Ronin

BTW, you highly overrate Newton as a passer. His career numbers are purely average. If that's all we get from Allen as a passer after trading up to get him it will be disappointing. His postseason play leaves a whole lot to be desired.

So you think that neither of them throws a good short game, well, ok, if you think so. The media's overreacting. Many here are raving about a very mediocre passing game with an abysmal short game. If you get out of this forum you'd see it. Just Google Allen. OK, so in your view 2 or 3 good passes on the day is good. There seems to be a lot of that going around, I get it. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

So 2 deep throws for 107 yards, one by a nothing WR on garbage coverage, 6 of 17 for 53 yards otherwise is a testimony to accuracy? Well, ok. If you say so. He may be great down the road, but there's an enormous overreaction to this past game of his. Take away his rushing yards and there's no chance in H ell that we're even in this game, even against the Jag's pathetic offense. The last time I checked franchise QB play wasn't predicated on a QB running the ball. If it is then why'd we ditch Taylor.

That's exactly right. Just like every franchise QB, Allen's success as such is going to be directly tied to his ability to run the short-medium passing game. His rushing is great, exciting, but eventually it's going to get him killed, particularly since so many times he goes head-first and doesn't protect himself. If the team wants him around for any length of time then they need to seriously work on that. Otherwise, there isn't nor has been a "strong-armed QB" in the modern NFL that became a franchise QB based exclusively on having a strong arm and a deep-game in the absence of the short-medium game. So if he can't develop that, then he won't work out. If he can, then his deep game will merely be gravy. Not team lives on the deep ball and it's a fool's game to attempt to do so. Allen's numbers to date are all but a carbon copy of another strong-armed QB with even better collegiate credentials that we drafted, over his first 6 games. Losman was unable to master that short-medium game. If Allen can do it, then he'll be entrenched as the QB for hopefully a decade-and-a-half. If not, then the team will be looking for another QB in the 2020 draft again. This past game didn't prove his naysayers incorrect, and winning a game because of a 100-yard rushing performance by your QB is an unlikely occurrence unless people seem to think that Allen's going to log 1,000+ rushing yards every season. He was 4 for 11 for 35 yards in the 2nd half. He had two impressive pass plays that totaled 107 of his 160 passing yards. There was absolutely nothing impressive about his passing otherwise. Two plays a game is hardly enough to produce consistent QB play and do not a QB make. He was 6 for 17 for 53 yards otherwise. He'll have to start producing much better than that to cement himself as a franchise QB, much. And in being honest, that deep play to Foster was due to fortunate slack coverage by Jax's Safety. Great play, but let's at least be honest about what it was. Plays like that simply don't develop like that on a regular basis. As of now, when he drops back, he seems to make one read, if that pass isn't possible he has a tendency to take off running or scrambling. There are exceptions, but that's his current steady-state level of play. In this last game, I watched the "every-snap" for Allen and didn't see him look to a second option once. Unfortunately, that's not a trait that makes up the franchise QBs in the league. Quite the opposite in fact.

I didn't want to quote your entire post, but generally speaking this is why I typically don't post much, because people like you leap-frog the ENTIRE core point and mindlessly go off on irrelevant non-germaine tangents. Several posters do understand however, so for you, as you were. But honestly, it's not confusing.

We're getting closer. Before we were winning the preseason. Now at least we're into the actual season. Maybe one of these days someone will actually have command on the field after the ball is snapped.

Leave Allen out of if and they essentially have nothing from their drafts on offense. Drafted OK on D, horribly on O. Defense 2017: 1/27: White, great pick but in a draft fairly deep with DBs, also, gotta question building the team A, defensively first in this modern era, and B,, from the secondary in as opposed to from the front-7, particularly since the only era of great Bills football was predicated upon the D starting with the front-7. 5/163: Milano, good pick, particularly for a 5th, but the team needs better players than him to build a winner. Also, very inconsistent. 6/195: Vallejo, not a good pick, but a 6th so little was expected. He’s not even with the team anymore. 2018: First of all keep in mind that in this past draft they originally had 9 picks with 2 each in each of the first three rounds. Everyone’s raving about 10 picks next year but there are only one each in each of the first three rounds, three fewer than this year originally, and the other 7 are on day 3. (see below) So in short, this year’s draft was better in terms of the picks, by a long shot, than next year’s, and we see what they got from this one. 1/16: Edmunds, who I was all over prior to the Draft and whom they could have had w/o trading up had they not made that enormous all-in trade to get Allen. They should have grabbed him with the 12th and used the other 4 picks and taken Rudolph who IMO is clone of Mahomes. Shocked that he lasted til 3. We may never know however. 3/96: Phillips, an OK pick for an OK player, again, a whole team full of guys that play at his level ain’t gonna get it done. 4/121: Johnson, similar here. Good pick, particularly for a 4th rounder, but it’s not like he’s playing like 1st or 2nd rounder should be. 5/154: Neal, similar here again, particularly for a 5th. So defensively very good but not extraordinary or anything. Solid tho. Offense Here’s where the issues lie. They’ve been horrific. 2017: 2/37: Jones, complete whiff here. Jones is a backup caliber WR. For an early 2nd-rounder he should be approaching 1,000 yards and 8 TDs this season regardless of the QB, particularly on a team that's bereft of any other good WRs. He’s also succeeding this season largely in garbage time. He’s the epitome of inconsistency and ¼ of his entire production, and half of his whopping 2 TD total, was in that weird Jets game. Below-average player and considering that he was a mere 5 picks removed from the 1st-round, particularly with what I thought was the obvious choice on the board with Smith-Shuster, it was a horrible pick. He’s not even starting material, a 3rd WR at best and on a good day. 2/63: Dawkins, an average player at best right now. Not performing to 2nd-round standards. 5/171: Peterman, we all know that story. 2018: 1/7: Allen, supposedly a deep-arm asset but currently has the lowest YPA of any QB in the league including all the pedestrian ones. IMO the lesson there is that the NFL isn't built around the deep game at the complete expense of the short-medium game. Has never had a penchant for being able to manage the short-medium game which makes his prospects all the more interesting. Either way, they went all-in on Allen considering that they turned an original 5 picks ranging from 1/12 to 3/65 into Allen and Edmunds, and when they easily could have had Edmunds for one of those picks, making Allen costing the other four in essence. This is about all that they have to show for their offensive drafts and right now I wouldn’t bet a plug nickel on that working out favorably. We can hope however. And why not, that's all we ever have, is hope, usually false hope. 5/166: I’ve seen the highlight reels of his good blocks, but like most highlight reels, they’re highlight reels. He’s also got some real stinker play. Jury may be out since he’s really not played much, but that’s the best we can say right now, that the jury’s out. 6/187: Lucky to be on the team, likely not beyond this season. 7/155: Proehl, no longer on the team. Is he even playing now? Either way, there isn't one player drafted offensively that has even come close to making an impact. Given that they need offense, and essentially all 10 other positions on offense, or at least 8 or 9 of them, I’m not sure this will be going anywhere, particularly with a bunch of day-3 picks. Back out the day-1/2 picks and here’s what’s left from their first two drafts overall on day 3 of both Drafts: Defense: Milano, Johnson, & Neal Offense: Peterman, Teller, McCloud, & Proehl Two of those seven aren't even with the team, the remaining two offensive players, one's likely not long for the team and the other's a complete jury's-out thing. Defensively, OK but we'lll need players much better than them if we're to be a competitor in the playoffs. Still encouraged/optimistic? What's more important, winning a few games the remainder of this season, or winning games next season? That's what it comes down to. The more games we win now the further back we'll be drafting which will significantly impact the positions of the three picks we have next year, one each in each of the first three rounds on days 1 & 2. We win now, so what. Who cares. Isn't the goal to make the playoffs and be competitive in them? We have a shot at neither barring literally a miracle. There's going to be further turmoil and upheaval if we don't at least go 8-8 next season, and the way that the offense currently is, and given that this league is dominated by offenses, it's going to be enough of an uphill battle as it is.

Again, LOL, you type a lot for someone with almost no original/independent thoughts with largely only worn-out cliches to offer. But hey, that's what forums are all about, right.

LOL Cut the nonsense John, I see that's a lot of what you offer here. Ya know, you ask people what they'd have done differently upon entering a home that's filled with fecal matter when the answer's pretty obvious, that any number of approaches BESIDES what was used would have been better. Naturally the notion to not have filled the place with the fecal matter to begin with needs an explanation in your world. It's not bitching at all, what you are doing is bitching. The rest of us were having a conversation and discussion. Try actually thinking for a change and quite resorting to adolescent one-liners. I realize that's a stretch for you, but give it a shot son, you can do it.

Like I said, the train never would have left the station on my watch. I think I at least partially answered your question, don't be a lamebrain. I SAID, I WOULDN'T HAVE used five picks ranging from 12th overall to 65th overall, to enlighten you, that would have been 2 mid-1st round picks, 2 mid-late 2nd-round picks, and the 1st pic in the 3rd round, on two players when I could have gotten 5. If you can't read and comprehend that then return to elementary school and repeat the 4th grade. Talk about copouts, repeating the same idiotic nonsense while ignoring an answer seems to apply. I'll also REPEAT what I implied as well, namely that I WOULD HAVE treated this team as a roster in need of a rebuild that it so sorely needs and not consumed a rare draft on a project QB that DID NOT POSSESS the traits of every successful QB that has played in the NFL while going in full speed for a singular trait such as arm-strength when that approach has been attempted far more often with negative results than positive ones, and that, for prospects not nearly as project-oriented. Your self-righteous approach in discussing this misses the original point that I made entirely. I was merely corresponding the impact of deep-throws, for the best QBs on the best offenses, with the host of other aspects of the passing game and relating that to the overall "rebuilding" strategy if you want to call it that since McBeane doesn't, and demonstrating that it's akin to buying a lottery ticket and NOT a sound approach to rebuilding. I'm really sorry that you're struggling with that trivial nature of that all. Truly.

I don't care about "flaming or trolling," speak your mind. But consider, this isn't about you or I, my point entirely was about how little influence or even impact the deep-passing game has compared to the lipservice that it receives, A, and B, that if that is one's strategy that one had better think things through entirely and not neglect other enormous and far more impactful elements of the game in favor of one relatively minor element, not even necessarily amidst average play otherwise, but below-average, at least insofar as Draft criteria goes. Ergo, it's not a matter of "shoehorning anyone into anything," it's entirely a matter of strategy and vision (or lack thereof) being employed by McBeane. Like it or not they, McBeane, are going to have to "shoehorn" Allen into the role, ready or not. Sitting on the sidelines is only going to help a QB that has historically struggled to read Ds, make changes, and manage the short-medium game so much and that's hardly enough to correct it all by a long shot. This entire conversation off my end is entirely about how the deep-passing game is overrated compared to the short-medium game, particularly if the latter, which is again, over 90% of the passing game, is neglected in favor of the former, which is merely a few percent of the passing game. [CASE IN POINT: Would you rather have right now a QB that's not only capable but above-average in reading Ds and connecting efficiently and effectively on throws of 30 yards or under, or a QB that has demonstrated absolutely no wherewithal whatsoever in being able to do that at all in the NFL much less to an above-average level, but one that can wing a ball 70 yards consistently? And frankly, I'm entirely unaware of any NFL QB that cannot accurately throw at least 50 yards. Not sure what you remember about our glory years if you were there, but the thing about Kelly is that he was never a deep-ball QB, in fact he rarely threw much beyond 50 in the air and it was a cold day (pun intended) when he threw for much beyond 30 or 40, yet ... ] The answer to that one obviously comes down to what one thinks is more important, the mental abilities relating to the reading of Defenses and an ability to react to that, which is typically not audibling into deep throws, rather the opposite; OR, the ability to not doo those things but the ability to heave a ball the length of the field. I dare say that the former is infinitely more important and that the latter may never even develop into a starter because he doesn't nor ever did have the fundamental elements down and is fighting an uphill battle in terms of attempting to change that in the NFL based on NFL draft history. When this is factored in with my earlier comments about how the benefits of that deep-game aren't even remotely realized unless the elements of the non-deep-game are in place, and for which they are far from being in place at the moment, then the entire strategy becomes defunct. It merely adds insult to injury as it were when the benefits of that deep passing game aren't even being realized. Then you're left with nothing as is the case with us now. There's been no semblance of anything even approaching an average deep-passing game much less a top notch one, with Allen that is. As they say, show me. I'm not even seeing a deep game. (side note)

If you ask me that's a lot of cliche'd gibberish about respecting the deep throw. Defenses and those that orchestrate them, know just as well that a team does not consistently win games, or even close on successful deep throws, particularly when the short-medium game sucks. Which is essentially the point here. What you say would have some merit if the QB in question were good at managing the short-medium game, say for instance Brady and Rodgers or any number of other QBs some of which aren't even good at the deep throws. But in the absence of that it's hardly a fear, more like an "oh well, we'll pressure the hell outta him and if he happens to connect on a deep throw or two that's fine since we'll stymie the rest of the passing game and likely the entire offense. Unfortunately, and for sure until further notice since Allen's passing prowess in the short-medium game and generally speaking in terms of reading defenses, McBeane's plan did not include any semblance of reading Ds on pass plays or any sort of focus on ensuring that again, the other 90-some% of the passing game, goes off effectively. Any argument to the contrary completely overlooks that "their guy" essentially was the Draft's biggest project but one that had a strong arm. In short, if a QB can't read Ds and isn't good in the short-medium game, I don't think that too many (if any) Ds are overly concerned about losing games based on a few short throws to "open up the underneath stuff" since they really aren't concerned, nor should be, about that same underneath stuff. I wouldn't have been in this mess to begin with, so the question doesn't apply. I certainly wouldn't have drafted Zay Jones and would have taken Smith-Shuster instead. Was on record for that one. So don't lay their inabilities and senselessness at my feet. I also wouldn't be panty-raiding the Carolina waiver wire and sure as hell wouldn't have given Lotolulei anymore than a pittance to play here, guy's been below-average for years. I also would have traded Shady while he was worth something and recognized that the team needed an actual rebuild instead of this idiocy of being able to compete with what we have. Again, you're asking me to clean up someone else's mess. It's their mess, I'm merely commenting on the lack of effective brainstorming on the part of the current braintrust. If that's not what forums are for, well then just shut 'em down. BTW, I also would have used our five picks ranging from 12th overall to 65th overall (1st pick in the 3rd round) and 5 picks on days 1 & 2 with four of the five in the first two rounds on 5 players, not 2, one of which would have been Edmunds anyway.

Well, consider, Brady's a master of the short-throw. Not to insinuate that he doesn't throw deep, but he thrives on the short-medium game fwiw. If there's a reason why he'll be able to play longer than average for a QB that will have at least something to do with it. I'll also throw in that isofar as we're concerned, and for those that haven't noticed, but Allen's YPA is the worst in the league of any starters, in fact, he's the only one that not above 6.0 and that includes all of the other rookies and a bunch of inept QBs. We also haven't scared anyone with any deep connections we can add. I think that those two things speak more than anything in this discussion. The point really has nothing to do with what the deep ball, or even the threat of it "changes how defenses play you," but rather how much more important the other 90-some% part of the passing game is. And frankly, yes, it can change the way that defenses play you, but then you'd better have a QB that's capable of adjusting to such changes. Changes such as ... what? How about increased pass-pressure. Is that part of "The Process/Allen/emphasis on the deep game?" Was that listed as one of Allen's traits coming out, the ability to adjust to pressure and read Ds, changing Ds as you imply? Hardly. To the contrary. That falls under the umbrella of "you'd better be careful what you ask for, you may get it," wouldn't you agree? If you're going to emphasize the deep passing game, then it would be wise to have a well-above-average OL. Did McBeane factor that in? I don't see it. Neither has anyone else. You'd better have WRs capable of making comparable reads and with both the physical and mental skills to assist the QB under such circumstances. Did McBeane seem to have focused on any of that? Hardly. Some will argue that that's all the next step, but finding an entire cadre of capable WRs & TE, a RB capable of replacing Shady, at least 3 likely 4 starting spots on the OL, not to mention having to replace your top two defensive players who will both be 36 next season along with other needs on D is hardly a one-offseason undertaking, more like three or four as the original talent, what little there is, also comes to the ends of their contracts. Again, reliance upon the deep game does not win games, it's merely one element of any number of offensive options and strategies that should all fit together into a "big picture" kinda thing, but when you completely ignore the vast majority of the passing game in favor of a very tiny aspect and percentage of it to the extent that in exchange for a "strong arm" you essentially neglect all other aspects and elements of an above-average passing game, as McBeane have done, it hardly suggests competence. Or do you think that it does in fact suggest competence?

Is that supposed to be some sort of epiphany? Sounds like you merely want to argue despite any basis for it. Does arm-strength necessarily mean a sound control of the other 90-some% of the game? Does the lack of iconic arm strength mean that QBs that do not possess that kind of arm-strength are incapable of managing the other 90-some% of the game? But most relevantly, how does any of this discussion apply to Allen and the schtick on him? I mean if you're going to leap-frog the entire point just say so rather than beating about the bush. What you offered is hardly an intelligent and far from a well-though-out response.

And even if we complete them, how many go for TDs? The long & short of it is that it's foolish to design an offense around the deep ball when such a small number of plays involve deep throws and when even fewer actually are completed. I get the whole cliche'd "stretch the D" nonsense, but the reality is that if you have a QB incapable of managing the other 90-some % of the game, good luck, you'll need it. Luck that is.

This is interesting and as long as it’s been posted it’s a good time to consider the implications. Here’s the takeaway from that data tidbit … This is data from just over half a season. Let’s take a team with a good QB from that lot, say Rodgers & GB. Rodgers has still only completed 38% of those deep throws, which clearly means the obvious, that while the NFL average completion rate is in the 60’s for percentage, the deep-throw completion percentage is just over half of that. And yes, these numbers are on par with league averages for a season. In fact, Rodgers has completed 18 of those 48 throws assuming that the data is accurage. That’s 2 deep-throw completions per game, and let’s not forget that “deep” means simply throws of 20+ yards whereas I don’t particularly consider throws of under 40 requiring Marino (or Allen) arm-strength. I can’t imagine who would since there are many NFL QBs not noted for arm-strength that can and who have traditionally made such throws with comparable frequency. Either way, that’s on a good team with good receivers, no particular running game to balance off of rendering their passing game all the more critical to effective functioning, which it clearly is with Rodgers at the helm. So in this child-like kid-in-a-candy-shop tendency to overrate arm-strength, which has failed so often in the recent past (Russell, Leaf, Locker, et al.), why would anyone opt to build a team around deep-throws as McBeane have done? According to that data, with the average number of plays-from-scrimmage being run in the mid-high 60s, and with an average of approx. 5 deep-throw attempts, again, “deep” being defined by a mere 20 yards, hardly requiring iconic arm-strength, this is easily fewer than 10% of plays, the vast majority of which fail. It is around 3% that succeed, again, 20+, not 40 or 50+, but even so. Wouldn’t it make far more sense to look for a QB that is far more capable of managing the other 90-some% of the game well. Just sayin’ as if, and since, it isn’t obvious to many, including so-called “experts” that make a more than handsome living in this business. As a sidenote, also not going unnoticed is that only 3 of those 10 teams have winning records.

I completely disagree. That take demonstrates the same lack of vision that got us here. Who are our top performing defensive players? Answer: Lorax, who's shown up now for two 1/2-seasons and is 35, Kyle, who's fortunate he's not injured and who is also 35, neither of which are long for this team. Then Hughes who'll be 31 next season and in the last year of his contract. After that the rest of the team doesn't even have 10 sacks, only one player, Trent Murphy, has more than 1 sack with 3. I'm not really sure how that translates to being pretty much set. Seems to me that we need to look at replacing the core of the top performing parts of the D. So I would argue that point staunchly. As to 10 picks, who cares, all the extras are day-3 picks, and even if they could simply draft offense, they're still easily a couple of seasons away and that's assuming that they draft better than they have.

Discuss? OK "Strongest Arm in teh league" Worst yards-per-attempt in the league too. Too bad that our braintrust doesn't understand that the vast majority of pass plays are short-medium. There's WAY too much emphasis placed on arm-strength by people that should understand football much better than they do and who get paid to understand it as such.

I'm not sure that 90M goes as far as you think it might in that regard. Either way, a wealth of NFL history suggests that it's not a team's prowess in free-agency that determines how good it is, teams must draft well in order to build their teams. McBeane swapped out the opportunity to bolster a good chunk of the team in exchange for Allen. [Fact] What happens now will clearly hinge upon that decision.

You're right about the Jets, but regardless, it's still arguably less than we used to acquire Allen, and frankly, the Jets gave up too much too as per my analysis Darnold isn't going to live up to his status. That's why the Jets' history over the past 20 years isn't much better than ours. What you said here is the core of my point, which obviouusly you agree with; Good or bad, Beane acquired the draft capital necessary to do what he did. And that's what's going to define them and determine whether or not they're around for long. Whether you or I fault him/them or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that their futures in Buffalo and quite likely then as future GM/HC of other teams is directly attached to "what he did."

OK, to state the obvious, but again, my point being that there's no way that within a reasonable amount of time McBeane can turn this thing around. No one could, not even Polian in his prime, it's an impossible task. The only hope that McBeane have is if Allen, remember, "their guy," whom they traded what they traded for regarless of what we call it or what label we affix to it, has to turn out to be a real ringer or they're toast. We still won't be good for several seasons if he is, but at least they may earn some goodwill and another season or two beyond next one. One needs some vision, something that is sorely lacking in analyzing football at all levels, in order to view the current situation objectively. In hindsight, I'd been saying for the past year trade Shady while he still had a value, on paper anyway. Instead, we hang onto him until, predictably, we see an age-related downturn in his performance that's typical for RBs his age, in fact not only typical but likely. Now he has no value despite what fans say or opine about. No one's going to trade for him based upon his past performance, he's finished as a primary ball-carrier. He'll have some future utility as a receiver out of the backfield ala Larry Centers. Some people may blame the OL for his demise, but that then doesn't explain why Ivory, also 30, has averaged nearly half-a-yard more per-carry or why Murphy, a journeyman RB is averaging nearly 2-and-a-half yards/carry better. This year's "vision" component is noticing that the core of why the defense is playing well are players on the cusp of being out of the NFL, and frankly, lucky to be playing at the levels that they are this season. Lorax and Kyle will both be 36 next season and are living on borrowed time. Hughes has some seasons left but is clearly in his back-9 and has only one season left on his contract. Take them off the D this season, as it will be soon, and this D goes from average to well-below average. This team is getting worse before it gets better and 10 picks with most being on day-2 isn't going to remedy that regardless of how well they draft.

Pats came into that game pouting and down over the Malloy thing. Needless to say that was short-lived.

So you don't think that in essence costing the team a 1st, two 2nd's, and the first pick in the 3rd round, when they had all the other needs that are obvious to someone that doesn't even know football very well wasn't giving up the farm? Do you think it was a good deal? I'll put it into perspective for you. The Jets gave up merely a 1st for Darnold. The Browns merely a 1st for Mayfield. The Cards a 1st, a 3rd, and a 5th for Rosen. It is what it is, but if you can't see that they could have built a helluva an OL with that, I simply don't know what to tell ya, and that's what the post was about. Otherwise we simply see it differently, but that's a helluva a lot of picks for one player, QB or not, which again, is the point of my post. Whether or not it fits the description of selling the farm, which I used somewhat loosely, the point entirely being that McBeane's futures are directly tied to that pick, a part of which is what they could have had otherwise. No, but everyone talks about "10 picks" as if the fact that 7 of the 10 are on day 3, two each in rounds 4-7, are for some unbeknownst reason, are likely to provide starting players. Otherwise they have absolutely nothing extra in the first 3 rounds, one pick each. We do know, or should, anyone having paid much attention to football for years, that you don't build a team on day-3 picks when you have as many needs as we have. Keep in mind too that the three most performing players on the team now are 35, 35, and 30 years old, the youngest of which is only signed thru next season. Either way, the point being, that those "10 picks" aren't likely to do much in terms of stocking the team with starters. We should be happy if they get their round 1, 2, and 3 picks to hit. Hypothetical trades is the point? OK

Yeah, no problem, but someone else corrected me, obviously you can't merely get 1 point, you'd need 6 first.

Next year's draft doesn't have anything to do with it. As is fact, they turned 5 day 1 & 2 picks into Allen and Edmunds when Edmunds could have come at the cost of just one of those. Argue as you may. Secondly, take a closer look at those "10 picks next year," 7 of them are on day-3. It's highly unlikely, particularly under McBeane, that they do anything significant to that extent with only one pick in each of the first three rounds. Not to mention, they'll probably have to used the first round pick on a WR. Good luck building the team with that.