BuffOrange

I hear you on the AFC but this was an incredibly lucky team last year. As in the first 11win ever team with a negative point differential. Bad defense, bad OL.. As I think the world of Luck I was willing to be proven wrong but it doesn't look like it so far if the two home games they've played are any indication. And this is a franchise who finally broke thru in the postseason after replacing Edge James with a couple schmos. I would think them of all teams would not overvalue that position.

Good deal for the Browns imo. RB's have such short shelf lives; why waste TRich's prime when you're not close to having a QB. The Colts are still not a good football team & nowhere near a contender. Of course I have both TRich & Bradshaw in fantasy.

I would guess the targets are more about someone who isn't supposed to be a #1CB being on the #1 WR. I'm sure the same thing would happen to whoever had to replace Antonio Cromartie or Joe Haden if they got hurt.

There's no way in hell a 1pt favorite can win, nice.

Yes, I was going to say the same thing albeit in a slightly less descriptive manner... But then I remembered he must've also talked trash before the rematch because he's Clubber Lang. He seemed to get a noticably less positive reaction from the crowd before the 2nd fight....clear heel turn imo.

This. What? That was the 1st fight. C'mon get it together.

Yes the bolded part is not factored in enough by coaches. The Bills almost certainly go with a more conservative approach down 3 and thus virtually never win in regulation (I know Marrone said otherwise but that's hard to believe). Plus he has the best short yardage QB in NFL history. But hey, nobody on ESPN is going to blame Rivera today. But they would be if he had gone for it, failed, & they lost 23-20 in OT. The media is disgraceful. So are coaches.

Ha. To be fair they did have a big TD pass called back on a nitty formation penalty... Brees only needing a FG at the end felt like pretty much a formality the way Brady did last week. It was under 50 btw.

It seems like the Phil Simms' of the world have brainwashed a lot of people with this "chase the point" nonsense. The advantage of being down 1 as opposed to 2 pretty much always boils down to the possibility that a 2pt conversion will help you later in the game. EG 1: you give up a TD and now you're only down 8 instead of 9. EG 2: you score a TD and have the opportunity to extend the lead to 7, which you could not do if you were down 2. Does it really need to be explained what's wrong with this theory? Obviously it is assumed by every hack announcer (and a lot of coaches apparently) that every failed 2pt attempt with 20min's left is likely to be successful had they delayed that attempt until late in the 4th Qtr. Naturally there is zero math or logic to back this up. Going for 2 is clearly correct imo.

Yes, college coaches can and have failed. Just as the young hotshot coordinators & retreads HC's fail all the time (as Bills fans all know). Of course you can find more counter examples of the latter two categories succeeding because they've had many, many more opportunities to do so. There are more Bill Belichiks and Pete Carrol's than Jimmy Johnson's; for the same reason there are more Dick Jaurons and Steve Spagnolas than Spurriers. More of them get hired. A lot more of them. I think the specific background is overrated - you have to find the right guy. Just like you want to draft a good player regardless of position. Everything I've read/seen about Kelly makes me think he is the right guy. IMO media skeptics want to be skeptical partially because they want to believe all the football cliches they've heard & regurgitated their whole lives: Gotta punt & play field position, gotta run a conventional offense, blah blah. I do think there's some merit to the bolded part. It'll be interesting to see how well guys like McCoy can hold up - I don't think they want to give him 30+ carries every game. Also I picked Bryce Brown in fantasy & think he has a ton of upside, ha.

People are obsessing way too much about the Redskins game. "OMG Skins sucked, Vick gonna get hurt, Eagles not gonna win Super Bowl!". Really? Who cares. Yes he's eventually going to need better players on defense and Vick isn't the future. So what? They're not all-in for this year circa 2011 Philly or 1994 SF. How does everyone know he's a stubborn 1trick pony who will never adjust to anything ever? Maybe he's just analytical/smart & this style of offense just happened to be the edge he thought he could exploit at the time & he'll come up with something else when defenses adjust. That's not possible? This guy is under such a bigger microscope than any other coach it is comical (nobody else gets a road underdog/division win nitpicked to death). That's saying something with a league that has Rex Ryan.

That is unfortunate. Why don't they wear the alternate blue - those are pretty sweet.

A 6-3 Jets win would be about perfect. Let everyone give Geno way too much credit. Everyone giving Sanchez too much credit for the 14-0 Colts laying down & Nate Kaeding missing 11 FG's didn't exactly help them in the long run.

Sigh. It wasn't the right decision because it worked. It was the right decision because it's what the odds say. If it were about hindsight then it technically "didn't work" since they Skins ran a fumble back on that drive. You don't always pull a face card when you double down on 11. That doesn't mean you shouldn't play the odds. But nobody has the balls to, except maybe Jim Harbaugh.

I've been driving the Chip bandwagon since forever. He's gonna be great. He gets it. Going for it w/out hesitating on 4th&1 the first possession = awesome. The "1 game sample" argument is fair enough but at the same time every old foggy & their brother would be gloating about him being a flop if they lost 28-10.

My team was like the Bengals offense: AJ Green & a bunch of duds. Bleh.

It's too bad Gilmore murdered people & is out of the league while Hernandez is merely out a few weeks & will be back for the rematch in Week 17. Oh wait..

Just about every close game we've played/lost vs them we've gotten our share of breaks - the insane Schobel int/TD, the Fletcher fumble/TD on the first play of the season, a McGee kickoff return... Ridley fumble was obviously huge and kinda changed the game. The Brady fumble was on 4th down so who knows how big of a break that was. Considering we pretty much gave them their two TD's on fumbles I would call the breaks a wash this time (plus God forbid Amendola be out for the game with our 2 best DB's out). So if there's a silver lining it's that.

True. It's why a 4-12 team was favored vs a 10-6 team today (one team was a lot luckier than the other last yr).

He called for a comically bad punt in the 1st Qtr @Missouri last yr in what was obviously going to be a shootout. I like Marrone otherwise but am sadly not surprised. Good news is next week's opponent Ron Rivera has the smallest nads in the league and that's saying something.

WTF does "especially Brady" mean? No NFL QB but "especially Brady" is going to run out of time when he has > 2minutes to get in FG range. We couldn't take it under 2minutes by running clock unless they changed the playclock to 180 seconds in the offseason.

NM

I have no real experience in 2QB leagues so not sure. From what I understand QB/QB off the top is standard but I can see thinking McCoy/Forte/Marshall/White is too much value to pass on. What QB's were available when you picked Sproles/Bradshaw/Smith? I am definitely not drafting my 4th RB or 3rd WR & probably not 3rd RB before 2nd QB - and I like Freeman more than most. Yet somehow you still managed to land 3 firmly entrenched QB starters which seems like a must in this format (I don't understand how Tannehill lasts 'till the 11th round). Bears D & two TE's is obv. yuck. Still probably a really good team. Yet another awesome league to be in.

I'll have to re-check the #'s for recent years but last I looked a few years ago, 6pt passing TD's don't make QB much more important. It just hurts the running QB's like Newton a bit.

That's a very glass half full summary. The only positions that really stand out as far as their long-term future are the OL & LB core. Mallet, the WR's, the DB's - every team has guys like that who may or may not work out. The RB's are fine but none are real difference makers. Again this is true of about 90% of teams outside of Minnesota (superhuman) and Pittsburgh (a bunch of scrubs). Gronk despite his youth could very well be closer to the end of his peak than the beginning, as pointed out by Bill Barnwell.