dave mcbride

I'm not sure folks have seen this yet, but Andy Benoit's very controversial column on Russell Wilson is the talk of the town in certain corners of the internet: https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/12/13/russell-wilson-seattle-seahawks-mvp-darrell-bevell The reason I bring this up is that it's the same sort of criticism Taylor gets (some of it fair, to be sure). (**NOTE BEFORE I GO ON: I AM NOT SAYING TAYLOR IS ANYWHERE NEAR AS GOOD AS RUSSELL WILSON!!). I'm not a huge fan of Benoit, who seems to have spent so much time talking to coordinators that he has the NFL-Robot equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. Dennison strikes me as one of "those" guys who hate players like Taylor/Wilson/etc. because their grandly designed plans mean nothing when schemed plays degenerate into schoolyard plays so often. The thing is, Dennison fits a classic type of coordinator -- the type who is frustrated when he has a player like Wilson running his offense via freestyling. Such coordinators don't like the lack of consistency that a player like Wilson brings on a play-by-play basis, and I think this stems in part from the fact that it sorta obviates their jobs. (Incidentally, I can see Kirk Cousins, who is really good at operating the sort of system that Dennison likes, being very high on the Bills' shopping list for these reasons.) Anyway, I thought this was an interesting piece, less for its insight than as a window into the type of standard-issue robo-playcalling mindset that Benoit is channeling here. Anyone who thinks Matt Stafford is a better player than Russell Wilson needs to have his head examined. And I like Stafford. Saying that is just a dumb take by Benoit. (Peter King's take: "I think if you want me to excoriate Andy Benoit for his Russell Wilson-isn’t-that-good take, you’ll be waiting for a long time. When I started The MMQB, I focused on young writers who were good and who didn’t think the way I did. I think Andy’s nuts, rating Matthew Stafford over Wilson, but so what? He can defend his point and feels strongly about it. And if he takes some shrapnel over it, so be it. He gets that if you want to write strong opinions on the big stage, you’re going to get grief.") Finally, Deadspin's reaction to the piece is pretty epic: https://deadspin.com/this-andy-benoit-take-about-russell-wilson-is-so-!@#$in-1821290666.

Not disagreeing! I was just posting this as a "for the record" sort of thing. To be fair, Dareus's going down early in that Raiders game (a game he was dominating in early on) was huge. He was arguably the best player on a great defense that season. I didn't like the result, but the absence of top players matters. The Raiders ran the ball far more effectively after he went out.

The full entry from the OED (which I have access to): irreˈgardless, adj. and adv. Frequency (in current use): Etymology: Probably blend of irrespective and regardless. Chiefly N. Amer. In nonstandard or humorous use: regardless. 1912 in H. Wentworth Amer. Dial. Dict. 1923 Lit. Digest 17 Feb. 76 Is there such a word as irregardless in the English language? 1934 in Webster's New Internat. Dict. Eng. Lang. (labelled Erron. or Humorous, U.S.). 1938 I. Kuhn Assigned to Adventure xxx. 310 I made a grand entrance and suffered immediate and complete obliteration, except on the pay-roll, which functioned automatically to present me with a three-figure cheque every week, ‘irregardless’, as Hollywood says. 1939 C. Morley Kitty Foyle xxvii. 267 But she can take things in her stride, irregardless what's happened. 1955 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. No. 24. 19 I don't think like other people do and irregardless of how much or how little dope would cost me [etc.]. 1970 Current Trends in Linguistics X. 590 She tells the pastor that he should please quit using the word ‘irregardless’ in his sermons as there is no such word. 1971 M. McShane Man who left Well Enough iv. 96 The sun poured down on Purity irregardless of the fact that it received no welcome.

The deep throw out of the end zone looked intentional to me. Taylor motioned the wr to come back to him, but the receiver (holmes?) didn't come back and just ran himself into blanket coverage at the back of the end zone instead. Feely mentioned it in the replay and it looked pretty clear to me. Throwing it away (presuming it was intentional) was the right move there.

The play calling in the second half was beyond terrible. I felt bad for shady - so many no-chance plays for him. Dennison has to go.

Agreed - so many chippy late hits. Bush league.

This isn't true. From a month ago: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000877512/article/ask-5-whos-better-nfl-prospect-sam-darnold-or-josh-rosen .

Oh. I like Rosen too. I prefer Darnold, but I can see why others prefer Rosen.

Because the player was clearly injured, that's why - he had a screw in his foot, after all. Lal's pressuring him to play only made things worse for the player too. Wow.

WOW. Lots to chew on here, but suffice it to say that the situation in Buffalo was toxic. He contributed to it, but so did the team. Lal does not come off well here.

You are absolutely correct. I don't know where people are reading that his stock has dropped. The only place I see it is when a reporter offers a hot take after he throws a pick. If he comes out, my strong hunch is that he'll be the #1 pick. Why?

I agree with this, but it is my personal opinion that Darnold will be the #1 overall pick and that Cleveland is not trading out. The last theing Cleveland needs at this point is more picks anyway.

And a couple of those were flat out vulture sacks.

Watch the games. He has looked really good *as a QB* since growing into the role with the Vikings, and he was good in 2013 for the Rams (a bad organization). His career has been so punctuated by injury that it's been hard to progress, but there is a reason why he was the consensus #1 overall pick when he came out. Flat out, he is a better talent than you think he is. He is a far more talented thrower and player than Fitzpatrick, who consistently labors to throw it and is an interception machine.

To repeat, Bradford played very well for Minnesota by practically any available measure. That's not really in dispute. I was in error about the Philly trade; they gave up a second rounder and Foles for Bradford and a fifth rounder (and then immediately guaranteed him $26 million). We are going to continue to disagree, which I am fine with. Regardless, I think that comparing him with Fitzpatrick's career trajectory is fair. When healthy, Bradford has been a better player at every stage of his career. This is not to deny Fitzpatrick's good 2015 season (although he of course choked in the final game). The one area they do compare in is the teams they've played for. All have been pretty deeply flawed until the 2017 Vikings. (The Fisher-era Rams were an especially flawed team. Who trades up (with the Bills, no less) to spend a high first on Tavon Austin??) Unfortunately for Bradford, he got hurt again. He's a better QB than Keenum, though, and if he had stayed healthy my guess is that the Vikings would be even better than 10-3 right now.

Regardless of what one thinks of the original post, there are some good discussions going on here. When we're at page 38, you can pretty much say that a thread has taken on a life of its own independent of the OP (to an extent).

He's not offended; he's annoyed. I do agree with him that it's a pain in the neck to scroll through troll-like commentary in an otherwise good thread.

I fundamentally disagree with your premise and think you're basically espousing a narrative of permanent stasis with regard to the player we're discussing. He wouldn't be the first highly talented QB to improve over time; the list of such qbs who became better over time is quite long (e.g., Steve Young, another extremely accurate QB, is the most famous example). It takes a while to learn to deal with the complexity and speed of NFL defenses. Bradford always had the potential (no one ever doubted his talent). Injuries took their toll, however. Indeed, 2013 looked like the year he would turn the corner because he was playing very well for St. Louis. But he was knocked out for the season during game seven. If you recall it, his progress that year was a relatively major topic of discussion across the league. He missed all of 2014 too (knee again). But there is a reason that both Philly and Minnesota traded first round picks for him: extreme talent, which has been on display lately. Both of those organizations understand QBs better than you or I.

As I said in two posts above (and elsewhere), his knee is too much of a risk. I thought that was clear. That being said, he played very well in 2016 despite having the worst running game I've seen in the past few years (32nd in both yards and YPA). He completed 71.6 percent of his passes, which is staggeringly high, had a 99+ rating, and he lit up a very good Saints team like an Xmas tree in game one this year. Players -- especially QBs -- often do get better over time assuming they have the requisite physical talent because they learn to deal with the complexity of the game. Bradford is one of those guys, at least in my view. I also will reiterate that the Vikings' running game was historically terrible last season. But to repeat (which I apparently I need to do given your post above!), his knee would scare me off.

It all depends on his knee.

As I said elsewhere, Bradford has looked like an elite starter in his last few full-game starts. His last three games: 34/50 for 382 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 110.6 rating 25/33 for 250 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 114.5 rating 27/32 for 346 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 143.0 rating He is a good player at this point in his career. However, his knee is a scarred-over mess of spaghetti. That's the issue with him, not his talent or performance. If the knee somehow ends up being OK, he can be a high end starter. But given the history of that knee, it is simply too much of risk to invest in.

I dropped Rogers, picked up Hundley, and then picked up Rogers and dropped Hundley right after last week's game. Worked out!

Just to be clear, it's going to be a fifth rounder. If he's on the roster and the Jags make the playoffs, the pick becomes a fifth.

Oddly, I think Bradford has evolved into a near-elite QB but is not acceptable because of his knee. It's a mess. I wonder if ever even plays again. He may well. Apparently they couldn't locate any tear in his MRI in September because the scar tissue obscured everything.

Have you heard specifically that they like Rosen? Curious to know.