y2zipper

The situation is crazy because Wentz is largely a guy with franchise type upside who's been pretty excellent for three out of the four years he was starting in Philadelphia, but we're seeing more and more signs at the organization is actually quite a mess. The offensive line is bad, the skill position players are bad, and it became obvious that the type of offensive play calling that Doug Peterson is comfortable with was very limited. Carson had a down year, but it is very much a statistical anomaly by any measure and Philadelphia's roster decline is a very big contributor to that. He got sacked on 10% of his dropbacks. That isn't just holding on to the ball too long, even if his career rating that category is a little high. We've seen plenty of franchise quarterbacks have those. Eli Manning and Philip Rivers are the best two examples of quarterbacks having down here sometimes, but smart organizations are stable and stick it out because player progression is not 100% linear all the time. I thinks it's likely that Philadelphia likes hurts that much, but from what I've seen just eye testing it he struggled in drop back to pass situations as much as Wentz did because of poor protection, bad receivers and learning reads. From a trade perspective, Chicago and Indianapolis are the two teams that obviously make sense. The argument I make for Chicago is that if I'm the GM there and I'm on the hot seat, getting something in between 2018 and 2019 Wentz which is where I would project, can make the team competitive and prevent me from getting fired. if it doesn't work I'm fired anyway so they aren't my draft picks. Chicago has a really good defense and the Packers look a little vulnerable if you get some quarterback play. Indianapolis and Chicago are both very good candidates for teams that should look at something like moving for Wentz or garoppolo or carr if they become seriously available because they need quarterback upgrades and have a lot of other stuff in place already.

There's a lot that goes these discussions. I think the value of a first round pick is that it's a hedge against the parity engine that is the NFL and the more towards the future we look, the more it is true. Like if you have a year like San Francisco where a lot of unlikely things happen and you miss the postseason, you get access to more of those premium picks. My general take is that it's a sure sign that your front office is bad if management can't hit 50 percent on first rounders. Getting a contributor every 2 years isn't hard for competent teams. The success rate in the first is 50-53 percent by most measures and goes down as the draft goes on. Teams are not going to get all pros all the time, but you can get a five year starter at reduced cost a little more than half the time. It's the only access to cost controlled premium talent and the chances of picking a success go down as the draft goes on. Even the Patriots have gotten contributors with 2 of their last 3. The argument I would make is that they just haven't used enough of them. Excluding QB, we have seen teams successfully trade 1 immediate first round pick for a premium talent. Kansas City did it for Clark, Buffalo did for Diggs, Indianapolis did it for Buckner, etc... Making a well timed move when you can reasonably predict a season works sometimes. Where it gets dicey is when we start talking more than one. We've seen Kahlil Mack, Jamal Adams, and Marcus Peters go for more than one first rounder the past few years and it's hard to argue that any of these deals worked. Trading multiple firsts to acquire franchise quarterback is more acceptable. With the Rams specifically, my issue with this trade is that I just don't subscribe to their view of where their team is. When the Rams played in the Super Bowl in 2018, they had the healthiest and best offensive line in the league, a downfield vertical threatened Cooks in addition to their other good receivers, and they had a dynamic running back in Gurley. Over the past two seasons we've seen the interior of the line decline, and we haven't seen the same downfield passing production because Robert woods and Cooper kupp aren't vertical threats and because they haven't grabbed a running back that can make up Gurleys production. Goff's play has gone up and down as the surrounding talent has gone up and down and while I think Stafford is a little better, he is the type of quarterback that's going to take what's closer to a low level playoff team and turn it into a Super Bowl team.

I would like whatever the Mariota is better than car crowd is smoking because that take is objectively terrible. I think it's going to take five or six first to get Watson and the reason why Carr doesn't just get moved for him is because Houston wants draft picks as opposed to players. Stafford just moved for two first round picks and Carr is better than Stafford and 3 years younger. Two first round picks for Carris a deal that makes sense if your Chicago or if your San Francisco and you are currently looking to upgrade that position. That deal is in realistic for the Broncos because they're in the same division.

I forgot about Chip Kelly, but I think that's fair. As far as McDermott goes, he's 46 and I think he will be here as long as he wants. I Iake to the Steelers philosophy that you don't fire people who are good.

This looks like fun so I'll give it a try. Obviously the most likely to start a new quarterback is going to be Jacksonville starting Trevor Lawrence after they pick him first. The most likely one and done is in Philadelphia, because their organization manages its team like fans and their last two head coaches have played in the Super Bowl and they fired both. Say what you will about Detroit and Atlanta, but we know ownership there is going to give their guys plenty of time. I will choose Urban Meyer for the most likely to make the playoffs, mostly because the AFC South is not a great division. Houston is a mess, Indianapolis does not have a quarterback and Tennessee has tannehill. Trevor Lawrence coming in as a rookie is a better situation than the other two. None of these guys are going to coach the bills because McDermott's going to be here for quite a while. The most likely to win coach of the year is the Chargers, simply because they should improve with health given the talent base. I'd say the same thing about most likely Super Bowl win.

I do think that the Rams operate with this type of interest grab in mind, but the Chargers basically don't have a fan base here and are a destination city for road teams and play in division with Mahomes.

It's a lot of risk for the Rams because with Seattle and SF, you could still be a 3rd place type operation in the NFC West. It looks like either a misguided attempt at going for it in a short window or a splash trade more than something well thought out or a significant increase in talent. Statistically over the past 5 years I'm not even sure that Stafford and Goff are even that far apart aside from volume, but Stafford has never played in a big enough game to be put under that microscope like Goff. The situation around Goff in LA has been declining quite a bit since 2018 and that team and coach have been living on the perception of the 2018 team for the past couple seasons. Goff hasn't really gotten better or worse than he was, but the rushing offense from 2018 is way down and the Rams don't have receivers that scare anyone vertically. You can trace the decline in their offense to losing Gurley, their line aging a little and the lack of resources they've put into their skill position players. The short version of what's happening here is that it's like Chip Kelly: the Rams put their offensive eggs in the basket that McVay could make a lot out of less talent at WR and RB, and it hasn't proven as true as everyone thinks. They're scapegoating Goff here because they've put so many resources into the defensive side of the ball that there's nothing left for the offense.

I agree here. The value proposition on Watson is that he's probably worth five or six first-round picks and then some if elite defensive players and elite receivers are going for two. If Houston decides to move Watson it means they're blowing it up and with the trade request coming in they can make that decision if they want. The important thing is that they get full value in return, and in that sense the only currency that they should really want is draft picks so they can build up a young roster and keep cap space free.

The hot coordinator with a great scheme pipeline seems dead and buried with this cycle. The hires are one college, two assistant coaches with no coordinator experience, three defensive coordinators and only two offensive coordinators when offensive guys were like 4 of the 6.

My initial inclination here is that Kansas City wins this one going away. Andy Reid is the best in the league coming off a bye and there's an inconsistency to Tampa that I just don't like for them here.

Looking at the postseason as a whole, Buffalo didn't look like the team that was going to be able to score a bunch of points, especially after the Indianapolis game. The conversation about the mix is interesting, but I think Buffalo is going to have to move more in the other direction if they want to successfully beat Kansas City. I think the right way to play defense against them is to use soft coverage to protect from big plays and make tackles underneath because a shorter game gives anyone a better opportunity to beat them. Buffalo however it does not have a complimentary offense right now to play that way and building some balance and would help them become a better team. As an example, I have seen buffalo have a functional run game about two times this year in the 19 games that they have played. The team really needs to focus on adding a run game or some kind of high percentage short game to move the chains consistently more in the postseason. During the regular year we saw Buffalo beat a lot of teams playing quickly and trying to score a lot of points. But nobody is beat Kansas City in a year and a half trying to play that way.

What's crazy is that everybody ripped Frank Reich going for it and not getting it in the Bills game for exactly the same reason that McDermott decided to take the three. if we're taking the hindsight call that game is over at 21 to 9 anyway because Buffalo didn't get another stop and they were overmatched so in the end we are analyzing decisions that probably don't matter. In the context of the actual game at the end of the first half, you do have to make that morale call because it's irresponsible to try and put the game on the line there at the end of the first half.

Interesting insight as always, @Shaw66. To an extent I like my press conferences dull. It correlates with being a well-round organization and having stability. McDermott just doesn't going to come out and publicly criticize people but he does have degrees and non degrees of praise that he uses to describe what happens and generally speaking, the more specific he is the more he likes it.

I think they have to go big game hunting in the pass rush because the draft just doesn't have anything there.

I would keep Milano for the 8 to 10 million a year but I would have to let him walk if he's going to try to get paid like an elite pass pressure because he's not. ...and I think doing the longer term value extension for Edmunds is a no-brainer largely because of the age curve. He's a baby, but the issues on buffalo's defense are not at linebacker.

I think too many injuries at the same position group is hard to overcome no matter what. We've seen that a lot this year with covid. There aren't replacements for Buffalo's top four receivers sitting out on the street. This year it ended up being a compound problem because there wasn't another aspect of offense to fall back on. if anything they did a pretty good job of hiding it to win two playoff games.

The rebuttal here of course is that the 2020 class is very good and buffalo brought in a star with the first pick, even though it was a trade. I'm also not sure that anybody in the league is better at finding Stars than anybody else. Although I also think with the culture reaching maturity and the window being open that now is the time where you can take a chance or two on a character issue guy, which is not something this team could have even looked at over the past 3 years. This opens the door for bringing in some Stars from other teams whether it's through free agency or through trade.

It's definitely a very good attempt at context and makes the results make sense to me, too. The only weird one for me is New Orleans, but that isn't a team that I watch a whole lot closely because of where I live. Largely Buffalo fell short is that when they change their defensive line rotation the players they signed to play those positions didn't work out very well. So in my mind I'm also thinking that the value of the quarterback position sort of tilts that towards teams that drafted Herbert and Burrow so you'd expect to see those teams at the top of a draft value chart for 2020.

The risk associated with building around a few high profile players and lacking depth is that you become the Rams. Once a few guys get beat up, you don't have players and you lose. That being said, there is very much a need for spending money on the defensive line because there's a Super Bowl window and it's right now. They just need a more consistent pass rush with the front four elevate that defense. It was something they got with the rotation last year and something they lost when that rotation went away and guys got older. I'm very much in favor of the sort of reallocation of money described here. Cut the medium size contracts that save money and use that money to bring in an impact player or two and some depth.

The point here is that White Allen Edmunds, Milano, and Dawkins is better than most teams have done the past 3 years. 2019 stands out is not quite as good as the other classes, but Buffalo's 2020 class has proven to be really good so far. It just takes more time to stack the roster. To get to a spot where Kansas City is, you still have to add about another 3 or 4 years of extracting value and buffalo drafted incredibly poorly from 2014 to 2016. Kansas City drafted Eric Fisher and Travis kelce in 2013, for example.

Well Tampa has the best run defense in the league, but I digress. The issues we saw today were season long. The offense is one dimensional and KC is an overmatch for every defense 2 years running now. On defense, the pass rush has to improve at getting home. Buffalo actually blitzes quite a bit (8th in blitz percent), but they're 27th in hurry percent and 20th in QB knockdown percent. It's an average sack team that doesn't consistently get there. It's tweaks, not overhaul. Improve the pass rush, bring balance to the offense and go try again.

On defense the issue is you're playing Kansas City. They've been doing this for 14 months save the part of the game where Mahomes sat out last week. They have scored on all of their possessions except 2 with Mahomes in the playoffs. The correct gameplan against them is to make them go underneath and shorten the game to try to get a shot at winning, but the offense didn't do its part today so the shot at winning wasn't there. The issue on offense is that it's too one dimensional. If the receivers don't get open, it doesn't work. It also appears that 3 of the 4 guys aren't healthy. In the postseason one dimensional teams can be shut down. We saw that vs the Ravens. The priority has to be bringing some balance into the offense.

Well after this year they get out of . murphy butler and jefferson so some of these expensive d line contracts are going away and the opportunity to upgrade is there. They definitely need to bring some balance to the offense and improve the pass rush though.

Yeah you really need ball control offense. KC got a 21 nothing run because Buffalo punted twice in 2 minutes in the 2nd and it was 21-9.

The defensive scheme was correct but offensively Buffalo was too one-dimensional this year. The only gameplan that works against the Chiefs is to shorten the game, but Buffalo didn't have the offense to do it this season because they can't run.