BullBuchanan

it's the goal, but you can't really expect it. The best you can expect is to be in contention most years. Winning it all takes a bit of luck in addition to being talented enough to do it. You could argue that we aren't talented enough to do it yet, and that we'd require more luck than most to win. That's my particular stance. Beane needs to do more, McD needs to do more. If they got better and still didn't win it all, I wouldn't blame then though, and I'd let the band stay together forever. The New England Patriots went 10 years between Super Bowl wins with the greatest QB, Coach, and dynasty the game has ever seen - including with a team that went undefeated until they hit the wall in the SB.

I'm also in this camp. I'd like to believe you can find a guy that can do what McKissic does as a UDFA or on a vet minimum type deal. I have no idea how fast he is, but he looks quite unimpressive in his highlights. He hasn't played in great offenses, but he's also never made an above average impact. I'd rather have 1 star like Jones that can throw a team on his back when it matters most, more than a team full of jobbers that can beat poor teams through depth and fail against superior competition. We saw it all in the playoffs this year. The Bengals have massive holes and they were able to get tot he show based on performance of their top-end. The Chiefs have also been doing this since before Pat Mahomes got there. The Bills are built a bit too "polite" with a bunch of hard workers that don't possess what it takes to get them where they need to go. In order for us to win a Super Bowl with the roster as-is, I think we'll have to get pretty lucky. We're good enough to get back to the championship a certain percentage of the time, but teams like the Chiefs, Bucs and Rams have shown what it takes to get the job done, and we're trying to tell them all that they're wrong and we know best. I don't feel great about that.

I would have much rather had McKinnon.

This is a horrifically bad take. So unless the players they draft turn out to be studs, the approach is wrong?

If we sign Bobby Wagner, otherwise it's doubtful.

The best thing about playing for the Jaguars is that Miami is about 5 hours away.

all due respect, but there's no way this is anywhere close to true. Last year PFF ranked us 14th, and I can't possibly see how we improved there. I think Edmunds was worse this year than he was in 2020.

No excuse for him either, though at least he's played well during points of his career - often for long stretches where he looked like one of the best players on our defense. That's something I've never been able to say of Edmunds. Of the two, i definitely prefer Milano.

That's way too much money to pay a backup LB. Edmunds is not a player we should be looking to keep at any price as our starting MLB. He's a liability and a key part of a defense that couldnt stop KC when it mattered most. He defines anti-clutch.

I figure Diggs gets around 20M which would put him among all the top guys. This deal is stupidity to a Haynesworth level, and I imagine most clubs will balk at this being the normal for a 3rd tier player.

looks like the Jags got him: https://www.profootballrumors.com/2022/03/jaguars-to-sign-christian-kirk

Beane talked about adding speed. Landry is the opposite of that. I'd rather just keep Beasley (and I don't want to do that), for what I'd have to imagine is similar money.

None of those names gives me a pause. The overwhelming majority come from the bottom of the roster where they can be replaced by cheap FA's or draft picks, the next biggest batch of guys at the top of the roster will be replaced by guys left behind them (DL/WR/LB). Bates is an RFA that will be re-signed. We'll definitely draft an OL in the first 3 rounds. We'll address CB both in the Draft and FA. We could also draft a WR in the first 4 rounds or pick up an inexpensive veteran option if they feel like Hodgins or Stevenson will not be able to fill a Top 4 role for us. My expectation is that McKenzie is the new #3 based on the money he got.

We didn't have the #1 defense. We ranked #1 in a list of vanity metrics like points allowed and yardage. That's not analytics.

I don't particularly like rap outside of The Chronic & 2001 and I can't stand pop, but I thought this was a fantastic halftime show. The production quality was fantastic and the ensemble cast of musicians kept everything flowing and dynamic. Despite being a music lover, that's not why I watch the Super Bowl, so I'd much rather see a cool show than some washed up rocker sing a couple of songs. As long as the music isn't grating, it's really a secondary concern.

He still dragged the Bengals to their first SB appearance in 30+ years. The kid isn't going anywhere and he's already one of the best in he league. It wasn't a great night for him, but he had to come down to earth eventually.

LOVE it. There isn't a WR that I'd rather have if it meant losing him.

I totally agree. It's not the players, it's a limitation of the scheme. Hopefully Dorsey addresses it.

Except that the Rams, Chiefs, and Bengals were all at the top with CAY/COMP too and they were also top with YAC while we were at the bottom. So the teams that went further than us were able to do more than we could.

None of this is true, but ok. I shouldn't be surprised that you're @ me with an axe to grind. Should I be paying you rent? For all the talk about how good Cole's hands are, he has crushing drops at inopportune times. He gets credit for being tough because he's always hurt. I'm not sure it's a good or a bad thing that he plays through it. He had a career year at age 31 and wasn't a critical player his first 7 years in the league. We've turned him into something, but I believe it's a system role that a ton of players could fill with the kind of volume we push him, especially now that he appears to lost a significant bit of quickness and speed. He ranked int he 50s this year in catch percentage and yards, in the 100s for YAC, 48 in 1rst downs, top 45 in drops and ints against, he had a single TD, 172nd in passer rating when targeted, and it goes on and on and on. Whatever you think he maybe once was, he clearly isn't anymore. He's not a bad player, but if you can't replace him (especially at his cost), you aren't that good at finding talent in my book.

And they need to keep doing it until they succeed. It's the 2nd most important job in football and if you can't do it, you can't win.

There's an almost 0% chance they're going to draft an LB in the first round and I'd be shocked if they get a WR higher than the 3rd. Pass rush, CB, or an interior OL to release Morse/Williams and sign a Pass Rusher or CB in FA.

Lottery systems are just awful. I really don't think tanking is something worth stopping. It doesn't really happen in football to begin with. the past couple of years a team with a shot at a top pick won a meaningless game at the end of the year to ruin their spot. On top of that, the teams that tank seem to use it to benefit themselves directly via adding a critical player like a QB, so what's the harm? The whole point of the NFL draft is to create parity as much as possible, and with the exception of Tom Brady screwing it up, the league does a pretty good job of it compared to other sports. I don't think there's any other sport where it's as critical to have one single great player at a position, more than it is for an NFL team to have an elite quarterback. Due to the NFL's own making of pushing a passing league, it's going to be even more important than ever. If a team wants to lose so they can win later, I say let em. Of course, they won't since the NFL decided to become bedfellows with Vegas.

That's exactly what we do that where I work. We also have a formalized rubric of criteria & competencies we grade against.

And what changes those belief structures? Without legislation, Schools would have remained segregated (Brown vs The Board of Education), and Rosa Parks would have been found guilty. Are we going to say that was result of society pushing for those changes? That same society that was part of the Little Rock 9 two years later, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X a few years later. When Brown vs The Board of education was passed, 60% of those surveyed by Gallup supported the ruling - this is less than current support for universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and legalization of cannabis at the federal level. Maybe you can argue that counts as support by society, but when the opposition to support brings serious consequences to those that do, I'd argue it's legal structure that gives social movements the freedom to advance their cause further. Of course it takes two to tango. If you don't have some social support behind social policy, you'll have problems. I'm not suggesting that just because you make something a policy that everyone will subscribe to it immediately, but without that framework, it becomes much harder for progress to me made. So, there is historical precedent and current statistics that support this. On the other side of the argument it seems that the thought is "well, people are just going to fake it anyway" (when the argument comes with the best of intentions - there are far worse).