Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

412 Excellent

About markrc99

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lovell, ME.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,338 profile views
  1. I've read that the Jets may be a good fit. They had a ton of drops from the position & they do need to add/upgrade there.
  2. I wanted to check your source because I remember O'Hara and/or Billick breaking down the Rams offense, showing that one of the things they liked to do was flood either side of the boundary at every depth. Your article doesn't state that Goff struggled with throws to the perimeter. Another source (a chart) shows that he was very proficient at every depth/area with one exception, the 10-20 yd range for the z-slot primary. I think you're right about Reynolds, when they needed something, they should've had Cooks run the short zone. Perhaps they did? If Goff is their guy, I'd get him a dominant primary WR! Lanky, narrow-framed & lean muscled, that's one part. The mental part, to me he doesn't seem to be as far along as a Carson Wentz or DeShaun Watson, not to suggest he won't be. But perhaps McVay is overrated some as his ability to bring QBs up to speed is seemingly behind him having or choosing to do all the thinking for them. I happened to check Kirk Cousins at playerprofiler & he hasn't done as well w/o McVay as his play-caller. Because he was 4th in pass attempts with a high completion %, he of course ranked in the top 10 in a lot of the volume & per attempt categories. I was surprised that they ranked his supporting cast as middling, that they don't separate very well.
  3. I was going to mention it before but figured I misread something and/or it didn't make sense; which was that his suspension wouldn't or couldn't begin until he was on someone's roster. Declaring him exempt & then dumped is different I guess. Whether the league office rolls high only to later 'compromise' on lesser punishment I don't pay close enough attention to.
  4. Pretty confident that it means nothing! Okay, okay, but Mark how often are you right about players again? Maybe 10% of the time... WHAT ABOUT IT!? Any idea what Nick Chubb has come through to get where he is? If I were to rate the professional mindset of each player, one clocks at about 110 while the other isn't even remotely in the same orbit. Hunt is an inside banger, an over-glorified one in here. He was served a cupcake at Toledo & again in KC, but he couldn't keep from screwing himself over. I suppose, but if it were me, I wouldn't be handing anything that Chubb has earned to anyone else, including Kareem Hunt. When we need to grind & the defense knows it's coming, you'll be in there. You want the job or not? If Hunt is there to get them the tough yards, that helps Chubb. Hunt will earn some of the gravy & he'll get it. There'll be some all equal touches no doubt, but he's the backup & the hammer. What it leads to is up to him.
  5. 'member the time you were out in right field & because the ball never came your way you had a open bag of M&M's in your mitt. Huh? Then out of nowhere in came that hot tamale, but you couldn't make use of your mitt and stuck your foot out instead? Ball rolled all the way to the fence, centerfielder actually retrieved it... runs scored & your team lost. Yeah, well, you're right back there looking to fuq' up your life all over again! You want someone to tell you to dump Nick Chubb, go ahead. But before you do, recall the looks on your teammates faces when you had the audacity to show up for the next scheduled game like nothing ever happened!
  6. While addressing the acquisition of Hunt, Dorsey was asked about Duke Johnson. Doesn't sound like he's in their plans, not to suggest the two developments are related. Trade-wise I don't think Hunt would warrant much value. A familiar add to their stable, if they offer him anything decent he probably stays right where is. I don't consider him a threat to Chubb's lead role, but once he gets rolling, a double digit touch guy for sure.
  7. The problem I had with samarium's comment was that the parallel he drew was a desired outcome, the reasoning that there are similarities on some other team (Rams). It's just me, and while the likelihood remote, I would give my unproven coach control over the position I brought him in to establish. Which of course is QB. He's had a lot of success with Mahomes, Mayfield & Manzel, guys that can run, pass & make decisions on the move. And we know that's the QB he wants at this level! All those M's, & Murray is who he wants. Seems like a no-brainer.
  8. While most will concede that Toledo, then KC were very favorable situations, some see Hunt's production more attributable to him being a very talented player. Low center with some of the skills of a workload 'back. Could be that his career enters a different chapter, more of a how-much-do-I-want-it phase. He's more of a bruiser, there's nothing special about his speed, suddenness or change of direction. As we know, the Chiefs got rid of him w/o hesitation & didn't miss him at all. Damien Williams quickly became the lead 'back & fantasy asset Hunt had been. As your comment suggests, it's reasonable to consider whether Hunt is or can be more than just a cog.
  9. He is there to develop a QB, but Kingsbury loves Kyler Murray. I think it has to fall through, but if the stars align, Rosen is a guy they're going to try to move. If it's me, all I'd want for him is an established, top OL or a high pick to draft one & a day two draft pick to get another one. But the Cardinals aren't... the Redskins, they're the Cardinals. I know they could trade back & get a boatload for the rights to Murray, but if he's really that good, figure it out. I agree with others who have Fitzy as the value play on that offense.
  10. Kupp is a good player & does help but I think your premise is a reach. What their offense has lacked, for whatever reason, is an effective Todd Gurley. He's who they really didn't have this past Sunday. But as feared, not w/o some exception, while they didn't have him, it didn't open up ...anything, anywhere else, at any time. The INT discussed above is entirely on Goff. On the pre-snap he must recognize that Gilmore is eight yards off the ball. He continues to give ground on the post-snap, opens his hips to the inside so that he can focus solely on Goff & the ball. The Rams are in a decent play, it's cushion man coverage & Goff's other three rec'rs all break off their routes in front of it. Plain as day, Gilmore isn't honoring anything else here, he's not accounting for Cooks to break off his route. He runs downfield to defend about the same spot as the play before. How did he know to overplay that? On the replay it's obvious that Cooks isn't even aware that the ball is coming. It's when he recognizes Gilmore's reaction that he then knows that it is. With his rec'r running right into the teeth of the coverage & equally problematic, the DB, 1st to know that it's coming, that's not a professional-level throw.
  11. As you say, it wasn't Harmon breaking it up or even Cooks dropping it. It was the fact that just as he attempts to catch it with both hands, Gilmore prevents him from getting his inside hand up. All the hand-checking that goes on with any given WR/CB battle, once Cooks is focused entirely on making the catch, Gilmore isn't looking back playing the ball, he's beat, it should've been called! Then on the next play, they try to go right back to the same thing, only this time the Patriots are in cushion coverage across the board & showing blitz. On the snap 3 of Goff's rec'rs run shorter routes. Goff is staring at Cooks the whole way down, Gilmore has his eyes clued on Goff & the ball. Gilmore is overplaying the very thing they're trying to go back to, but Goff just chucks it down there anyway? That isn't professional-level knowledge/read or execution. Another critical call was the holding penalty negating a 1st down run by Gurley into Patriot territory with the game still tied.
  12. That the Rams could get set & run their play prior to their communique being cut is something I suggested in my response to Shark. Math can be fuzzy, that the Rams may snap the ball shortly after it's spotted three times more often than any other team, means little if any given team only does this two or three times a game. Hard to know for sure whether it's overblown. So accordingly, it is a big deal, at least with respect to being in the right play when the mic cuts out! However, parts of the quote seemingly refute by explaining further what was sourced previously. Here, when the Rams do forego huddling, there may be a menu of plays, albeit limited, that can be run with just an audible. But this is definitely a part of the game I'll be paying closer attention to. Whether they huddle, whether there's a shift after their initial formation, whether they run their plays before the mic cuts out & what happens on the plays they snap the ball late.... I don't know, to me it reads like a coach who has little to no confidence in his QB's ability to run the offense.
  13. Well, several days ago Shark presented an interesting hypothesis which points to perhaps the biggest weakness of the Rams offense. That being Goff's experience level. He theorized that Belichick might change up their defensive alignment after the headset cuts out. Here are several articles on the subject: This would suggest the game could be decided between the time the Rams break from the huddle & prior to the snap. Both articles are consistent in that the play is decided after they break from the huddle. Thing about that, usually the play is sent in along with one to audible to. There's the QB's cadence or kill or code for kill. But here, Goff is told the play at the LOS, which is okay so long as their terminology is updated. Just me but this seems like the sort of thing that's right in Belichick's wheelhouse!
  14. Perhaps one way the Rams would counter that strategy is to break from the huddle & line up so they know what the Patriots are showing before the mic cuts out at 15 sec? But I think a lot of us agree that Gurley has to be huge for the Rams to win. It's okay if he's largely neutralized, so long as New England leaves themselves vulnerable elsewhere. But there's some of us that know what that means. New England is going to have to be defending the wrong thing a lot of the time, which is highly unlikely. They can shut down Gurley with just their base, if they often know where the point of attack is going to be. No reading, no wasted steps, the ball is snapped and their front explodes to defend that spot. I also agree with your point pertaining to Goff, if I understand correctly. He's still a young player, if he has to make a lot of pre & post-snap adjustments, it could be a disaster. On the other side of the ball Shaun O'Hara broke down this play yesterday on the NFL Network. This was huge in New England's regular season match vs KC, week 6. This is a 1st & 10 play with less than 4 mins left in regulation & a 4pt lead. The Patriots are in their base grouping & the Chiefs, in their 3-4 base front. O'Hara states: "This is a great job of them scouting & knowing what an opponent's going to do against a front or personnel." Rather than break down different aspects of this play, here the focus is on the DB lined up across from & responsible for covering Gronk. On the replay we see how Gronk got so wide open. The ball is snapped and the LT blocks the DB, Gronk slips inside of the block & is all alone. For me, the analysis from O'Hara or Chris Collinsworth on the replay are both inadequate! Because the LT looks to block him, the DB then just foregoes his responsibility to cover Gronk? The DB stacks at the point, like a DE would, as if he's responsible for setting the edge on this play. Even though the OLB, who isn't being blocked by anyone, is there to do that! For the faithful, they can concede that the play went for 42 yards because of the flop & that the analysis, although not purposefully, is lopsided. Apart from that the design of the play (the LT's block plus the run action to the right which opens the inside to Gronk) is gold & why the Patriots often win. But here are some of the problems with this play; it's an important play in the game & Gronk is only option. The NFL rule is that OL can only block one yard downfield before a pass. An OL can't proceed downfield screening a defender from a rec'r who doesn't have the ball... that's a penalty! So the DB doesn't have to take on the LT & shed his block. I said just the DB, but the OLB is big here too. This very formation is ripe for the backside OLB to explode off the snap & provide the backside pursuit or account for the QB. Both WRs & FB align to the right side of the formation, Gronk is the only guy to the left. They cut loose the OLB, while Brady has his back to him pretty much the whole time. The Patriots knew the DB would take on the LT & forego his cover assignment? No, that was blown. Okay, they knew he'd line up tight as if he were going to press Gronk, (which was necessary for the block to occur in the 1st place)? They knew the OLB, in a position to race downhill, would sit? As a unit KC bites on the run action, so where's the inside dog? The Patriots knew there wouldn't be an ILB blitz? How did they know the deep Safety wasn't going to roll up into the short zone? Oh, no, they couldn't have been certain about those things. Oh yeah, how do you know they didn't know? Well, if they were guessing again, they sure guess right a lot of the time.
  15. Seems harsh, no offense. As noted, if Dee Ford doesn't do something you shouldn't see at this level, which by the way, had zero impact on the pick (he was doubled & completely neutralized) New England isn't playing in this game either. But this is rotoworld, the other guys flopping equates to a 41-yr-old being a goat & his coach, a genius. There's plenty that doesn't add up, is the defense even allowed to touch Brady? No, he never has to stand tall, deliver & take it. That he never has to is the primary reason he's still out there. The play the Rams had, they were talking about it, there were actually multiple blatant fouls on that play. Plus, you see officials collaborating all the time to get the call right.This was a red-zone play, meaning, a very condensed field. The field judge should've made this call, but the back judge or the line judge could've thrown their flag just as easily! The odds of that happening are, incredible... I think if you'd otherwise get together with family & friends & have a good time, you should. Don't take this stuff too seriously.