FireChans

No he wouldn't but he would be included in this part: "Only 55.4% (n = 173/312) of players returned to play after ACLR." I wouldn't be surprised if the 45% of players who didn't return were fringe players a la Zimmer. Best ability is availability and all that. And if a player like Zimmer was re-signed, we would probably be bringing in replacement level players who could easily take his job. Put another way, if Zack Moss tore his ACL, we would likely sign another RB who would get his snaps. If that RB was even mediocre, he would probably result in Moss losing snaps and AV. It's no surprise that positions that have a lot of "filler players" like RB, DL and LB experience the most drop off after injury. There's a million of STers and 4th DLmen in the NFL. Not so many QB's,

I think the point is he may have gotten some kind of a contract here or elsewhere had he not been injured. Instead, his entire career is on life support. The impact of the injury on performance doesn’t even matter.

Most players are probably out of the league after an ACL because teams don’t want to keep a roster spot for a rehabbing player who isn’t an impact player. If Dane Jackson tore his ACL instead of Tre, instead of “keeping his roster spot warm for him” we would just find a replacement player.

The XFL is calling

Folks said that a lot about 2017 too.

If your argument is he won't really help the Pats because he's not available much, then he ALSO won't really hurt the Dolphins either. This is obvious.

So it won't hurt the Dolphins then lol

Sure tell me how it hurts the Dolphins but doesn't help the Pats. lmao

A hilarious comment

Excellent post. Sanders was a pickup I didn’t feel too strongly about last year because he is a guy too similar to the skill sets of Davis and Diggs. We need a guy that can take a 5 yard flare pattern and run around the defender to get 10 or 15. Guys like that are the “missing link” in our offense.

It just “seemed” like that happened. Just like how I “seem” to get funnier, smarter and better looking with age.

Strong praise for a fifth round pick who has proven nothing at the NFL level. Why him and not Isaiah Hodgins?

They have the second best record in the NFL since McVay took over. Been to the SB twice. Without a top 5 QB. What's your definition of sustainable?

31 teams were failures I guess last year.

Rams continue to ball out in spite of their "mortgaging the future, they'll crash and burn" predictions made so many years ago. But at least we have pick #25!

They made the playoffs. Mostly because they drafted an upgrade at QB. Mac may never be elite. But by drafting ANY QB in the first round, and spending a ton of money on recieving threats in FA, how can anyone say they aren’t prioritizing the passing game? You can argue it won’t work, but you can’t argue that they aren’t trying.

Lmao where'd you get ur MD

I mean, Joe Burrow is way better than Kirk Cousins. Who could argue this?

Absolutely, but still way better than when he started.

They were the #2 offense in the NFL. And their odds of "scoring" on a particular drive were less than 50% 😆 I bet you hit on 18 in blackjack.

In 2018-2019, under the new rules, there have been 79 onside kicks and the kicking team has recovered 5 of them, or 6 percent. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/11/03/onside-kick-success-dropped-from-21-percent-to-6-percent-after-new-rule/ No. KC only scores on <50% of their drives. Those are horrible odds. Don't go to Vegas

Sure he can but I’d rather have Joe Burrow. He had an OUTRAGEOUS 8.9 YPA last year.

Lol the Pats drafted a QB in the first round and spent the most money ever on receiving targets. How are people so wrong

You would almost certainly never onside kick in that scenario. Higher chance for a tipped pick, fumble or just a turnover on downs driving 80 yards. And if you don’t, you still need to score twice to win.

I mean, you have to rate your chances of just getting lucky vs putting together a super team sans QB. When you look at the history of the NFL, particularly in the last 20 years, there are a handful of teams without “elite” QB’s that won titles. Some of them had good teams with solid QB’s who got hot, some had incredible defenses with bad QB’s. Would the Giants have been better off trying to find a better QB than Eli? A guy who, outside of two historic playoff runs, was maybe a little bit better than Derek Carr level QB? Is there a universe where a little less luck has Eli being a better version of Jimmy G who got his team close but ultimately lost to the better QB? Joe Flacco has as many Super Bowls as Russell Wilson, but he wasn’t the same caliber of QB. Joe Flacco wasn’t close to as good as Rivers and Rivers never sniffed a SB. IMO, teams that have a “good enough” QB should do exactly what they do in the NFL. Build the best possible team around them, hope they get some luck and string together a few wins in the postseason. Lamar is good enough. Jimmy G was good enough (when healthy). Every team can’t tank until they get a top 3 QB. Every team can’t punt on the season just because better QB’s exist. Look at the Raiders. Some folks say “why are they trading for Adams when they have the worst QB in the division?” And my response would be, what else are they supposed to do? Just forfeit til Mahomes and Herbert retire? The Bills are unique in the sense that we went from “no QB” to “great QB,” after 20 years of waiting. Most NFL teams don’t do that. Most teams eventually have starter quality QB’s over a period of 10 years, that can win games with a good enough team around them. The 49ers had Smith and Jimmy in the last 20. The Ravens had Flacco and Lamar. The Bengals had Palmer then Dalton then Burrow. Cowboys had Romo then Dak. The Bills strategy is the exact strategy you don’t want. They would have been in the exact same boat Pre Josh Allen if they drafted a QB every year. Except they may have actually made the playoffs more than once.