Dr. Who

If you look in the appendix to Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles, crazy, hot, Asian women is one of the supplemental proofs for the existence of God.

Journalist is generally a synonym for imbecile nowadays.

So you would have preferred Ridley to Edmunds? I suspect McDermott thinks Edmunds can develop into the qb of the defense. It's an important piece and more likely to have long-term benefits than a good wr. I'm not convinced Denver or the Raiders are set up for success. Probably our criteria and temperaments differ too much for agreement. I see a team that was fortunate and overacheiving. They needed to rebuild and I think they are doing it right.

Lot of dead cap money to make "doubling down" feasible. We were fortunate last year. Defense created opportune turnovers, especially early on. We lacked playmakers or a franchise qb. How does one turn that into a viable strategy for competing now? Bad rebuilds mean one has to get it right before one can plan on consistently being a team that can challenge for championships.

I suspect Allen will end up starting fairly early unless Peterman plays better than I expect. I am okay waiting on Allen because I would prefer to see if the o-line is merely subpar or execrable. I also think Allen may benefit watching a few regular season games. He was slow getting players to the line and calling plays against the Bengals. I don't think he needs a year to rectify that, but waiting through the early part of the schedule does not seem outlandish to me.

I'm a cat person myself, but you're pretty smart for a dog.

Okay, that's a pretty impressive argument. I don't have an immediate counter-argument to your numbers analysis. Do we or should we trust Castillo to be the fella to coach his players to maximum efficiency?

I agree that the Seahawks were exceptionally fortunate. One cannot use them as an exemplar to emulate. I also do not question that a team with a good coach and a good qb is likely to consistently outperform teams lacking one or the other. Further, I concur that McDermott knows, for instance, that he can do well with cbs that are very good, but lack the elite skills necessary for "Revis island" performance. A good coach with an excellent grasp of what makes his particular schemes work will know where to allocate his resources. Still, surely there is a limit to how far coaching can elevate natural talent? I guess I am suspicious that the 90th best OT is not much different from 50th. Even if McDermott is as good as we hope he is, I don't think he can overcome what seems to me the evident lack of talent at o-line, for example. In short, at some point there is a minimum threshold for talent and I think there are key areas on the team where we don't yet meet it. I do believe Allen has a good chance to be the real deal and if that happens, we will be good sooner rather than later.

Like SouthNYfan, I think you overstate your case. I will grant that superior coaching ought to give one an edge where the CBA and salary cap tend to push teams towards a middling level of talent. Qb and edge rusher probably make the most impact, but there are likely six to eight positions that have higher value than others. I still believe it's possible to acquire and keep top ten performers at positions of greatest importance. The teams with the better overall collection of talent are more likely to perform well even when coaching is average. Unless one is matched against a coaching staff of really superlative ability, I think talent is a more significant factor than you allow. All that said, it's a very interesting argument and has some plausibility.

Weaker than Fitzy's arm is a recipe for a lot of sad sighs.

I like Dawkins and Teller. The rest are bad.

I generally concur with your comments, but that is one creepy avatar . . .

Well, if you can say that for the undead.

There could actually be more than one franchise qb in the draft. Perhaps I should go register on a Jets' message board as DarnoldWillBust and then go antagonize the fan base. OTOH, I'm not twelve years old, petty, or gratuitously nasty, so I guess not.

Too bad cut down day doesn't apply to message board posters.

One could plausibly argue the o-line "sucks." Josh Allen seems a promising rookie qb to me.

Well, perhaps I am not up-to-date on this. I thought I saw a tweet from a journalist or some such that the injury to Ray-Ray might not be that serious.

You don't draft Josh Allen if you don't intend to eventually throw the ball a lot. I think McDermott will get there, but I believe you are right about his basic inclinations.

Nah, I want to still hate Castillo, stop with this stuff?. I do think talent is the main issue, though.

The o-line appears so bad . . . not sure two qbs is enough to get through the season.

Most likely the answer is we need both much more talent and a much better o-line coach.

Hey, Tyrod, hope you're enjoying Cleveland.

I agree with this. Because of the rookie wage scale, draft picks have more value than they did in the era of the Cornelius Bennett trade, for instance.

If whoever oversees officiating doesn't clarify to the refs that this is a clean sack, the game will indeed be unwatchable.

Arguably Henry Fonda's best role playing against type. It's a great movie, regardless of genre.