dave mcbride

Yup. Honestly, I hate the "he's dogging it!" criticisms of players who are way out of the play and have absolutely zero chance of getting back into it.

To repeat, Blount wouldn't have gotten first downs on those plays either.

+1000. I'll add again that they were horrible play calls. Marrone-ball if I ever saw it.

They're good, as per usual. They'll likely win 10+ games. Smith is a *much* better regular-season QB than most give him credit for being.

I said controlled the second half. They did, although the Eagles did tie it in the third. And I was wrong - McNabb's final heave with less than 20 seconds left and zero TOs was from the 5 yard line. After the Eagles scored to make it 24-21, the Pats drained the clock and punted to the Eagles at the 5.

Yup.

Come on, Gerry--it wasn't close to being his guy, and he was like 15 yards behind him. Criticize him for other stuff, but not that. That's the definition of a reach.

That SB wasn't as close as that score suggests. The McNabb INT came with hardly any time left, zero Philly TOs, and with the Eagles deep in Pats territory. It was a desperation throw with like 15 seconds left from the Eagles 10 yard line. The Pats controlled the game in the second half.

Blount was terrible in the last third of last season and the playoffs. He's likely running a flat 5.0 40 right now.

I have absolutely zero idea what Gerry is talking about here. This video establishes with 100 percent clarity that Gilmore wasn't dogging int on this play at all.

This is the best one ever, in my opinion. http://deadspin.com/why-your-team-sucks-2017-new-england-patriots-1800674923 "Aaron Hernandez got his conviction voided by killing himself. That was like the Tuck Rule of murder."

Blount would have failed too. On both occasions, the hb was hit hard before getting to the LOS.

Looking at that video again, it looks like Gilmore simply may have guessed wrong -- thinking that the receiver was cutting toward the sideline under the assumption that smith would never throw it deep.

How could it be mccourty's fault solely? Looking at that video above, there was no one else even remotely close to gilmore's zone, which meant he should have stayed with the guy who is actually in it.

The failures on 4th were most definitely NOT his fault. They were terrible, Hackett/Marrone-esque play calls, plain and simple. Running it up the gut with the Hb against a very stout d-line with 10 men in the box is beyond stupid, IMO. It's like McDaniel took stupid pills before those plays.

Again, one play. i saw no others.

I watched him as closely as i could last night, and except for the one big play, he looked pretty darn good. The McCourty comment seems to make sense too given that the Chiefs don't throw deep much and cover 2 necessitates a handoff to the safety. Hard to say for sure on that play, though. How do oyu know he doesn't communicate well? That's a serious question. Do you have actual evidence?

Actually, Gilmore played quite well last night except for that one play. Of course, it was a big play.

The playcalling too - 2 4th and a half yard plays and they run it up the gut with the halfback, which is the easiest play to stop in that situation?? They deserved to lose with those calls. There is no karmic payback if you've already won five super bowls.

Personally, I do think they'll get 4, but if they genuinely suck after 3 ... well, who knows. Bradley got that extra year and nothing got better. It wasn't really all him - he didn't draft Gabbert and Bortles. Those QBs killed him. The Jags' D was actually pretty good last year and looks loaded this season.

This might come across as a leading question, but it's an honest one. Did you come here from BBMB? Coach Tuesday has long been one of the best posters here. Regardless, snark is a weak way to argue. It's non-substantive and simply comes across as an attempt to shut discussion down because most don't want to deal with insults. Seriously, see what I wrote above about Bradley. Do these guys get 4 years? Or are they out after 2-3 if they don't succeed? It's an important question given the partial tear-down that just occurred.

From Albert Breer: https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/06/nfl-read-option-offense-russell-wilson-robert-griffin-colin-kaepernick

? - those other guys were under contract and there was no real concern about "losing" them. Hogan's contract had expired, hence the concern about losing him.

He made a valid point. Why resort to condescending snark? Why not engage the point? There is a debate about how much leeway the two will be given with regard to timeframe, and that's an interesting issue. Khan gave Bradley 4 seasons. Will Pegula give these guys that if things stay south beyond two years?

To be fair to Ryan, it may be the case that in the case of Hogan, Whaley never told him what was going down. If that was the case, that's on Whaley. Regardless, it was a very stupid move. I ended up drafting Hogan last night for my fantasy team. Curious to see how he does with Edelman down.