dave mcbride

Allen barking at the refs instead of focusing on the play was the lowlight of the half for me. Almost got himself completely creamed as a consequence.

I think most of the good NFL QBs are not flame throwers, and nor do they need to be. It's generally OK to simply be good enough as long as you have the other key skills and attributes (e.g., Payton Manning and Drew Brees). There are some places where it does help (Buffalo, which has the windiest stadium in the league, and where weak armed QBs have struggled), but most NFL games aren't played in Buffalo. But I don't think anyone is saying that velocity alone is impressive when judged within the broader context of productivity; only that Josh Allen has a freakin' cannon. Which he does.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/10/27/nfl-braces-for-billion-dollar-exposure-in-st-louis-litigation/

Badol, he literally threw 66.14 at the senior bowl. Do your research. The difference between 60 and 66 is the difference between 100 and 92 in baseball — i.e., massive. Also, actually read what i wrote about his baseball velocity. He grew a ton after that measurement. C’mon! Be a better reader. Your baseball comment given the context is beneath you.

The one thing I'll say about Allen regarding "physically gifted" is that he appears to have the strongest arm in NFL history and it ain't even close. He has the combine record for velocity (62 mph) and was clocked at an unheard-of 66.14 mph at the senior bowl (60 is extremely high). There is even a story out there of him hitting 74 mph in a game. He was throwing 91 as a HS pitcher and grew 3+ inches and put on 50 pounds (a lot of muscle) AFTER his senior year in HS. We're talking Chapman-level with regard to arm strength. But he's also an elite athlete for a QB. He's not Lamar Jackson, but he's probably the best combo of mobile and strong in the league irrespective of the ridiculous arm talent. That's why folks say he's the most physically gifted QB ever. As for touch, yeah, there's a physical element to it, but it's also mental. We're not talking about mental here. Rather, we're talking stark, raw animal power. I've never seen anyone like him in that respect.

I remember an old "notes from camp" story from Pro Football Weekly shortly after the Bills opened camp in 2009. The scuttlebutt was that Aaron Maybin looked horrible and like a guy who was incapable of succeeding in the NFL. People here ripped the piece because it was so early in his career, but in retrospect it was spot on: it was evident from the get-go that he couldn't compete against NFL players.

In a two-year window, Boston had 2,754 receiving yards, 16.3 ypc, 15 TDs, and 169 receptions.

Speaking of tight ends, I just found out that Tommy Sweeney went to Don Bosco High School in NJ: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/sports/12preps.html.

Wow, Justin Fields is being sacked at a 14.4 percent rate. That is awful. He is looking like a bust, although it's early. 14.4 percent is unacceptable -- RJ level. The Bears QBs were sacked at a 5.5% rate last season and Dalton has been sacked at half the rate of Fields. So a lot of it is just him. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/10/25/justin-fields-taking-sacks-like-no-other-quarterback-in-the-nfl/

They have a very tough schedule the rest of the way. They could easily go 6-11. Wentz is looking good now; as good as Rivers was last year. He is a different player than the guy who was awful for Philly last season. He has a rating of 102.8 and the lowest INT rate in the league.

I am guessing you are not a frequenter of Chicago Bears fan boards.

Good question about Trubisky. I think he's a lot more talented physically than Keenum and Bridgewater, and he really wasn't that bad in Chicago (but he wasn't great). We'll see. Guys like Bridgewater and Keenum are ideal backups in that they can get you to 2-2 over a 4-game stretch. But they shouldn't be starters even though over long careers there is a solid chance they'll have that one unicorn season (e.g.,Fitz in 2015; Keenum in 2017; Steve DeBerg in 1990 for the Chiefs). But if you're an evaluator, you gotta know that their manifest limitations mean that they're very unlikely to replicate it. DeBerg was genuinely good in 1990 and the Chiefs went 11-5 (they were good the next year too but not because of his peformance). But this is a guy overall who played from 1978-1998 and finished 53-86-1 as a starter. Fitz is basically the same player: 59-87-1 over 17 seasons so far.

Agreed. With Aaron Rodgers, I feel like 25-30 seconds is enough time to get into position for an attempted TD pass. And every kicker in the NFL now is capable of making a 50+ yard kick with regularity. Times have definitely changed.

He got a career extension as a starter because of that run as a starter on an elite-talent team in NO, but he is NOT a capable starting QB. He is now in Steve DeBerg territory—as Bill Walsh once said about the latter, he’s good enough to get you fired.

That was my thought too. The Browns can literally roll any street free agent out there and expect to gain 150 on the ground. This. They are decent pass blockers, to be fair.

Oh sure, it can definitely happen. But there’s a reason the Bills went to a bunch of SBs in the early 1990s. Home field advantage was a real thing. They did beat Miami and Pitt on the road in the 1992-1993 season, but every other game in that run was a home game. They beat a very talented Raiders team in 1993 mostly because Kelly was good in the cold and the temperature was like -8 degrees. If that game had been in Oakland, I think the Bills would have lost. The Raiders mostly matched up well vs. the Bills in those years outside of the 1990 championship game. Anyway, you want home field advantage.

The other thing that people forget is that in these situations, teams get four plays to make ten yards, not three (there are no punts), and if you don't inflict a negative play, it's a lot easier for them to get it. Given how accurate NFL QBs are now and the rules regarding defensive holding/PI, if you can block four and your QB can hit his targets (someone will always be open), you can march right down the field.

That was a very strange game and a bit more complicated than this characterization. Baltimore had 29 first downs to TN's 15 and outyarded TN 530-300. Those are huge disparities. They lost because of turnovers, basically, but they dominated between the 20s. Baltimore was also 0-4 on fourth down.

Ask yourself this: would you rather face the Ravens in KC, the Titans in Nashville, the Chiefs in Arrowhead, or any of those three in a freezing, snowy game with a 20-30 mph wind in Orchard Park for which you can prepare for outside during the week? The answer to me is crushingly obvious.

On the sack play on the second last posession, Sanders was wide open for 15-20 yard gain.

I liked this passage: 'All those factors have amplified offensive success at the end of games. Defenses now must adjust. Paganetti predicted defenses may grow more aggressive, sending an extra rusher to mitigate the lack of pass rush from tired defensive linemen. For years, coordinators have been loath to blitz in two-minute situations so as not to risk giving up a big play. This year’s offensive success shows there may be just as much risk in playing traditionally. “If I was a defensive coordinator in the NFL today and I had a competent quarterback, I would stop playing prevent defenses,” Eager said. “The worst thing that could happen to you is the other team scores. And the other team is going to score on you anyway. I would play aggressively and try to force a turnover or force a long-yardage situation. “Having possession of the ball has never been more valuable in the NFL. If you’re going to give up a score, the upside is to have possession of the ball. The upside is to lean on the bad intuition of teams that will score too early.”'

It's pretty remarkable how much teams are more likely to score in such situations than in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/20/nfl-game-winning-drives-two-minutes/

Blitzing in manageable down-and-distance situations on third down against a vet qb who gets rid of it quickly doesn't work. Brady's stats in those situations are off the charts, which is why teams stopped doing it ages ago. Tannehill is a good QB and will make teams who do that pay.

And if you're in, say, a 3rd and 4 or 5 and know the LBs have to account for Henry, then quick throws for firsts on crossing routes are really easy to execute. Pitch and catch, basically. A blitz can't do anything against them.