thebandit27

I think it's right where he belongs--somewhere in the 18-23 range No issues being tied to Tyrod for 2 more years. Job well done IMO.

For reference, this puts him 23rd amongst QBs in AAV

This here is confirmation--it's done.

No. I can't blame the guy for not being fire-and-brimstone from day 1. There's something to be said for getting the pulse of the organization prior to taking major action.

I think it's noteworthy that his time with the 1's has decreased as of late, giving way to Corbin Bryant. I don't see that as a bad thing, as I think Bryant can be a solid 5-tech, and that Washington will perform much better if he's able to split time as a rookie.

He's absolutely, 100% right in his thinking: the previous 15 years have absolutely zero to do with how the team performs this year on the field. The only people concerned with the last 15 years are the fans (and rightly so), but we have no effect on the team's performance either. Now, I can understand why some fans won't like hearing that opinion from him, because it could make them feel like their frustration with the consistent mediocrity is being marginalized. I'm fairly certain that he didn't mean it that way, so it doesn't bother me.

A few thoughts: - Woods played very little from the slot last year; he played mostly from the boundary. - Ideally, you'd have a group of guys that can play from multiple spots; it appears that both Sammy and Woods can do that. What they're missing is the 3rd guy. - Just because Sammy gets more snaps from the slot, that doesn't mean he gets exclusively snaps from the slot. Even if Sammy's slot snaps increase to match Crabtree's in 2012, that would leave over 600 snaps from elsewhere. The same can be said for Woods. What the team is really in need of is a 3rd option (or a combination of guys) that can take targets in both locations. For example, they'd like to see a guy like Salas or Little prove that he can be a solid possession guy from the slot, and then have a guy like Lewis or Goodwin prove to be able to garner 4-5 targets/game on the boundary. It can be a platoon thing provided that they mix up where Sammy and Woods line up. We'd all like to have another bona fide boundary target to compliment Sammy, but for a team with a QB that went 0-5 when attempting 30 or more passes last year, that wasn't a priority in the draft. I don't want to speak for Erik, but I felt that the point was clear: getting Sammy into the slot will create cleaner opportunities for the others--situations where they won't have to be as good in order to get open.

As per usual, Donnie Yen looks badass. I'm telling you right now that his character, Chirrut Imwe, will be the talk of audiences.

Bill Parcells and Joe Gibbs come to mind, but that's about it. To answer the OP: both. He's great, and he's been lucky to have Brady.

My all-time favorite:

Watching the Bills face them, I'm thrilled when they throw that guy the ball. It means that there's absolutely no chance of a big play. On a per-target basis, his numbers are almost identical to Charles Clay. He's currently the most overrated WR in the NFL IMO

Is that the reason that Jarvis Landry can never catch a pass beyond the LOS?

Justis Mosqueda had Shaq as his best bet as a pass-rusher based on his "Force Players" criteria, which has been fairly predictive over the years: http://playmakermentality.com/sorrybearsfans

I'm 100% sure that he'll do some of that as the Sam--he did it at Clemson too.

Jets for sure. Their front 3 is terrific, and they're deep. The starting group of Wilkerson-Jenkins-Richardson can dominate, and having Leonard Williams and Steve McLendon behind them gives them an awesome rotation. I'm less excited about the pass-rush tandem of Mauldin and Jordan Jenkins, but Bowles has made chicken salad before. The corners, IMO, are the weak points. Revis can't lock down true #1s the way he used to (see week 17), and Skrine needs help too often. Milliner is approaching bust status.

I think they only keep 4, so Colt/Meeks/Duke are competing for one spot. Meeks and Duke better show their stuff, because I think Colt wins in a dead-heat thanks to his ST contributions.

Come on now, there's what, maybe a half-dozen of those types 'round here? The rest of us just want to see the kid have a chance to play and see where his NFL game falls on the Upshaw-Suggs scale of boundary conditions.

Kam Chancellor?

I'm repeating the same thing that I said throughout the draft process--that the upside on Myles Jack is high enough that I'd take him #1 overall regardless of whether or not he may need microfracture surgery in the future.

I'm with you on this one; I wanted Myles. That said, there's a difference between the situations, in that teams were scared off by the increased propensity for career-ending surgery with Jack. Still, the upside was that he could be the game's premier ILB, so I'd have taken him without a second thought.

Yes, the definition varies. IMO, if a guy leads his conference in sacks, that would be considered productive (again, I don't know how you define prolific, but it sounds as though you mean it to say that a "prolific" pass rusher is someone that is a good bet to be a double-digit sack guy in the NFL). That said, of course there's no such thing as a shoo-in; the most you can hope for is a productive player. Of course I wouldn't suggest that Buffalo is immune to the law of averages--we have guys like EJ and Kouandjio that prove it. Again, I'm not dismissing the idea that Shaq won't be a perennial double-digit sack guy in the NFL; I'm merely saying that he was a very productive pass rusher in college (12.5 sacks in 13 games) when given the chance to start as a senior. The most one could say to marginalize his pass-rushing productivity would be to question the level of competition, but upon closer inspection that doesn't hold water: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/player/147/1054839/tackleforloss/split.html http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/player/147/1054839/sack/split.html His TFL/game and sacks/game stats are basically identical vs. ranked and unranked teams. In fact, his sacks/game nearly double when facing Power 5 conference teams over those when he faced conferences outside the Power 5. Just some food for thought.

Well, three things come to mind: 1) It wasn't really the same group--it was Preston and Bradham. Manny and Spikes didn't play quite much in Schwartz's scheme. 2) It was much easier to get away with having Preston and Bradham in coverage when the team produced 50+ sacks, which isn't Rex's model at all 3) NE did manage to exploit those guys in coverage--to the tune of 37 points As I said though, Rex's scheme (not the gobbledygook one he used last year, his actual playbook) is decent for hiding those guys within zones, which is why he was able to get away with guys that couldn't cover like Bart Scott, Demarrio Davis, and David Harris in NJ.

You basically have to hope for the same that you were hoping for with Ragland, which is that the scheme limits the amount of man coverage work for the inside guys. Hoping for this crop to stick with RBs and TEs is a lost cause, but IMO that was true with Reggie in the fold as well.

First off, what you're doing is using a word that means either "producing" or "present in large numbers" to describe a defender. Since I don't think you mean the second definition, you must mean the first, which means he was productive. 24.5 TFLs, which led the nation, is productive. This is not debatable. Here is the exact same scouting report you highlighted: Bottom Line Productive backup for two years before putting together an All­-American season in his first year as a full- time starter. Lawson is built like a full­-grown man and combines his instincts, toughness and power to fill up a stat sheet and set an early tone. Lawson's frame and game are easily translatable to the NFL, but his average athleticism and pass rush skills will likely have teams viewing him as a 3­-4 edge setter or a 4-­3 base end. Lawson may also have value as 3­-4 defensive tackle in an upfield scheme. Literally the only difference is that I've bolded the 90% of the bottom line that was positive, as opposed to the 10% that was average-and-not-negative. So yes, that scouting report sounds good to me. What I think you're really trying to say is that you don't believe he projected as well to the NFL as many others do; you're just having a hard time saying it. Your statement that he wasn't "prolific" is wholly nebulous at best, and flat-out incorrect at worst. The guy was extremely productive as a senior--you don't lead the nation in TFLs (and the conference in sacks) if you aren't productive.

I'll add a fact that I think you're downplaying when saying Shaq wasn't prolific at Clemson: He led the FBS in tackles for a loss with 24.5 as a senior--that's absolutely prolific. Now, if you want to say that he only had one prolific season, well, different story. And you're straw-manning again with the Ragland stuff--all I saw were some folks saying that it wasn't a given he'd miss the season based on what was reported, which is true.