thurst44

Well, how about this, maybe not immediately presume your own team is terrible, and be absolutely unflappably sure about it. It's the "woe is us" "we're always the worst" postulating that is itself the worst, particularly coming off a playoff season.

I think you may have wandered away from the point here. His argument was that we don't know what next year will bring for any team, so until anyone proves otherwise, we are what our record says we are. Ultimately, the Bills are the biggest of question marks, because the defense was dominant at its best (its stats were mostly obliterated during the three week stretch in which it fell apart) and we don't know what the QB or O-Line situation will be. Plus, from what we've seen of this organization and this administration, there will be many changes between now and early September. That being said, I don't really see where our talent level is that far from where we started last year, nor do I see how the Raiders improved from the bellyflop of last year (and we beat them handily), so I don't particularly buy that one, and feel like the Chargers are the most overrated team in the league for their "potential." Chiefs did a worse mid-season nosedive than we did.

Ugh. Will you stop it. They made it to the playoffs legit. Why do you feel the need to attack your own team the year after breaking a 17-year-drought? Can you not enjoy anything? They beat two playoff teams on the road; they pulled themselves out of one of the worst nosedives a team could have. Did they exceed their talent? Maybe, but to call them a "bad team," is just ridiculous and reductive. Funny thing is I agree with you that I can understand them not getting multiple night games, because they are a hard-to-gauge team at this point in the off-season, and that lack of night games will probably be to their benefit on the field (and certainly, personally, I enjoy Sunday at 1pm games best) but give them a little credit for a hard-fought run to the playoffs.

Exactly, there's a time and a place for Pan, and...well, that probably was it, but still....

I guess it doesn't matter, but I don't really see how Geno Smith is a "capable back-up" while EJ is a bust (in my mind, they're both technically both -- they played similarly in the one game they played last year, neither Raiders fans nor Giants fans were enthusiastic about it when either of them were thrust into action). Both were awful as starters, with the only difference being where EJ was a slow burn of horror, Geno flamed out spectacularly (9 more TDs, 20 more INTs). Also, the whole premise of this is kind of silly when they include 2016, 2017 in it. We can say Patrick Mahomes is a "Franchise QB" as much as we could say Jake Locker was a "Franchise QB" at this point in his career. He may well turn out to be, but he's tied in NFL TDs with Paul Giamatti, Senator Kamala Harris, Rowlf the Dog, and me (but one more interception).

Well, he did emphasize trade up, and EJ was a trade down where we got a DROY candidate who was then traded for our current best player. When EJ was drafted, personally I was ok with it, because they were aiming for a QB and he was about as good as any that year, and still could almost be argued (by default...what an awful year for QBs...for Geno's 9 more TDs, he had 20 more interceptions, Glennon's the "class" of the class, I guess, and that is SAD).

This is a great read and, honestly, it's the first compelling argument for Allen I've read, and that's kind of the point. You set it up as people thinking they are smarter than NFL scouts, analysts, GMs, coaches, and, at least for me, that's not why I'm wary of Allen. I'm well aware that my knowledge base when it comes to football, even having watched since childhood and being into my 40s now, is less than many here, let alone professionals. However, it is precisely the professionals' opinions and the way they talk about him that makes me wary of trading up to get Allen. When they describe him as "what he could be" or "unpolished, but what an arm" or that he looks like a QB, or the manner by which he's rising that rings bells from the past and enough of them to set my hackles up the same way as others who have gone bust in the past. Sometimes it's not the matter of amateurs thinking they no more, but amateurs knowing that sometimes certain professionals will think they know better than everyone else and get too too cute and sometimes they are wrong. The comparisons to Russell have little to do with his attitude, but more with the way sometimes the NFL groupthink can become enamored with one player. Is the comparison unfair? Well, most comparisons are. To be honest, I don't remember having much of an opinion about Russell either way at the time. In any case, I do agree with the last part. Saying I wouldn't take him in the fifth round or I won't be a fan is dumb. I'd be happy enough with him at 12 or even a small trade-up. If we trade a ton of draft capital and pick him at 2, ahead of two or three QBs I like for my own reasons, some logical, some speculative, I won't quit my fandom or even close, but I will be deflated and disappointed, and might be a little less inclined to trust the process (not like a random fan 400 miles from their home turf is going to impact that anyway). All that being said, I will hope that you are right and root for the guy, and for the defense to play lights out (as it is capable even now--well, once they have a middle linebacker anyway) until he hopefully lives up to his potential.

I agree, but we are talking about a team who took four wide receivers in one draft just two years ago.

Yes, let's get the guy who was the 4th most successful QB in the Mountain West Conference and who most analysts tab as the most likely bust. Let's take the guy who has played terribly but "looks like a QB" over the guy who has actually played well in college. When has that ever worked out poorly for us (or other teams who did the same)? I really don't get the dislike of Rosen. I understand being wary of his injuries, but would think a guy who most analysts consider one of the top two QBs would be exciting. As for the Josh of this thread, it's all been said (and probably in a better fashion than i ever have by other posters)...he just seems like such obvious fools' gold.

We should be so lucky! Do you think he'd go for us?

Why do I suspect your buddy also predicted them as a 4-5 win team last year too? The WR situation isn't much different than last year, maybe even slightly better than what they had Opening Day (Benjamin>Matthews), Bills offense is a question mark: we don't know who will be the QB and when we do, won't even know what that will mean for this year: is McCarron a diamond in the rough of the bench or was he rightfully a clipboard holder? Will our draftee be Josh Rosen, who may be near NFL ready or, like anyone else, could be a bust, or Josh Allen, who probably wouldn't be ready for years and if thrust in, yes, we probably are a 4-5 win team. The o-line is not so much in shambles as a giant question mark. If Incognito does not come back, Groy has filled in capably at times, Miller could return to 2016 form. Bodine has started every game in his 4-year career and has been decent at times. Ducasse has played ok, and way better than anyone but PFF will give him credit for, Dawkins looks like a star on the rise at LT, McDermott is an interesting prospect at RT. It's not inspiring, and hard not to feel like a step back, but there are options that could make it at least less than a liability (and last year, o-line play was all over the place). As for WRs, it's slim pickings at this point, and they probably are wise to wait post-draft (and maybe post-June 1 cuts) when maybe a new QB excites FAs (or scares them out of their wits). Jeremy Maclin has been a shell of himself the last couple years. Eric Decker is probably on the downslide. Dontrelle Inman is still young and could be a good third if Zay can shake off the first season yips and off-season whatever-the-f-that-was. Bills were probably wise to avoid the initial FA rush this year as if any position was particularly overpaid, that was it. Injury prone players with few 1000-yard seasons were getting 14-16m dollar contracts, while guys like Paul Richardson and Marqise Lee who have yet to top 900 yards were near double-digit contracts.

Shown very little? We went to the playoffs a year when we were supposedly "tanking," so yeah might be a bit overblown here. If the team's doing poorly in three years for whatever reason, though, yes, they will probably be on the hot seat b/c that's how it usually works.

4: Jets also picked Ken O'Brien And, technically 5 as the Baltimore Colts were then in the AFC East and the record has them drafting John Elway even if he did never play for the Colts.

Are you Steve Holt?

I seem to remember a high point on New Year's Eve last year...

Ok, this is easily the most absurd Fanspeak draft, but when Rosen dropped and there were also players from the Chubb/Barkley/Nelson camp available, figured I'd see about trading the 22 without the 12 to get to 7, and had to give up next year's first, but didn''t give up much else. However, all those top players of course went off the board between 8 and 11, so I started trading down, and once I had a lot of capital, could trade at will when I wanted someone, and afford to pick up droppers with issues like combine disaster Brown and injured Street, or load up on receivers. Kelly has a high ceiling and Breeland Speaks finally came on at the end of his college career with six sacks in his last six games. Josh Rosen and Bo Scarbrough could bond over shared dislike of a certain fellow, while having already taken a (probably) record 15 picks, can bring over Star's bro for the hell of it. If I could do over, I'd take White or Logan Whiteside later just because.

Seymour started 2 whole games for the Panthers, had 22 tackles, and was rated "poor" and the 110th best cb in the league by PFF Is it your money? Money at that amount is pretty much interchangeable against the cap and Clay might not even make the Top 51, and if he did it would be a difference of MAXIMUM 200k. He's a fast player who can return kicks and play special teams, and there's a good chance he doesn't make the team. Can't see any reason to particularly complain about this move.

Josh Rosen, easily (and there's a longshot logic, sometimes a groupthink will infect gms and players drop). I don't buy the question marks on his intensity. As many experts have said, if he were not committed, he would not have played football at a major program. For a more likely scenario, I'll go Roquan Smith. They seem to be looking to get a LB of the future as well as a QB and he just feels right (ok, not the most compelling argument). If somehow Quentin Nelson dropped, would grab him in a heartbeat, and that has nothing to do with RI's retirement.

Every team has weak spots, and you are waaaaay exaggerating ours. I think the poster you are responding to meant OL as "offensive lineman" as in one. As much as he's trashed here, Ducasse actually did well last year (PFF rated him at the higher half of "average" and 24th overall, and while it's just one rating, that kind of fits my eye test and I also trashed him going in). Miller could easily come back. Bodine has started every game in the last four seasons (admittedly, up and down). That's not counting the possibility of signing someone like Joeckel. Ok, Mills pretty much sucks, but he's been our starting RT for the past few years while we have been .500. The line's probably not going to be great, but it could still very well be solid. There's a good chance someone like DJ Chark or Michael Gallup, with a lot of upside, falls to pick 65 (which we still have in this scenario). James Washington seems to also be falling and he's possibly the best in the draft. What are you even talking about with street FA's playing two LB positions? Matt Milano and Lorenzo Alexander are the starters at two of the spots. Middle linebacker is the one hole there and it's admittedly a big one, but as of now it would be Tanner Vallejo over a UDFA, and that's most likely the other high (or highish) pick in draft even if we trade away some picks. Cornerback depth is meh for now, but our nickelback from last year is still out there anyway. Rafael Bush is a very good backup DB. This is not a team of superstars and will have holes. It will also likely have good coaching. And, again in this scenario, we have a potential star QB and a lot of cap space in 2019. Even then, I don't see this team by the end of free agency being particularly worse than last year's that went 9-7, and while the playoffs were lucky, that record (despite what some on here intimate) was very much earned. More importantly, they will probably be on the upswing.

Y'know, I was very much not a fan of the Ducasse signing (it's rare i rail against a player, but i railed against him), but he played perfectly fine last year. I know PFF is not the be all and end all, but... https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/vladimir-ducasse/5586 There was a lot of clamor here for Groy to start but now that he might be the starter, he clearly sucks. Miller played well in his second season and is young, so the jury's out. Bodine played well in 2016 like Miller, but is probably below average as you said, but I kinda liked the signing. Mills ... I got nothing. I wouldn't say shambles; it's more of a question mark, and considering there's still a lot of time in the off-season and still some FAs out there and some to come, it can be fixed. Admittedly, though, it would have been nice to not have Wood and Cogs retire right before we potentially start a rookie, but it might not be a disaster.

Yes, I know this is the time for breaking each others' heads open and feasting on the goo inside, but methinks you might be exaggerating a bit here. First off, a lot of these "two steps forward, three steps back" moves happened last year, before we made it to the playoffs. I'm not sure how you're spinning the fact that we're paying McCarron very little as a bad thing--that was actually a savvy move to get a solid backup with starter potential after everyone else got one. And, if you've been around here regularly, you might have heard from the occasional thread about it that there's more than one major QB prospect out there and the Jets move does not completely shut them out (nor ensure the Jets pick a guy who will be there any longer than our guy--see 1983 draft). We hardly have zero LBs. Milano played quite well in his rookie season, Humber's not great, but he played decently last year, Lorax was near back to 2016 form at the end of the season. We could use more depth and a better middle linebacker, but we don't have "No LB's." As for WR, it's bad, but Zay could still come on, Holmes had his moments. O-line: again not "No O-line"...Dawkins looked like he might be on his way to being a top-level left tackle. O-Line is a question mark. Our CB depth is not discernibly worse than last year and there's ample time to get Leonard Johnson/Shareece Wright level players (including Leonard Johnson himself). I don't really get this supposed need for "TE & RB depth" Ivory is better than Tolbert. Travaris Cadet looked good when he played. Nick O'Leary and Logan Thomas had flashes of greatness and are both very early in their career. As you said, last year's team finish(sic) better than expected, and the likely reason for that was coaching. (1) there's every reason to believe that they could surprise again and (2) we haven't even had the draft yet, free agency is not completely done, and there's June 1st cuts. Let's all bring it down a notch. Incognito retiring suddenly sucks, but it's not the end of the world.

Not really. Despite the dead cap, last I checked, we could easily absorb those cap hits. We just decided not to, and I'm fine with that (even though I liked Gaines and Brown--well, the latter, most of the time).

This is where I'm at. And I see a 10-6 that could peak near the end and win a game or two in the playoffs. Theoretically, they could pull back. If they do, I'll move that 10-6 to 2019 and answer the question of the original poster ... and raise it to 11-5. We have more talent than people here think and coaching showed they're good at getting the most out of it.

They won that game in Atlanta by playing better than the undefeated defending NFC Champions on their home field. How is that luck? They impressively came out of a nosedive to win against (admittedly the only other team that might have been playing worse football at the time) a team that would go to the playoffs. That's the marking of a good team, not luck. Indy also got very lucky because the snow equalized what would probably have favored the Bills in normal weather. They also were lucky that Tyrod, the one QB who might have thrived in that weather, was hurt. Also, while the flag was late, it was a legit flag.

This. We should be excited that our team overperformed in a coach's first year, even moreso that they did it by going 4-2 at the end of the season after flirting with falling apart.