The Red King

No. He has key drops at the worst time. I don't care if someone has a 99% catch rate and 90 yrd avg per catch if they keep dropping the ones we desperately need and never fights for contested balls.

This is like going with your dad to the dealership for your first car, pointing to one, going "OMG, that one is amazing! I just gotta have that one, dad!" and leaving your poor dad to try and negotiate a deal with the salesman who just overheard everything.

Weren't people already saying last off-season that Davis would obviously improve his drop-rate issues this past season? 🤔

Again, a player is not a suit. It is not set at a fixed price and available to walk in and buy at any time. If, say, Hopkins simply did not want to play in Buffalo for some reason, there is literally nothing Beane could do to get him here. Should he be fired for that, should that happen?

There is a player involved in the process. You can't just say "Look, I'm a great GM so you're gonna join MY team and for THIS much money!". Also, the salary cap is a thing. If your post was sarcastic, then I apologize. It does seem over the top.

So...people are really fighting over which rumor reporter is more credible in this case? Well, this rumor is true because this guy...but no, your guy is a hack, so my guy's rumor must be true, not yours.

Danggit, was going to say the same thing. XD

I might be remembering wrong, but was NE's QB a serious power running threat?

Never said he was this big game-changer. Just saying if he can do what Josh can do, then defenses will be forced to respect that and deploy a defense that can defend against both, rather then focus strictly on Josh. It's like having a superstar defensive end paired with a sub-par end. The O-Line can double-team all day with no fear. Now, pair that same star with a good/great end and it becomes a problem. Yes, the star will be getting most of the attention, but the other end will need to be at least respected, and can go on a tear if not given enough attention.

Why not both? Seriously, it's nicer to have two options in that situation so the opposing defense can't just focus 11 players and 3 cheerleaders on Josh.

We needed a back that can pound it in from short range. We got one, and didn't burn a draft pick on him. Our O-Line still needs shoring up, we need a MLB and a WR2. We also could really use anything resembling a pass rush from someone who's initials are not VM. The more holes we fill now, the fewer we'll have in the draft and the more selective we can be with our picks. I like this signing.

Let me sum this up. OP maintained that any and all current negative feelings and evaluations are the direct result of the Cincy game and only the Cincy game. The replies here prove that as patently false. A lot of people here saw and spoke about the cracks in the foundation, and were blasted for pointing them out.

Beane is likely just patiently waiting for OBJ's other options to dry up so he can swoop in with a cheap prove-it deal.

Remember, some posters started pointing these out as early as the GB game. Those same posters got laughed and yelled at, with the familiar mantra of...well, we're 10-3, 11-3...and so on, as if having that record had to mean we were flawless. And the things those posters were pointing out as concerns were the exact same things Cincy used to wreck us. So no, in a number of cases people are not basing their own opinions on one game. They saw it coming and got shouted down for speaking up.

Give Mahomes the Buffalo "Red Carpet" O-line and then we can fairly compare him to Allen.

His hands weren't tied. He could have mentioned his top 3 and include his old QB. He chose not to. I think that's why some people are salty. It's not the "#3", it's the intentional omission.

Again, for the hundredth time...Frazier gets more flak because he's been around a lot longer and has a greater volume of work to hold against him. The Bengals game was far from his first playoff disaster. Nobody thinks the offense was fine, but it was helmed by a first year OC.

PSA for the day, yelling and insulting does not in any way make you right. We're all being calm, while you're going on like you pounded a Red Bull after dumping ten Pixie Sticks in. Try to keep it civil, please. That aside, most, if not all of us think there is nothing wrong with Lamar chasing the $$$. Given the Watson deal he's well within his right. I think we're looking at it wrong. There may well be collusion, but are they colluding against Jackson, or against contracts like Watson's? In other words were it another QB looking for the same contract, would this still be playing out the same way? I believe so. If Jackson were asking for a normal, reasonable contract, would he still be looking for work? Of course not. The owners are colluding against contracts like Watson's, not against Lamar.

Then how does it work? I mean, I can say "Your nonsense argument isn't how it works" and instantly invalidate your arguments just as much as you did mine. Sorry, rebuffing a point requires an actual counter-argument, not a simple "Nu-uh!" I'm not defending the owners. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the argument that since a single owner did something stupid, a precedent is somehow now set and owners are required to follow suit or it's "collusion". If 3-4 QBs got similar contracts, then yeah. That is an established pattern. This is not. So again, I challenge you to actually argue against my example instead of trying to handwave it away. I predict you won't, and try to cover your inability to do so with hostile and condecending language. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

By extension, if a team was stupid enough to give a QB 99% of its cap space, and had to fill the remaining roster with rookie salaries and vet minimums, would other teams then be required to do so because a precedent had been set? Of course not. The Watson deal is unique, and as such cannot constitute a pattern to collude against.

Injuries did not cause Frazier to be unable to make adjustments. We got lit up in the first Bengals game, yet he proudly stated he was stayng with the plan...and then got shredded twice more before Cincy took their foot off the gas.

It was the OC's first year. The DC, not so much. They looked terrible both sides of the ball. But it wasn't Frazier's first playoff failure.

Frazier stubbornly stuck to his plans. He showed no ability or desire to adapt. When the plan worked it resulted in elite play. 13-3. When the scheme was figured out or simply outplayed they got wrecked as he just refused to adjust. 13 seconds. Bengals game, when he got torched for almost two full drives and didn't change a thing for the playoff game. He's a great DC, who can gameplan well and get the most out of his talent. However, his critical fault is being unable to adjust if his scheme is overcome. In a playoff system where one loss eliminates you, we're going to get tripped up somewhere each time, be it a collapse like 13 seconds, or a beatdown like the Bengals game.

I worried about him playing through that injury, and thinking he maybe should have rested several games. That I'd be happier seeing them go in as a Wild Card with a healthy Allen then I would a top seed with an injured Allen.

Rams vs. Saints NFC Championship game would disagree with you.