Ennjay

You're absolutely right.

Serious question: what's your problem with Hauschka?

A lot of good stuff in this thread. One more observation: Inigo Montoya correctly points out that middle-of-the-pack rankings for rushing yards and points allowed have to improve. Successful rushing games also eat clock. I'm not rehashing the Time of Possession argument but rather thinking about getting the ball back when you need it, especially in the fourth quarter. Even with expected offensive improvement, I don't know how often the Bills will carry a two- or three-score lead into the 4Q so the opposition can't run anymore. More likely we'll need the ball back and the D will have to pick it up so the O will have a chance. Old timers like me will remember how the K-Gun Bills would play keepaway with long ground drives in the 4Q and just end the game before the opposition could do anything about it (whether or not the Bills had a two- or three-score lead). That's what I'm concerned about this Bills D protecting against. Also, obviously, improving on points allowed will necessarily result from improving on rushing yards allowed so long as the Pass D doesn't collapse.

He deserves credit for enduring some really ugly uniforms he had to wear -- chiefly those Bills hockey shirts with the blue band across the shoulders and the Steelers bumblebee throwbacks.

This is how I remember it too. The Dolphins were always ready to scrap the running game, probably because Marino wanted to throw it. Obviously that's what he was best at.

Off topic maybe but I've always felt sorry for Eric Moulds for the same reason. On another team he might have made the HOF. Agreed on Sanders but I have a hard time having sympathy for Marino. He didn't play on crap teams -- just teams that were stuck behind others that were better (usually the Bills), like Earl Campbell's Oilers were stuck behind some great Steeler teams.

I guess we could have skipped this whole thread. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26896216/pats-cut-te-seferian-jenkins-1st-day-camp

Is that what we call cold showers now? I for one am proud to be posting on a blog where 87% of voting participants understand he's doing just fine.

Two trivial observations: 1. The Packers also have an unsigned Third Round TE, so I'm wondering if Knox is waiting to see what he gets. Or vice versa. 2. What's with the Rams? Are they taking this year off?

That block may have put Jerry Kramer in the Hall of Fame, although he generally deserved it -- I think he just went in last summer. That was the famous Ice Bowl NFL Championship game before Super Bowl II (pre-merger when the AFL was still operating) and I feel ancient because I remember it. RIP Bart Starr. All you ever heard was how much class he had.

I can see the Jets losing a lot of games as a weak roster and bad chemistry snowball. But ownership (Christopher Johnson) has such a man crush on Darnold that I don't see them taking any QB in 2020. Now in 2021, when Woody Johnson gets back . . .

Did you mean Matt Leinart? Barkley was a 4th round pick, so expectations weren't high. Leinart would've been the top overall pick after his junior year, slipped to #10 (still first round) after his senior year, and finished his career as the sacrificial starting QB in the Bills' last preseason game one season.

Agreed. And QB pressures are important when they take the Offense out of plays as called.

I think you're on to something and you make sense. But I have to say the problem with many blanket statements (like "sacks are great . . . sacks don't matter") is that, like so many things in football, the impact is situational and, I think, we often "over-statisticize" and use stats to come up with a rule that may not apply to all situations. A sack on second and short may (may) kill a drive. A sack on third and long may be meaningless because the punt was likely anyway. And a sack on first down . . . I dunno, you've got at least two plays left to do something about it so I really don't want to generalize. But you're right that sacks are over glamorized.

I for one am disappointed by the narrowness of this report. On this page we usually get our inside information from sources with no knowledge of the situation. What are they saying?

Once upon a time you could say this about the Bills and CB's (Antoine Winfield, Nate Clements, . . .), except the Bills didn't get rid of them -- they played out their rookie contracts and then left.

This would be such a Jetsy thing to do. And I predict they'll be thrilled with the 4th round pick they'd get for him, because no one will bid higher for a non-Pro Bowler you can get on your own terms when he's a FA after this year.

Jets at 18, Browns at 27, Patriots at 32. Yeah, I'm going to take this guy's opinion seriously.

And that's why every one of these guys will barely play in the preseason.

There must be a law somewhere that you can't honestly criticize John Elway or John Lynch.

A couple obvious morals to the story: Nobody knows anything when it comes to the draft. Tom Brady was pick number 199 in the sixth round; the Patriots weren't smarter than anyone else, just luckier. Johnny Unitas (look him up kids -- he was pretty good) signed with the Colts as a free agent. But Jamarcus Russell was an overall #1 and even Bill Walsh thought Trent Edwards was a keeper. That's why I stopped reading most pre-draft expert analysis. Notwithstanding nobody knows anything, drafting for need vs. taking a better player is a mistake. And if you can't tell who's a better player you're doomed anyway. A lot of guys simply can't play QB in the NFL.

So let me go out on a limb here with the big news headlines of the day: Tyree is starting! (Never mind he has no competition here.) Bills are going with a two-TE offense! Knox isn't being punished for his contract holdout! (Which isn't a holdout anyway if he's there and practicing.) Rookie minicamp . . . my nominee for the least newsworthy event on the NFL calendar.

This is exactly correct. As the article says: "The networks are not paying a rights fee, but ESPN and Fox are picking up production costs, which generally amount to around $400,000 per game, sources said. As part of the deal, the nets will sell ads around the game; the XFL will handle sponsorships at the venue." $400,000 for ~3 hours of national programming is actually pretty cheap. The play here is that enough people will watch any kind of football to get enough ads to cover the nut. If they can pedal spots for $25K to $50K the networks will actually make a few bucks on what might otherwise be dead air time. (I noticed that tonight one of the ESPN's was carrying women's corn hole, so my point about dead air time is already made.) There's a reason SEC games are televised on Saturdays and MAC games on Thursday nights. You can guess which ones get better ratings and ad revenues. Nevertheless, somebody will watch the lesser product in the offseason I suppose.

I know I'm dating myself but LOU SABAN said that way back when.

How soon they forget: #77 Ben Williams was pretty good too.