dave mcbride

If he said it, it's a problem, even if he was joking.

It is part of a thread, and Fromm allegedly says that guns are good (not a problem), that he should be allowed to get suppressors (silencers), and that they should make suppressors expensive enough so that only elite white people could get them. The response is basically "Wtf, you think you're elite? Look at your profile picture." If legit - and I am not saying it is - it's super-problematic for the obvious reasons, but also because Fromm has painted himself as Bible-quoting devout Christian whose hobby is praying. (I'm not making the last part up). https://sportsspectrum.com/sport/football/2019/08/30/georgia-qb-jake-fromm-follows-god-embraces-pressure-as-he-chases-elusive-title/

It's pretty simple and doesn't require translating.

It's a top trender on twitter right now ...

He basically took the Pats out of the hunt last season by taking away their annual bye week.

He never really recovered from the leg muscle tear he suffered in OT vs. the Bengals early in the 2003 season. It took a couple of tenths of a second off of his 40 time.

The Jets did one thing and one thing only in that game: completely choke away a game they had in the bag. Darnold's situation pales in comparison to that.

Um ... Emmanuel Sanders is a REALLY good player who has had a terrific career.

I was one. To be fair, I had no idea that the planar dimensions section of the Dungeons & Dragons core rulebook was basically his guide for living.

We have two cats and I love them. I like dogs too.

Agree 1,000 percent on this. I think both were done with the situation they had been in for 20 years. I don't think it's ego at all with Belichick. He's the smartest, most creative coach in history, and I simply think he wants a new challenge before he's all done. Doing the same thing over and over doesn't hold much appeal for a coach in the twilight of a legendary career.

I think Fromm is a poor man’s Mason Rudolph, and I’m not sure he’s any better than Barkley. As a developmental backup qb, the issue is whether down the road he can get you to 2-2 as opposed to 1-3/0-4 when/if Allen goes down with a short term injury. No idea there. I think an OG plus an investment in. Case Keenum type would have been wiser. I’m not much of a fan of Fields either.

@YoloinOhio - That’s more a TFL than a sack. Allen was running there, not passing.

Bill, In today’s NFL, stud CBs are actually more valuable than edge rushers. There is a whole lot of analysis that bears this out. Okudah is an INCREDIBLE talent, and is the best CB prospect I’ve seen in a while. I respect your opinion, but this isn’t 2003 anymore. The best first round pick by the Bills in the last decade was a CB (unless of course Allen works out; no one is more important than the QB), and he was a replacement for the CB who eventually became defensive player of the year and a star performer in a super bowl. With regard to the Lions, they lost a lot of close games and their qb was injured. They los in large part because their pass defense was terrible. They need to fix that, and when a game changing CB is available, you take him. It totally changes how you can play defense. Yes, I know Slay is good, but Okudah has a lot more upside at this point. The bust ratio for every position is high. There have been a huge number of top 15 OT busts in the past decade.

Um ... a guy named Drew Bledsoe. His eventual implosion led to the firing of both the head coach and the GM.

I don’t have supporting evidence, but given the extreme rarity of end zone sacks relative to teams being buried deep, I’d venture a substantial sum of money that I’m right about this.

No, that's not really true. As I say above, teams gameplan far differently when they're close to their own goal line. The difficulty of an endzone sack is extraordinarily high and hardly ever happens despite the fact that teams are regularly buried in their own end.

Disagree because every team has plays that are "loss preventers" - max protect with short routes, fullback blocks, etc. Teams end up with the ball inside the 3 all the time, yet you hardly ever see safeties because it's not hard to draw up plays and personnel groupings that prevent safeties from happening. Of course, no risk, no reward, which is drives stall so often in that area of the field.

No, I think 11 is too high. I think 5 is better for a couple of reasons. It forces the offense to choose - do I want to give up 7 by deliberately fumbling it to the D and then get the ball again, or do I want to give up 5 and have to give the ball back to the other team? Bear in mind that the expected point production on any given drive is 2.1 points. Also, the rarity is somewhat immaterial to me and frankly more of a feature than a bug. It's simply a better play and a harder play to make than a FG, which - again - is the most boring play in the game (in my opinion). A defensive sack in the EZ or a stuff of a RB behind the line is about as good as football gets. He raises a very fair point about people clearly not reading the article.

Not a bad idea. I like the idea of teams being forced to choose.

The reasoning for the 2-point safety is not based on any retrospective analysis of the play's impact on the game or the fact that it's a difficult play featuring elite-level defense. It is literally the product of a metaphorical blind dart throw by the guy who came up with scoring in the 1890s.

You're the second person to mention this. This issue is literally described in exacting detail in the article. It's a great play and it's a football play (rather then a set-piece ST play). It's rare. And it's worth less than a garden-variety FG, the most boring play in the game outside of kickoff touchbacks. Moreover, it's worth 2 points because .... some guy in the 1890s assigned it two points.

Yeah, I was thinking a five-point play too. That makes sense. It's a hard play to make, it's rare, and it's an awesome play to boot. Bills defeat the Giants, 22-17 (because the Giants go for it on fourth down and fail instead of going for the FG to go up 20-19).

That is brought up in the piece and discussed at some length.