Rubes

I'll take what I can get...

Awesome perspective.

Of course you can read them. If you don't want to pay a ridiculously low charge for someone's work, then just go to another thread. Just because an article is behind a paywall doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss it here. That's what the board is for. People didn't get nearly this uptight about ESPN Insider article discussions, they just ignored them or moved on.

Moving up is going to be expensive. Supply and demand. There are several teams who need a QB and who may be willing to move up, which changes the math. The typical draft trade values don't necessarily apply in this situation, where teams are bidding against each other to draft for the highest-value position on the field. Teams in the upper half of the draft can almost set whatever price they want...

Sure makes you realize how some individuals underperform for immature reasons, yet can turn things around in ways that aren't always clear to us. Even just a change of scenery can do it (*cough* Dareus).

And the only one I got to see in person. Ugh. I can't believe we actually led that game, 7-0.

He apparently convinced Bucky Gleason of the idea.

Why would the Browns or Colts agree to that now? The longer they hold out, the higher the price gets.

Love seeing everyone come out for these threads...

This place is amazing. So many great people over the years. Thanks Scott for grabbing us by the eyeballs and never letting go. I'm wondering where the craziest, far away places people have logged in from...I remember checking in from Haiti once over 10 years ago on the slowest connection you can imagine...

Wow, that's some serious time. Hard to believe I've wasted spent two decades of my life here. The vast majority of it lamenting bad QB play, bad coaching, and the lack of any playoff football.

Could be a bargaining chip for a draft trade so Beane doesn't have to give up more picks than he wants to move up...

Another thing I noticed (from the highlight reel, of course), is that he seems to do a really nice job when under pressure, always looking for the open receiver and eventually finding him. Doesn't seem to have a quick trigger to run...but when he does, he actually moves reasonably well.

I don't know anything about Rudolph, so I checked out his 2017 highlight reel. Of course it's only highlights, but some of the throws there were really quite good, and I didn't see anything to suggest he doesn't have a strong arm. But that's all I've seen of him.

What if the rule was all defensive holding or PI calls inside the two-minute warning put the time back on the clock? Hell, if they can run 10 seconds off for an offensive penalty, nothing wrong with putting time back on to prevent this kind of thing.

Well, at least you get irony. Well done.

My purpose was to point out that your position had been stated several times already, with plenty of arguments against it. So, just stating the same argument again doesn’t add much to the conversation.

Great, so your response to arguments against your position is just to state your position again? Got it.

Plenty of arguments against this throughout the thread.

Mark Gaughan's article would argue pretty nicely against this perspective, as have other articles.

Agreed. Like others have said, I don't see grabbing receivers as a problem in college ball. I don't buy the argument that it's a lot tougher to do in college because receivers are faster, or whatever. If it made sense to grab or interfere with receivers to save the long ball, you'd better believe college coaches would be doing it. Someone mentioned the Myles Jack play on Shady in the Wild Card game. Sure, but how many times do you actually see that happening in an NFL game? How different would that play have been if we got 15 yards instead of a spot foul? My guess is that the grab occurred right around 15 yards downfield. I still like the idea of making it a 15-yard penalty and automatic first down, and when it's inside 2:00 of each half, it becomes an untimed down and the time is put back on the clock. That will certainly dissuade defenses from just grabbing guys at the end of games.

Nothing, of course. But on one hand, the game can't end on a defensive penalty, so the offense gets another shot. And keeps getting shots until the defense stops doing it. On the other hand, another idea would be to make defensive PI a spot foul when it's inside 2:00 of each half. (I still don't like that, but it would hekp somewhat.)

I know this has certainly come up in the past, but I'm old as !@#$ and I can't remember any of the arguments for or against it. But watching these last few weeks of games got me thinking about this again, as several critical defensive PI calls have come up that dramatically swung the tide in favor of the offense. I hate that defensive PI is a spot foul—obviously when it happens when the Bills are on defense, but also even when the Bills get a call like that on offense, because it just seems like such a cheap way to get a ton of yards. Especially when it happens in the end zone and the ball is placed at the 1. I really despise that. And I don't like that this has actually become part of offensive strategy, to throw it up and look for that possibility. Any time there is a defensive penalty like unnecessary roughness that comes with 15 yards and an automatic first down, it's pretty great if you're on offense and hurts bad if you're on defense, no matter where the ball is or the situation. Enough with the spot foul on defensive PI. Make it 15 yards and an automatic first down. That's painful enough for a defense. Hell, offensive PI is only 10 yards.

Is it really that surprising, given the situations and outcomes? I get that people think it's worse because it was a bad call by the refs that should never have been allowed, but let's be serious: if Wycheck throws that ball a microscopic amount backwards, the outcome of the play is the same. The Bills !@#$ed up the coverage and blew it.