>>150316842
>Slow to process/holds on to the ball entirely too long,
>instead opting to run if he gets through his first two and nobody is open
>mentally lets pressure get to him
>wasn't great against blitzes
KEK you didn't watch a single second of game. Daniels thrives against the blitz, just ask Glenn

>>149606359
It's stupid to compare a Flacco with 4 years experience to a rookie. If Daniels wasn't perfect, what more could he realistically have done?
>>149606365
>It was a completley different team.
>That's a testament to how strong they were
Given how my point is that JD5 was good enough to upset the 1 seed, I think you and I are in agreement