's smart and he remembers them, but the point isn't so much Brady's memory as it is that with very little difficulty they add or bring back wrinkles with names that fit right into the system, so everyone gets it.

Thanks. Good stuff. I think after the game Williams said something about avoiding the interference call. That means he was focused on the wrong thing, and I agree that's a coaching problem. To me, the most amazing thing about the INT Butler got win the Super Bowl against the Seahawks was not that Seattle didn't run Marshawn. It was that during the week the Patriots coaches told Butler that on the goal line in that formation the Seahawks will run that inside slant play. He was told that the most important thing was that he could not let the receiver get inside position on him - he had to step up soon enough so that he'd have a play on the ball. Seahawks come out in the formation, and then it was a simple matter of executing. As I said, Belichick's safety knows his job and makes the play against the Vikings. And if Gregg Williams was still the DC at New Orleans, the Saints safety makes the right play. Micah Hyde makes the right play. It's about being taught and playing within yourself.

As I think about it, what's particularly interesting is the comment in the article about week to week changes. You mention that it's hard to know whether the Pats are run- or pass-oriented from week to week. The article talks about how it's easy in any week to install variations off the concepts. That is, the receivers learn that this week when they're running this concept, they make an in-cut instead of an out-cut. The nomenclature doesn't change; it's still fundamentally the same pattern, but the receiver breaks it off a different way. Again, this spreads the responsibility - instead of the QB needing to change how he calls the play so he gives the receiver all the info he needs to run his route, the QB calls the same play and the QB knows this week the cut is different. It puts more responsibility on the receiver, because he has to have learned the weekly change, too. The more I learn about what Belichick does, the more I marvel at his ability to train his players to be active thinkers on the field. They all have to understand what's going on in this play or that play, they all are expected to understand how the play may be run differently at different times in the game. All the complexity he sees gets down-loaded to players - the players only learn the principles that govern their play and the play of the guys around them, the QB has to learn it all. Belichick has remarkable success getting his players to think along with him. Just because Daboll was worked in the system doesn't mean that he can get players to perform that way. However, I think McD imposes the same kind of expectations on his players as Belichick does, so maybe Daboll is a good fit. We'll see.

I just looked through the first page and a half of posts, and it seems most people except you are making more of this article than it is. As you say, the article is verbiage, nomenclature. And as you say, regardless of nomenclature, most teams, including the Pats, run the same plays. The interesting point to me was that this system tends to be more QB-centric, that is, it allows the QB to talk about plays in ways that help him think about what's happening. Simply by using one word, he knows what all his receivers are doing on one half of the field. It makes life easier for the QB, and it makes a life a little more complicated for the receivers, because they have to know which route to run depending on where he's lined up in the formation. That is, it off loads some responsibility from the QB to other players. Brady doesn't have to know which wideout is second from the outside and tell the wideout what to do. All he has to know is whoever that wideout is, he's running a particular pattern. And, playing for Belichick, if you're the wideout and you don't know your assignment, you're sitting. None of this says much about the offensive philosophy. It doesn't say the offense will be run- or pass-oriented. Remember, it's just about how the plays are communicated to the players, not about the nature of the plays. It's also noteworthy that in one of the articles there was a suggestion that it was time for Daboll to leave Alabama because Saban wants to go to more of a spread-formation college-type offense. In other words, more passing and less running. So I wouldn't be quick to expect Daboll to be a pass-first guy. I think McD is a run-first guy - he's a fundamental-football guy, and I don't think he called up Daboll and asked him how he'd like to run an offense that throws the ball 40 plays a game. One thing I think about this change is that it's another indication that McD isn't planning on Tyrod being the guy. If he wanted to keep Tryrod around, he wouldn't be changing systems. He'd want to keep Tyrod in the same system for a second season. With a new system being installed, Tyrod has no advantage over anyone else competing for the job. I think we have to wait and see.

RIght. Plus, what it did for me is solidify my belief that football is much more complicated than all of us arm-chair coaches think it is. I mean, how many of us BEFORE EVERY PLAY is first checking if there's a 1- 2- or 3-deep safety set, checking the defensive formation inside the tackles and making a note of the deployment of the backs? That's before the play. Then you have to watch where 22 guys go and note it all. Who does that? That's why when someone says Tyrod missed this or didn't do that, I don't trust it. The person who says that here rarely understands everything that was going on in a play. I'm not criticizing anyone. I do it too. We all focus on what we see; my point is that there's a lot that most of us don't see and don't know. Even watching the all-22, we don't know what each player's assignment was. Take a guy like Brian Daboll. He played football in college, which already puts him way ahead of most of us in football knowledge. For the past 20 years, he's been studying film. He's survived because he worked at it from day 1,. He did well enough after a few years in college to get a shot as a defensive coaching assistant at New England. He was a grunt, and he was breaking down film. He must have been good at it, because after two years Belichick promoted him. Then he got some OC jobs, and then Belichick brought him back. Then Nick Saban hired him; Saban and Belichick are buddies, so you know Belichick told Saban the truth about Daboll and Saban trusted Belichick. All the while, Daboll was studying details like the details described in this article. He's seeing things, reporting them, and I"m sure eventually making creative suggestions about what to do next. A guy like that sees detail and has a level of understanding that goes way beyond what I know. Way beyond. And, by the way, that's why I think 95% of the discussion here and on television, discussion about this player or that, is pointless. Winning and losing is not nearly so much about the relative talent of the players - it's about what the coaches know, what they can teach, and what they can create. The missed tackle that lost the game for the Saints, that wasn't because the guy was a bad player, wasn't talented enough. It was because he was coached well enough, trained well enough. Belichick's safety doesn't make that mistake, and I'm happy to say that McDermott's safety doesn't make that mistake, either. Why not? Because Belichick, and I think McD, teaches his players situational football. Belichick's safety is actively aware of several important requirements on that play and executes accordingly. He knows to do these things, in order of importance: 1. Don't get beat deep. 2. Make the tackle. 3. Don't interfere. 4. Keep the guy in bounds. The Saints guy apparently skipped 1 and 2 and made the play as 3 was the most important point. Well-coached football players don't make that mistake. It has nothing to do with how good the player is. Do some players know these things intuitively? Sure, but most players don't. They're taught, they're trained and they understand it's their job to execute.

Thanks for the post. Interesting article from Grantland. Really doesn't say a lot about philosophy. Just passing terminology. But I'm happy to have anyone out of the Belichick/Saban tree.