Shaw66

They earned my respect a few years ago. I'm sick of their winning, and they ought to be punished much more severely when they get caught cheating, but they are better than everyone else and they deserve the wins they get. They get calls because they create opportunities for the refs to throw flags.

I don't agree. I think Belichick is light years ahead of all the other coaches in the league, and he has the 18-year record to prove it. The reason we think the Pats are cheaters is because he takes every advantage of every rule he can, and in doing so, he steps over the line occasionally and actually cheats. He and his staff think of everything, they teach it to their players, and the players execute. So, for example, I don't see receivers come back for balls to draw the interference call nearly as often as the Pats do. If that receiver had run back into Gilmore, he would have gotten the call, because Gilmore had been beaten and the refs give the call to the receiver when he beats the defender. Gilmore made a great play, but if the receiver had stepped up into Gilmore's path and made a play on the ball, he'd have gotten the call. So, for example, Brady's really good at getting his team to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball quickly to catch the other side with too many men on the field, or before they can line up to stop a quick dive play, or to take advantage of a mismatch. Other teams try it, and many teams fail it, getting called for illegal motion or procedure, because they didn't get set properly, or jumping early, or one thing or another. It isn't that the refs call it on the other teams and not on the Pats. It's because the Pats are properly trained to execute that, and then they do it without making mistakes. So, for example, the Patriots know not to bring the kickoff out of the end zone in the fourth quarter. They never do. Why? Because Belichick has figured out and he teaches his coaches and players that coming out of the end zone is a high risk, low reward proposition. If you're behind, you don't want to burn the clock when you can get 25 yards without any time running. If you're ahead, you don't want to hurt yourself with bad field position. Belichick knows the rules and takes advantage of them. No one else does it like he does it.

This doesn't make sense. If you're talking about the situation where the guy blows by you, that's something that happens within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage, so a 15-yard penalty makes sense. When people are talking about is the downfield plays where the defender hits the receiver early or holds an arm down or something like that. The problem with that being a spot foul is that some of the time those penalties are close calls, the defender isn't intentionally interfering, and his team gets hit with a 35-yard penalty. That isn't right. Now, if they changed them all to 15 yards, maybe you'd start getting more intentional pass interference, and I suppose that would be a problem. Maybe you'd have to make intentional pass interference an unsportsmanlike conduct call - two of those and you're out of the game. Then of course there would be arguments about whether the ref was right to call it intentional, but that would still be better than now, where a guy is making a legitimate play but gets there too early and gets tagged for 35 yards.

One thing they do in that situation is the receivers are very good at coming back to the ball to create the interference. They do it all the time. It's just another example of how extraordinarily well coached and prepared they are. Late in the game yesterday, on the play that Gilmore made the great leaping defense of the throw, the receiver didn't do what the Pats' receivers do. He kept running downfield to make the over-the-shoulder catch if the ball got through. It was the wrong play. Put on the breaks, go up for the ball and Gilmore runs right into you. Even though Gilmore clearly was playing the ball, the receiver gets the interference call on that play every time. The receiver allowed Gilmore to make the play instead of taking the penalty.

I like Mayfield and if the Bills don't sign Cousins I hope it will just as you say. I don't think Mayfield will last to 21. Trading up to 12 or 15 would be okay. He has more upside than Cousins but more downside. Cousins involves less risk.

It's all about whether he's top 10 or not, and I get that people disagree. But if he is top 10, then someone will pay upwards of 30 AND IT WILL BE THE RIGHT DECISION. It may not work out, in which case you have a cap problem for a while, but if he's good but not at the top of the league, the fact that you're paying him $5 million more than he should get doesn't matter. He has more impact on the game than the two guys you'd get for that $5 million. One thing is sure - he's getting a big deal. Romo's a good comparison. Cousins has comparable stats for Romo's early years. Carr looked pretty weak sometimes this season. I wouldn't be too quick to bet on him. It's not an easy call.

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.