dave mcbride

His knees are big, big problems. He looked slow as molasses last year. No arguing with that; that's what he's good at. He's huge. But he simply can't beat anyone deep. Throwing it up for grabs like that will result in a completion 1 time out of 4, an INC 2 times out of 4, and an INT 1 time out of 4.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm guessing that Benjamin's 40 time is now in the 4.9 neighborhood. I'd bet good money that Charles Clay is faster than him.

It's an interesting topic. I'm going to pick the truly elite QB's team almost every time, but I see your point. I guess it comes down to the following for me: over the past 9 years or so, the Packers have won a LOT more than they lose when Rodgers starts -- and regardless of his teammates are. The Pats are similar. Rodgers and Brady are THAT good.

Rogers is the best QB in the league (at least in the regular season), full stop, and I expect GB to win that division this year. It's a QB-drive league, and he's 88-38 as a starter from his second season onward. That's why I'm projecting a downward shift for Minnesota. The Bears are going to be a lot better too.

Including one postseason victory, Rodgers is 13-6 against Minnesota and has won 11 of the past 14 games. He has completed 68.3 percent of his passes for 4,810 yards, 40 touchdowns and just six interceptions, with a passer rating of 111.7.

??????? Brandon Cooks is a very good player! They had to shell out more for him (in terms of years; the per-year numbers are the same) because they failed to re-sign Watkins. They also *traded* for him, and had to give up a first to get him. That trade was done partly out of desperation (as the LA Times reported, they misjudged the exploding market for WRs this offseason) because they are built to win now and are going to have to face off against a vastly improved 49ers team this season plus a Seattle team that will pretty much always get to 9 wins given who their qb is. Anyway, two players can both be really good, you know. 62.5 percent of Watkins salary is guaranteed, and 60.4 percent of Cooks' is guaranteed. Watkins will go on the open market again at age 27 in three years, and if he produces, he will make a lot more money in five years time than Cooks makes in his five years.

Minnesota may well get swept by GB with a healthy Aaron Rogers. Plus they play three of the best teams in the league besides GB. That's why you predict regression.

The Rams didn't let him go. His contract was up. The Chiefs outbid everyone else. If you think they offered that contract sans any competition for his services, you'd be wrong. To wit: http://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/la-sp-rams-sammy-watkins-20180313-story.html

Oh please. Frankly, you sound like a typical bitter Bills fan who turns on former players the second they leave. I have no beef with Watkins and hope he does well. I wish he was still here because frankly, he's 5 times better than any of the receivers currently on the roster.

I see his production in his first two seasons as pretty damn strong. He was injured in his third season, and last year he played in an offense that was ridiculously multiple (and effective). He still hauled in 8 TDs and averaged over 15 ypc despite missing all of training camp.

Um, he was injured in 2016 - Lisfranc. More importantly, contracts are based on projection, not past performance. Teams don't pay players for past performance; they pay them for projected performance. The Chiefs, who are 53-27 the last five seasons and are clearly good at roster building, project him to be an elite receiver. You clearly don't, but I'm gonna go with the Chiefs' opinion on this one.

You really should start focusing on the talent he clearly possesses rather than just rattling off numbers. He's far more talented than Woods, and I like Woods. It's amazing to me how easily Bills fans turn on players who are traded or leave. Christ: he was a very productive player for the Bills his first two seasons, and he was injured during his third.

I fully expect Watkins to have a monster season assuming he stays healthy. That's a good offense for him. Irrespective of the numbers, his immense physical talent is crushingly obvious, and it's amazing that people here look past it. He's still quite young - he just turned 25.

I think the little guy decided that diving high over the pile was the best way to crack the end zone line. The big guy has other ideas.

Yeah, but I really like the fact that he appears as if he's going to continue to play past the whistle. Definite mean streak.

And the NFL's message has gotten through to this player -- he does not lead with his head. https://deadspin.com/the-sports-highlight-of-the-day-is-this-cats-perfect-ta-1827924376?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

6-26 in the SEC the last 4 years. Regardless, I like Tua and he looks like an elite prospect to me.

First off, I think the scramble was nice, *and I like the player*. More importantly, though, the throw just wasn't that difficult. It was an easy loft, the game was out of hand, and the WR was WIDE OPEN. All I'm saying is that I don't think that play was all that impressive. He was accurate and did make the play, but as an elite prospect, he *should* make that play. All decent qbs should be able to make that throw. But even an inferior player like Jalen Hurts can make that play 7 times out 10 (assuming he scrambles successfully) too given how wide open the player was. As to your point above, I'd like to see him make that throw against a team with a better secondary defender who hadn't been left in the dust on a play at the tail end of a blowout.

You're sorta straw-manning me (a tendency of yours, I believe). I was talking about one play and one play only, and I wasn't talking about the Georgia game at all. I also said I liked the player a lot.

That comparison means nothing to me. I like the player a lot, but it was a 45-0 game against a doormat with substandard defensive talent. Do it against a competent team in a competitive situation and I'll give him his praise.

I think he's good, but this play is not "amazing" outside of the scramble (which was admittedly good but happens all of the time). The throw was to a *wide* open receiver in an elite program who is probably ten times better than the chump from a perennial SEC doormat (6-26 in the last four seasons in conference play) who is covering him in a 45-0 game.

I think the OP's point is that if there are a couple-few highly regarded qbs (there always seem to be) and the Bills are in a position to draft one, they almost certainly *will* be able to find a partner. I was thinking about this other day myself, and I think it's a good thread. For argument's sake: trading down from, say, 3, and picking up, say, a second and a third plus a mid-first round pick (16-20 range) would allow the Bills to get a top-rated interior lineman, a new elite RB (rd 2 is historically good for such a player), and a TE in round 3. They can sign a WR and solid LB in FA with all of their cap space too. The organization has a long term plan that stretches beyond this year, so it's probably a good idea for us to think along these lines too.

I agree 100 percent.

Hey - as it applies to the Bills, this is the NFL we're talking about here. Not the actual legal system!

For those in need of a laugh, look at the cover we gave to this Oxford Handbook edited by McCann (I wasn't the editor!). https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-american-sports-law-9780190465957?q=mccann&lang=en&cc=us