billsfan1959

We can agree to disagree, my friend. I don't think Allen needs to throw it 40+ times a game and I don't believe you design game plans that increase the risk of mistakes and turnovers for a young QB. However, when that young QB has shown a strength in a certain area, then I think you design gameplans that maximize that strength. Right now, Allen' weaknesses in regard to production, mistakes, and turnovers are the long ball and longer developing pass plays. His strength, which was a weakness last year, is his passing game within 20 yards of the LOS. He is one of the highest rated passers in that area.They can minimize risk while still maximizing growth and production. I think they did that in the first 22 plays (3 drives) of the game. They had a good run to pass ratio, let him pass on early downs, and kept to his strengths: The first 22 plays (1st 3 drives): 13 runs, 9 passes (3 scoring drives) 3 passes on 1st down Avg yards to go per pass att (excluding 1st down throws): 6.3 yds Overall 7 - 10 for 100 yrds (22 overall offensive plays). After that, they limited him and put him in passing situations that limited production and increased risk (although Allen avoided any mistakes / turnovers): The last 33 plays (5 drives): 23 runs, 10 passes (1 scoring drive) Didn't try a pass on 1st and 10 until their last drive with 5 minutes left in the game: Avg yards to go per pass att (excluding 1st down throws): 12.14 yds 7 - 10 for 60 yards (33 overall offensive plays). For the game: Passes over 25 yards: 0-3 Passes under 25 yards: 14-17 for 160 yds In my opinion, the gameplan today in the 1st 22 plays was playing to Allen's strengths and he responded. The gameplan after that (the last 33 plays) did nothing to help him grow, or to take advantage of the areas in which he is actually doing well this year. I don't think it helped him or the team. I appreciate your post and your perspective.

Fully on board and happy, @Joe in Winslow. Of course, I'm an optimistic kind of guy. No, it's not. In the long run, he and the team are both better off with gameplans that don't inhibit his growth.

B+ / A- Kind of hard to fault Allen on much in this game. He threw the ball only 20 times and half of those were in obvious passing downs (as the game plan did not help him in any way). He did well overall: He completed 70% of his passes, accounted for two of the three TDs, and came through when they needed him to. The fumbles are becoming troubling and he has got to figure out a way to protect the ball better. Honestly, I thought Allen was successful inspite of the game plan.

The deep ball is not the issue right now. Actually throwing the ball would be a start.

Honestly. 15 *****ing passes

Maybe because it's the almost the 4th qtr and we have attempted 15 passes? Oh - and because, Frank Gore Overall, I blame Daboll

Why would we throw it when we can run Gore up the middle?

Are you intentionally trying to sound obtuse?

Singletary should have been the featured back in every game he has been healthy for. He is a natural playmaker

Enough with Gore in short yardage, please.

They are moving the ball and scoring. Why are some so fixated on the deep ball?

I have a real question with this. I go through the all 22 for every game a and I have seen a quite a number of plays where Josh drops back in the pocket, sets up, and has to wait on his receivers. There are so many instances where it appears, at game speed, that the receivers are open and Allen just isn't seeing them or throwing the ball. However, when you slow it down, it is clear that they are deeper developing plays and the receivers are not looking for the ball yet. Then, much of the time, one of two things happens at that point: (1) the protection starts to break down and Allen is forced to move out of the pocket, or (2) Allen doesn't trust his linemen, when they are giving him the time, and he starts to move out of the pocket when he doesn't need to. Either way, these are the times he is most susceptible to the turnover. The one thing he is doing exceptionally well this year is working the field within 15 yards of the LOS. Just keep the play designs simple and, for the most part, where his strengths are at the moment.

Ha! I now live in North Carolina and that is exactly how it is at the THREAT of a snowflake

Win.

Haa! Nope, not an NPR fan either. WHen I am in the car it is either audio books or tunes...

If I was driving and I was forced to listen to sports radio, and my only options were Sullivan or Schopp and the Bulldog, I would choose driving head on into a bridge abutment...

I rarely spend any of my time listening to sports radio, particularly local Buffalo shows. When I have the time, I'd rather listen to a good audio book. More enjoyable and more informative.

My apologies for insinuating something I shouldn't have.

I'm glad you posted the link because the writer isn't advocating that at all. You are being misleading. Skurski is not advocating that they should draft a QB or have competion for Allen - he actually says that would not be a good idea. It is simply a compilation of Skurski's responses to reader email, particularly about how bad Josh Allen is. Here is a sampling of questions: "If we had drafted Patrick Mahomes or Deshaun Watson two years ago, or Lamar Jackson last year, would we be a better team right now...?" "Josh Allen has been one of the worse quarterbacks in the league again this year. At what point are we actually allowed to talk about it? "Is Josh Allen seeing ghosts?" "Do you think it’s too early for the Bills’ management team to start wondering if they missed when they drafted Josh Allen?" "This regime should be willing to draft competition for Josh Allen this offseason. That’s where past regimes have failed. Do you anticipate the Bills staying all-in on Allen beyond this season? He’s not worthy of being considered a franchise quarterback from my standpoint." Skurski doesn't think they should draft another QB or create competition, nor does he agree that Allen is a bad QB. He says exactly what most of us are saying: Allen has a lot of room for improvement and he hasn't had enough time yet for Skurski to determine if he will be a franchise QB. He needs to show considerable improvemet over the remainder of this year and next year. If he doesn't, then it will be time for some tough decisions. Nice try. Fits in perfectly with the tenor of some of the posters in this thread The headline of the article is from a reader's email. Did you actually read the article before linking it, or did you just like the headline?

We don't mind that you say something negative about him, we just prefer that it actually have some rational, intelligent, objective thought behind it...

As McDermott said: "There have been too many irresponsible decisions over the years" There was no need in making another... ScottLaw gonna ScottLaw....

Only if our pitching improves...

It certainly is a blend of both; however, I don't think you can plan, in advance, on utilizing the draft or free agency for one side of the ball or the other - or even by position. For each position of need, there are so many variables to consider: Who is available in FA; what is the cost; development time needed for rokies at some postions, or just the unknown of a rookie transitioning to the NFL vs a FA who has actually been successful in the league; etc.. Take WR for example. 2020 is supposed to be extremely deep in quality WRs. They will, no doubt, select one or two throughout the draft. However, what if an upper echelon receiver, who should have 2-3 more years of top production left, becomes available in FA? Should the Bills use a later 1st round pick (realistically somewhere around 20) to select a top WR who is an unknown, or spend the money on the FA to ensure they give Allen a sure thing? Personally, I still believe you build a team primarily through the draft, and I am not a big fan of overpaying for FAs (which teams inevitably do). I don't mind one big signing in FA at a position of need (i.e, Morse last year) and then finding good, quality 2nd/3rd tier FAs (starters and depth) as we did along the offensive line last year - and building the core of your team through the draft. I don't like spending all of the FA money on 2-3 high priced players that, more often than not, never come close to performing to the level of their contract. So, my answer to your question is that both are necessary these days and it is a position by position analysis as to whether you use FA or the draft.

So let me get this straight. You stated, if you can count it, it is a metric and doesn't do anything for you because a metric is just a number and not an indicator of true performance. You then say sacks, tackles, touchdowns and FGs are what matters. Can't sacks, tackles, TDs, and FGs all be counted, and therefore, are metrics that can't do anything for you because they are not a true indicator of performance? Or, is it that you just don't really like/get the nuances of player performance analyses and, instead, just prefer bright and shiny things?

Silly me. Ask a child a question... So, one of those hypermasculine guys? You do know the psychological underpinnings of that, right?