Texans releasing JJ Watt

[Shaw66]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think Bills fans underrate Cleveland the same way you think they underrate Tennessee. I took a lot of heat for saying they'd beat the Steelers but they did and they gave KC a closer game than us too (albeit with Mahomes going out). 

 

I think the AFC pecking order is:

 

1. KC

2. Buffalo

3. Baltimore / Tenn / Cleveland

4. Colts

5. Everyone else

This list makes sense.   The reason KC and Buffalo are 1 and 2 is the quarterbacks.   The next three have iffy QB situations.   Watt has to be willing to bet on the run-oriented offense the Ravens feature, or bet on Tannehill or Mayfield taking another step forward.   None of them are stupid bets, but each of him asks him to run the risk that he'll need to be part of a truly dominant defense to be sure that his team will win.  Because of their QBs, Buffalo and KC are saying to Watt "we want you to be the best you possibly can be, and you will contribute to making us great on both sides of the ball."  

 

Now, if it's true that money is important to Watt, then the team that's offering the most money likely will be the winner, because, as I said, none of the top five teams would be a stupid choice.  Beane will be smart about how much money he has and what he thinks Watt is worth.  My guess is if the money is important to Watt, someone will outbid Beane.  Watt's older, with more miles on him, than the typical Beane free agent, and I doubt Beane will overspend on him.  

 

If money is secondary to Watt, and the football experience and Super Bowl prospects are what's really important to Watt, then I expect Beane and the Bills will be in the thick of the competition for him.  

[whatdrought]

Just now, cle23 said:

 

A Pitt implosion? You're kidding, right? I guess going up 35-7 in the first half had nothing to do with Cleveland.

Not trolling, just honestly asking this question:

 

Did you watch that game?

[Rc2catch]

7 minutes ago, FireChans said:

And once they do that, they never get told anything again.

 

You see the problem?

I don’t see that as a problem. Does every little snippet need to be scooped? Not to veer too far off topic but there needs to be accountability in all journalism. In the age of social media and fast breaking news journalists and news stations need to be held accountable for what news they share. Instead they can tweet whatever they want and add anonymous sources to it and boom it’s factual news. That ain’t right. 

[Cheektowaga Chad]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

 

That story just screams he isn't signing there but appreciates the interest

 

As a bills fan that headline is all too familiar, player in demand really thinking about playing in buffalo. Player proceeds to sign with a New england or Dallas

[Hapless Bills Fan]

14 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Vernon tore his achilles in week 17. He won't be back. He's solid, but not coming off that injury. 

ooh, I didn’t know that.  Tough happening for him.

[JGMcD2]

3 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

A Pitt implosion? You're kidding, right? I guess going up 35-7 in the first half had nothing to do with Cleveland.

Pittsburgh gave Cleveland the ball 4 times on it’s first 5 drives in their own territory and it was still a two score game late in the second half. 
 

Cleveland capitalized on the opportunities given to them, but it’s not like they did anything extraordinary. A fumbled snap to start the game has nothing to do with Cleveland and Ben staring down his receivers and forcing throws doesn’t either. 
 

I understand it was a huge monkey off the Browns backs to beat Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh but that game was more Pittsburgh imploding than Cleveland dominating. 

[cle23]

5 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Not trolling, just honestly asking this question:

 

Did you watch that game?

 

Obviously. The first play touchdown was kind of a fluke play. The interceptions, the long touchdown pass to Landry, and Chubb and Hunt running all over them weren't flukes by any means.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Rc2catch said:

I don’t see that as a problem. Does every little snippet need to be scooped? Not to veer too far off topic but there needs to be accountability in all journalism. In the age of social media and fast breaking news journalists and news stations need to be held accountable for what news they share. Instead they can tweet whatever they want and add anonymous sources to it and boom it’s factual news. That ain’t right. 

I don't think you understand how journalism works. Let's say that reporter got that from JJ's buddy in his camp.  The dude texted her and said, "he's interested in Cleveland." Why would she give up that source, effectively labeling her untrustworthy as a reporter (whose central tenet is in part protecting their sources).

 

IRT to bolded, isn't that kind of the responsibility of the reader? Having healthy skepticism that something may not be true, may be a smokescreen, etc?

 

If you're arguing that journalists shouldn't make stuff up, I agree. If your arguing people reading shouldn't have to be concerned that something might be made up, then basically people are just toddlers without any responsibility, and I don't agree.

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Pittsburgh gave Cleveland the ball 4 times on it’s first 5 drives in their own territory and it was still a two score game late in the second half. 
 

Cleveland capitalized on the opportunities given to them, but it’s not like they did anything extraordinary. A fumbled snap to start the game has nothing to do with Cleveland and Ben staring down his receivers and forcing throws doesn’t either. 
 

I understand it was a huge monkey off the Browns backs to beat Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh but that game was more Pittsburgh imploding than Cleveland dominating. 

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.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

This list makes sense.   The reason KC and Buffalo are 1 and 2 is the quarterbacks.   The next three have iffy QB situations.   Watt has to be willing to bet on the run-oriented offense the Ravens feature, or bet on Tannehill or Mayfield taking another step forward.   None of them are stupid bets, but each of him asks him to run the risk that he'll need to be part of a truly dominant defense to be sure that his team will win.  Because of their QBs, Buffalo and KC are saying to Watt "we want you to be the best you possibly can be, and you will contribute to making us great on both sides of the ball."  

 

Now, if it's true that money is important to Watt, then the team that's offering the most money likely will be the winner, because, as I said, none of the top five teams would be a stupid choice.  Beane will be smart about how much money he has and what he thinks Watt is worth.  My guess is if the money is important to Watt, someone will outbid Beane.  Watt's older, with more miles on him, than the typical Beane free agent, and I doubt Beane will overspend on him.  

 

If money is secondary to Watt, and the football experience and Super Bowl prospects are what's really important to Watt, then I expect Beane and the Bills will be in the thick of the competition for him.  

 

Agreed. I was talking more generally about the pecking order in the conference rather than attractiveness to Watt, but I agree totally with your analysis. The three teams I have clustered together are there because they are more limited by their QB situation in different ways. I think they each have another flaw too.... Ravens it is receiving options, the other two it is secondary (and with Tenn pass rush a bit too). The Colts are a solid team with no QB and a lack of special skill players. 

 

As for Watt I see the argument for Tennessee more strongly than I see the argument for Cleveland. Tenn gives him not only a chance to compete but a scheme match and a coaching / ownership familiarity too. Buffalo offers him a scheme change, and no familiarity, but the best chance to win of any of the AFC teams likely to be in the mix. Not sure what the attraction of Cleveland would be. 

[TBBills]

24 minutes ago, ngbills said:

Watt to CLE would not be good for Buffalo.

 

They have a solid squad already and bring back basically everyone. They could sign Watt and still have more space available. They could also look to move OBJ and pick up even more space. Plus they have like 6 picks in the first 4 rounds of the draft. 

 

Gap was not very big between us and them and this would allow them to close it and then some. 

CLE isn't that good anyway so it won't matter.

[cle23]

2 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Pittsburgh gave Cleveland the ball 4 times on it’s first 5 drives in their own territory and it was still a two score game late in the second half. 
 

Cleveland capitalized on the opportunities given to them, but it’s not like they did anything extraordinary. A fumbled snap to start the game has nothing to do with Cleveland and Ben staring down his receivers and forcing throws doesn’t either. 
 

I understand it was a huge monkey off the Browns backs to beat Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh but that game was more Pittsburgh imploding than Cleveland dominating. 

 

If it was Buffalo playing that way it would have been Buffalo "making plays and forcing turnovers."

 

Cleveland obviously needs to improve on defense mostly, but they were opportunistic with turnovers all year. It was a two score game late because like most other teams up that big they played a lot more prevent defense. I think it's stupid that teams do that but it's the nature of the game.

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:

I don’t see that as a problem. Does every little snippet need to be scooped? Not to veer too far off topic but there needs to be accountability in all journalism. In the age of social media and fast breaking news journalists and news stations need to be held accountable for what news they share. Instead they can tweet whatever they want and add anonymous sources to it and boom it’s factual news. That ain’t right. 

 

But if you expose your sources you are finished. Seriously. I once reported something from an anonymous tip I had from someone inside a soccer club did not name them but they felt other details in the story risked someone working out where the story came from and they refused to even take my calls after that. 

[Rc2catch]

Just now, FireChans said:

I don't think you understand how journalism works. Let's say that reporter got that from JJ's buddy in his camp.  The dude texted her and said, "he's interested in Cleveland." Why would she give up that source, effectively labeling her untrustworthy as a reporter (whose central tenet is in part protecting their sources).

 

IRT to bolded, isn't that kind of the responsibility of the reader? Having healthy skepticism that something may not be true, may be a smokescreen, etc?

 

If you're arguing that journalists shouldn't make stuff up, I agree. If your arguing people reading shouldn't have to be concerned that something might be made up, then basically people are just toddlers without any responsibility, and I don't agree.

That’s how it’s supposed to work though. 
JJ’s buddy is told “is this on the record” if he says yes you tweet away and put his name on it. He says no and you don’t. 
In the older days you didn’t have to attach your sources name but your source was supposed to be verified. Today there’s literally nothing in place at all. There is no longer structure to the news. Anyone can basically state their opinions as fact and even write it up in a way to sound as fact. They just have to add anonymous sources told me. 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

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.

 

totally agree and actually while the game was tight Pittsburgh could hardly get a first down. Once they had a big league they played D differently to try and protect their weak secondary. A lot of those Steelers points in the attempted comeback were soft and as soon as the Browns needed to step on the gas again they took the game away fast. Cleveland is a better team than Pittsburgh. 

[whatdrought]

5 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Obviously. The first play touchdown was kind of a fluke play. The interceptions, the long touchdown pass to Landry, and Chubb and Hunt running all over them weren't flukes by any means.

It took 5 turnovers (one for a touchdown), one of the worst punt decisions of the season (matched by Stefanski the next week) and a dropped pick six for the Browns to win by 11. That’s not a dominate win. Its not to take away from them- a win is a win and I don’t care how it happens. But the Steelers absolutely imploded. 
 

As you said - they led by 28 at halftime, but it ended up being a two score game. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:

That’s how it’s supposed to work though. 
JJ’s buddy is told “is this on the record” if he says yes you tweet away and put his name on it. He says no and you don’t. 
In the older days you didn’t have to attach your sources name but your source was supposed to be verified. Today there’s literally nothing in place at all. There is no longer structure to the news. Anyone can basically state their opinions as fact and even write it up in a way to sound as fact. They just have to add anonymous sources told me. 

 

I agree it is a real challenge. I am glad I am no longer a journalist because separating the reliable from the fake in a world where everyone has a platform but only some have a responsibility and a professional code is one of the challenges of our times. 

[cle23]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

It took 5 turnovers (one for a touchdown), one of the worst punt decisions of the season (matched by Stefanski the next week) and a dropped pick six for the Browns to win by 11. That’s not a dominate win. Its not to take away from them- a win is a win and I don’t care how it happens. But the Steelers absolutely imploded. 
 

As you said - they led by 28 at halftime, but it ended up being a two score game. 

 

Because they played prevent defense for the entire second half. Most teams would in that situation.

 

Like I said in a previous post, I think it's stupid when teams do that. Keep playing the way you were playing to get where you were. But a vast majority of teams with a 28-point lead will soften up and trade yards for time off the clock.

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

totally agree and actually while the game was tight Pittsburgh could hardly get a first down. Once they had a big league they played D differently to try and protect their weak secondary. A lot of those Steelers points in the attempted comeback were soft and as soon as the Browns needed to step on the gas again they took the game away fast. Cleveland is a better team than Pittsburgh. 

 

I don’t debate that last line, but the game was a lot closer than it should have been. I don’t care about prevent. If Tomlin has testicles and goes for 4th and 1 at midfield, they likely go down and score making it a 5 point game. Cleveland’s offense struggled in the third quarter. Impossible to say what happens then.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I don’t debate that last line, but the game was a lot closer than it should have been. I don’t care about prevent. If Tomlin has testicles and goes for 4th and 1 at midfield, they likely go down and score making it a 5 point game. Cleveland’s offense struggled in the third quarter. Impossible to say what happens then.

 

I couldn't see any way for Pittsburgh to win that game. They were outplayed everywhere.