dave mcbride

"Cash Still Rules/Scary Hours" is a song by Wu-Tang Clan. Maybe the Jets/Giants are involved.

Did you mock Stefon Diggs last year? 😉

I think LB is basically the equivalent of RB on defense—some are obviously better than others, but there’s a dime-a-dozen quality to LBs and they can be found up and down the draft. The three first team all-pro LBs this year were drafted after the first round: Warner (3rd), Leonard (2nd), and Wagner (2nd). On the second team, Demario Davis was a mid-3rd rounder and Lavonte David was a late second rounder. Devin White and Roquan Smith were first rounders, but looking at all pro teams over the years, there are lots of mid-round guys.

Olivier Vernon tore his achilles at the end of the 2020 season. Short is basically done. He is 32 and has played 5 games in the past two seasons.

Remember Bryant McKinney dominating Dwight Freeney in a Canes-Syracuse game their final years? People here were opposed to drafting Freeney because of that, and Freeney ended up being 10 times the player that McKinney was in the pros. People seem to not recall that the most disruptive pass rusher McDermott ever coached was Greg Hardy. But maybe he learned a lesson from that ... PS: Update on Hardy — https://catcrave.com/2020/11/01/carolina-panthers-greg-hardy-path-ufc-superstardom-continues/

I was not impressed by Hurts this year. I also could care less about 300 yard games; Gardner Minshew had two in his first season, as did Nick Freakin' Mullens. Christ, Mullens threw for over 400 yards in 1 game in his rookie season. Yet both of those guys are career backups who were also clearly inferior players to the Josh Allen of 2019. Anyway, I really question Hurts's accuracy. I doubt the Eagles see him as the answer either, but they're kinda stuck because they're not going to get a qb they want at the #6 slot.

I wouldn't confuse action with a lot of what happens in a basketball, hockey, or soccer game. A lot of what you see is time-serving while gearing up for a run of some sort and which is usually a set-piece design. It's not so different from players running back to the huddle and doing motion before a play, diagnosing a defense, or faking blitzes. Anyway, football is a short-burst sport in which players pretty much max out for the duration of any given play. It's also a set-piece sport; it just doesn't have a lot of free-floating, nebulous play between the bursts (i.e., soccer). That's not a criticism of these sports, really, and I respect anyone who prefers other sports to the NFL. As for your point that a higher percentage of NFL fans aren't fans of the sport, well, maybe it's because there are so goddamn many of them--largely because it's so entertaining. Non-fans of baseball/basketball/hockey simply don't watch because they find it boring for whatever reason. As you know, the NFL isn't just bigger than other sports in terms of popularity; it utterly dwarfs them.

@GunnerBill, Daniel Jeremiah has Newsome going the Colts with the #21 pick. Corners always seem to go higher than expected, I think in part because there are metrics out there showing that elite CBs are more valuable than elite edge rushers. https://www.nfl.com/news/daniel-jeremiah-2021-nfl-mock-draft-2-0-saints-select-drew-brees-heir-apparent Note that he says that "teams" (as in multiple) are very high on Newsome.

I think the NFL is uniquely watchable and tailored for spectatorship. It has a strategy system that is at once more complex--with a lot of variation too--than other sports yet ironically more immediately decipherable to the average television-watching fan. It is also visually more compelling in that speed really does matter a lot given the size of the field (compare it to a basketball court). Like baseball, the scoring in the goldilocks zone too - a 28-24 game is effectively a 4-3.5 game. Hockey is mostly unwatchable to me despite the fact that I watched a lot of it growing up. I simply can't follow the puck well on television, and have to always rely on the replay. That's always been the sport's problem despite the fact that the scoring is close to ideal (soccer is the opposite; a 2-score lead is basically insurmountable). I am a huge baseball fan, but I find it hard to watch teams that I don't have a rooting interest in. It's not that it's boring (although I understand why some feel that way); it's that the games are far, far too long, and the league has refused to do anything about it until recently. The parade of relievers was the equivalent of the free-throw fest in the NBA. The NBA has so many problems I don't know where to begin. Let's start with home court advantage though -- the home team has the greatest advantage in all of the four major sports, yet given that the court dimensions and weather are the same everywhere, you'd think it'd be the opposite. The reason? NBA reffing. Everyone complains about refs/umps in every sport, but in the NBA it is absolutely merited. Also, the star system that the refs enforce is a joke--it is FAR worse than it is in any other sport. Secondly, and this is just me, but goals are WAY too cheap. A typical NBA game is essentially something like 51-46. That is, each side is basically scoring close to 50 goals. That's why people say that you really only need to watch the last five minutes of a game; it's not as if you're missing a bunch of great-but-rare scoring plays. Finally, the foul shot marathons at the ends of every game plus the seemingly countless number of timeouts that coaches have really ruin it as entertainment. Compare it to football, where the final two minutes are either awesome entertainment or a thankfully quick euthanization of the opponent via a clock rundown. My favorite sport to play growing up was basketball, and it's not like I hate the sport. I just think it's lousy entertainment. I don't know what they can do to fix it. One option is going back to the old 3-to-make-2 foul shot rule they had in the late 70s but only putting it into effect for the final two minutes. Ultimately, penalties in the NBA result in a lot of plays that aren't actually basketball plays: open set shots from the free throw line. Committing penalties in other sports like hockey or football is never intended to shift the game from an action-oriented sports activity to something that is akin to playing darts. The incessant shifting from sports to non-sports activities in what are supposed to be a basketball game's climactic moments is just bad game design.

What I think people are missing about Brady is that more than any QB in the league ever, he has answers. Whatever you throw at him—especially in meaningful games—he’ll figure it out and make the right decisions. Josh Allen, for instance, clearly isn’t there yet. To be sure, Brady isn’t perfect every game. He’ll occasionally even lose a playoff game. But in terms of diagnosing and exploiting what’s in front of him, no QB compares. As for physical attributes, they’re certainly good enough. He can make every throw even if his arm doesn’t compare to those of Allen, Rodgers, and Mahomes. One of the great myths of our era is that Aaron Rodgers is somehow the GOAT. He is a phenomenal QB, but too often doesn’t have the answers in big games.

I really don't get not putting Brady in the top 5. Let me ask you this: who do you want starting as your QB in a playoff game? Brady or Rodgers? Brady or Wilson? Brady or Watson? I know who I'm picking in every instance, and it's not even close. Brady raises the game of everyone else around him in a way that's unique in NFL history. I prefer Watson to Tannehill, but the latter decidedly does not suck. He is a good QB.

From the OED, here is literally all you need to know (see the end especially; subscription is required and I can't embed the sound links): Pronunciation: Brit. Hear pronunciation/ˈɒf(ə)n/, Hear pronunciation/ˈɒft(ə)n/, U.S. Hear pronunciation/ˈɔf(ə)n/, Hear pronunciation/ˈɑft(ə)n/ Forms: Middle English offen, Middle English offtyn, Middle English oftin, Middle English ofton, Middle English oftun, Middle English oftyn, Middle English oftyne, Middle English ouften, Middle English– often, 1500s hofen, 1500s hoften, 1500s offten, 1900s– affin (Irish English), 1900s– aften (Irish English); Scottish pre-1700 ofen, pre-1700 oftin, pre-1700 1700s– aften, pre-1700 1700s– often, 1800s af'en, 1800s– affen. Comparative Middle English oftynar, Middle English oftynner, Middle English– oftener, 1600s ofner, 1600s–1700s oftner, 1700s offner, 1700s off'ner; also Scottish pre-1700 oftner, pre-1700 oiftner, pre-1700 1700s– aftener, 1900s– af'ner. Superlative 1500s oftnest, 1500s oftneste, 1600s– oftenest, 1700s oft'nest; also Scottish 1900s– aftenest. (Show Less) Origin: Formed within English, by derivation. Etymons: English ofte , oft adv., -(e)n. Etymology: < ofte, variant of oft adv. + -(e)n, probably after selden, variant of seldom adv. and adj. Often is less commonly used than oft until the 16th cent. Several orthoepists of the 16th and 17th centuries, including Hart, Bullokar, Robinson, Gil, and Hodges, give a pronunciation with medial -t- . Others, including Coles, Young, Strong, and Brown, record a pronunciation without -t- , which, despite its use in the 16th cent. by Elizabeth I, seems to have been avoided by careful speakers in the 17th cent. (see E. J. Dobson Eng. Pronunc. 1500–1700 (ed. 2, 1968) II. §405). Loss of t after f occurs in other cases; compare soften v., and also raft n.1, haft n.1, etc. The pronunciation with -t- has frequently been considered to be hypercorrection in recent times: see for example H. W. Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage (1926), s.v. N.E.D. (1902) records the pronunciation (ǫ̀·f'n) /ˈɒf(ə)n/, /ˈɔːf(ə)n/ (see etymological note s.v. O n.1).

52 degrees and an 8 mph wind in that game.

Rivers could make all of the throws. He just looks weird doing it. https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2019/01/10/philip-rivers-throwing-motion-shot-put

We're talking about backups. He's better than most options out there. Take a look at the backup situation around the NFL.

The TV contracts aren't done and the projections about 2021 gate revenues are very hard to project at this point.

I don’t know what NE will do regarding Newton. No one is being signed by anyone right now because teams won’t know what the salary cap will be for a couple more weeks. That is driving everything right now. It all comes to tv contracts and projected gate revenues. The former will be based on real contracts to be signed soon, and the latter is a crapshoot.

The NE defense was below average (27th in defensive DVOA) and they went 7-8 with him at QB. His PFF AV was 12, which is very solid. He had 10 picks to go along with 8 TD passes and 13 rushing and receiving TDs. He completed 66 percent of his passes. That is the very definition of a better than average backup, and he’d actually be a huge upgrade for the Bills (who aren’t going to sign him). What you want from a backup qb is a guy who can get you to 2-2 over a 4-game stretch when your starter separates a shoulder or pulls a hamstring. He can do that for you. Matt Barkley cannot. There is a lot of hate for Newton on this board, and I can’t understand why. Is it the clothes? The interviews? If it is, all I have to say is who gives a crap about that stuff? He is by no means a good starting QB. But he is without a doubt a top 40 QB in the NFL still despite the shoulder injury that reduced from a well-above average QB (on a near-MVP pace in 2018 up to midseason that year) to what he is now. Famous last words. We shall see.

He is better than most backup qbs in the NFL. Fitzpatrick will be starting somewhere. There aren't 32 QBs who are better than him. The Bills can't afford him.

Actually, that's not its origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

How does a list of the top 50 free agents not project anyone signing with the Patriots? The Patriots have a TON of cap space and have a fairly strong record of impact signings over the course of the Belichick era: Gilmore, Revis, Rodney Harrison, Seau, Adalius Thomas, and Roosevelt Colvin (plus others like Shawn Springs). $5 million for a better-than-average backup isn't that crazy at all. That's what Newton is at this point. He's more likely to win you a game than, say, Matt Barkley.

The Browns made good defensive plays because they were prepared against a predictable qb. Turnovers usually aren't flukes. Some are, but in that game, outside of the first one the others weren't. The better team won.

I suspect it’s in Australia.

Yeah, but don’t teams with really good won-loss records sacrifice plays because they grind out the clock late? The chargers had a good offense AND usually lost, so they’re the perfect example of a team overdetermined to have a high offensive play count. 7 of the top 9 teams failed to have winning records. https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/nfl-team-with-the-most-offensive-plays-per-game-this-season

I’ve heard of this guy named Reggie White ... Seriously, you gotta think that event is looming over the conversations in GB.