WhitewalkerInPhilly

It's an interesting idea. I like Tyrod, but if the Browns were to come in and say "We want to start winning now. We want a real option in place while we groom our franchise guy. Here is the 12th or (even 33rd pick) in the draft and a load of cap space." That deserves some consideration.

FWIW, that's the conclusion I came to as well by the press conference and what they've been doing. They say they want to win now, so you don't bet the farm on a shaky QB class this year. It would be a colossal bad idea to cut Shady now, and only marginally better to trade him. I love the way our D-line is now looking.

Fair enough. Poor phrasing on my end. He was *projected* as being taken in the top 5 before the news broke. If he drops to 10, take him and run.

We could use 2 safeties, so I am not opposed to hiring a vet and then drafting Hooker to let him work it. The guy was top 5 talent before the news broke.

Like Carolina did last year. Again, theres a good chance McDermott and Whaley looked three years down the road and said "we're not keeping him that long" and letting him walk is the right move. It was for Byrd. But I think we miss him next year.

I'll have to be. I think that now we better splurge at safety because they are going to need help. Hopefully Darby is better when he's not on an island and goes back to 2015 form.

I'd rather that we had tagged him and then worked out a bridge deal. But what's done is done. Now that he's going to hit the open market, someone is going to massively overpay for him. This year is supposed to be a very deep CB draft, so it's not a bad year to draft for replacement. If they use the $14 M to, say, bring back Zach Brown and pick up a veteran safety or two (possibly Byrd if he gets cut) I feel considerably better at picking BPA at 10.

I am going to say that the worst part of this is that Ty Dunne went over to Bleacher Report. Damn, he used to be good too.

This is kind of where I'm at too. I like Tyrod. I think his play is electrifying. But he is not going to be a kind of QB who drags his team to the Super Bowl. Maybe he can be an Alex Smith with the Chiefs but they keep flaming out. Maybe if they trade onto the late first or very early second I am ok with a QB there.

For the record, I want Tyrod back. But if the Bills are determined to move on, and have their hearts set on a rookie, I would much rather have Foles than Romo. He's going to be cheaper than either Romo or Tyrod. While he has plenty of flaws in his game, he can at least move the chains in a WCO.

I was more about how old I feel. I still drink the Kool Aid!

The thing is, if you are talking about an Eagles trade, I am seeing very little that you would want to get back in return. They did get an extra 4th for Bradford (which I still contend that despite all the local grumbling, a trade of Bradford for the #14 pick and a fourth looks ludicrously good right now) but there's no way they are giving us anything close to equivalent of what we spent on Ragland. In fact, they are shopping LBs right now. I don't think there are any. Which is good, because I was a noob once. And I just made myself sad realizing that was 8.5 years ago. Womp womp. I think he's gotten a taste of what it's like here.

I think Ragland was originally a ILB on a 3-4 Alabama team. I was looking at what Chris Trapasso had up at Buffalo Rumblings about personnel fit. It looks like MLB and SLB kind of shift based on whether they are doing 4-3 over or under. He's definitely not a WLB (why they are going after Zach allegedly) but I can see him as a kind of a S/MLB hybridge on those packages. Yeah, I never understood that knock on him. I can kind of see him in a Luke K. role.

How about the obvious: we don't know what he can do. And no other team will either. Second, who is saying the Ragland doesn't fit? Ragland is a bit of a thumper, but the scouting reports I heard had him as better mobility and pass coverage ability than people give him credit for, so closer to a rich man's Brandon Spikes. Plus, McDermott likes the double A gap attack, both as a real blitz and a feint. Third, what are we going to get for him?

I've made this rant before, but the NFL has hurt their product and are afraid to move back to fix it. We have Madden-ized the game. The NFL has made a conscious choice about what was going to win games, and it's high volumes of passing with a lot of scoring. And it's what fans think they want. If you don't believe me, drag up the logs from last year and listen to people talking about a very tight game and defensive struggle might have been the worst of all time. The Atlanta defense played in epic fashion at points last night and it didn't matter. I was cringing as they got three straight third down conversions off of holding penalties, including one that turned a 3rd and 9 to a 1st and 10. Atlanta held up as well as it did calling itself the fastest defense in football, and they kept making plays. However, when you only need one slip, or one big penalty to let the offense have one bite at the apple, it rewards high volume offenses. You give put first downs for a tug on the jersey at 5.1 yards. Offensive pass interference occurs regularly but typically gets overlooked as "playing for the ball" when similar behavior gets a flag on defense. Roughing the passer gets called (on QBs not named Cam Newton) for legal hits while they are holding the ball behind the line of scrimmage or released it a hair before impact. Defenseless receiver rules tend to penalize hard hits at the moment of the catch to jar the ball loose, while waiting that second gives them the first down anyway. The upshot is that, typically (there are exceptions) the team with the most prolific passer wins that game. If you have an above average quarterback, you win a lot of games. When you have someone like Tom Brady, or Aaron Rodgers you can drag whatever is around you to the playoffs, where you have a chance. Rodgers pretty much dragged his team there while it was falling apart around him. Second tier guys like Big Ben and Matt Ryan and Drew Brees and Andy Dalton and Andrew Luck and Cam Newton and Russel Wilson can all get you there if you have half decent pieces around them. And hey, if you get all the right pieces maybe they can slam home a win, so you better pay them like kings so they stay. So you pay them like kings to stay, which cuts up most of your cap room. And that drives up the market so guys like Ryan Tannehill and Tyrod Taylor and Ryan Fitzpatrick and Alex Smith will always find work. Because hey, if you get a similar group of pieces that let someone else win the big one, and then one of these, at least you are competitive, right? And that's what lets Brock Osweiler walk into the contract he got, for a team whose defense bailed him out. So much has become trying to find the next Brady or Rodgers that guys who normally would sit on the bench for a couple of years now get thrown out hoping they are the next big thing. Teams have stripped colleges of guys who might have come back for a fourth or fifth year. There is no immediate help on the horizon. Now, the simplest thing would be to go back to 90s/early 2000s era football. But they won't. Fans want gaudy numbers, and then complain about how mediocre and lopsided the league is. CTE findings mean that tackling is likely going to be reduced, not increased. So I don't know what to tell you.

Good news for us. I've been seeing him go top 5 in some mocks. He would be a steal at 10.

Is there anyone we would look at in college who might be interested in making the transition? I mean, at this point I don't see the harm in beating the bushes. You might hit Greg Olson while you are at it.

Olson... Excuse me, I need to take a long walk off a short pier. I'll try on some new cement shoes.

Yeah. I imagine the co-Offensive Coordinator thing is a little strange, and Andy sticks with the playcalling for the most part so I can see them trying to step out of his shadow.

Ok sure. Thank you. Sorry, I have a hard time guessing sometimes.

I am so sarcasm blind, I have no idea what to make of that

I mentioned this in another thread, but I suspect that this because they have lined up Childress or Nagy to hire but they can't do it officially as long as the Chiefs are in contention. Reid has been very supportive of guys under his tree moving around, and all of them share the same pedigree. Otherwise I have no idea why you pick the O line coach before the OC.

I know we don't have an OC yet, but I think that we have one picked out. After all, you don't pick up an O line coach like we did if you don't have an idea http://m.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Report-Juan-Castillo-Leaving-Ravens-To-Join-Buffalo-Bills/2aca3e60-12ad-4224-befa-c514ade20f91 My guess is that they've had some talks with Childress or Nagy. Both are part of the Andy Reid tree (like McDermott and Castillo), so I am assuming there is a comfort level. The lack of announcement would be because the Chiefs are still in the playoffs.

I don't know if he needs to double. The Sam plays pretty close to the line in a 4-3 under, close to the 9 tech. Lawson was really good at sealing the run at Bama. I worry about the LB a bit, but we will be playing a lot of nickel. Chris Trapasso at Buffalo Rumblings posted a great article about how players might fit.

I think it's a positive sign. Taylor knows, I'm sure, that a starting QB who is not elite is always a possible casualty when there is a coaching change. My hope is that they maybe add an extra year on and change the guarantees so he'll get the same total amount of money and gets another year of security but in exchange his cap hit drops.