mjt328

The thing that stood out to me was Josh Allen's ability to escape the rush. Even when defenders got hands on him, they couldn't seem to bring him down. It was very similar to what Ben Roethlisberger and Cam Newton bring to the table. On the night, there were at least 2-3 "wow" throws from Allen. The zip and placement on that touchdown was impressive. I know that people were always impressed with EJ Manuel's physical abilities too, but I don't ever remember being wowed by anything he actually did on the field. Quite a few of Allen's incompletions were the fault of his receivers. Either drops or poorly run routes. Between the sieve of an offensive line, and the awful play of his receivers - you have to wonder how Allen would look with the 1st or 2nd team. I don't think you can fault Allen too much on the 4th down play -- simply because it was 4th down. He was trying to make something happen and there was nothing to lose. Now if he does that on 1st-3rd down, it's another story.

I totally agree, but you need to read my whole post. Is Mack worth a 1st Round Pick? Absolutely. But it's not JUST the 1st Round Pick. It's also the $20 million per year salary that he's looking for, which could easily be used on anywhere from 2-4 additional starting players. When you are in rebuilding mode, I'm not sure you can justify paying one player (outside of the QB) that much. Would you rather have Mack and a bunch of bums? Or would you rather have 4-5 solid starters all over the defense? Teams like New England have proven it's better to have a deep/balanced roster - because it allows more flexibility in game-planning and makes it easier to handle injuries.

Nope. Outside of quarterback, very few players in the NFL are worth that kind of investment - unless you KNOW he is the last piece necessary to make a championship run. And the Bills are nowhere close to that point in their building process. First of all, Khalil Mack would cost us a 1st Round Pick. Bare minimum. And considering all the question marks on our roster, it's quite possible that pick will be Top 10. For most decent GMs, a Top 10 pick should be a slam-dunk starting caliber player. If that wasn't already enough, (assuming we aren't looking for a 1-year rental) I've been reading that it's very possible Mack hits $20 million per year in salary. For a comparison, Star Lotulelei just signed for $10 million per. Jerry Hughes makes $9 million per. Trent Murphy came for about $7 million. Kyle Williams and Micah Hyde make roughly $6 million per. Jordan Poyer is between $3-4 million per. At the end of the day, the cost of trading for Mack would be at least 3 strong NFL starters. Depending on how well we played the free agency game, that money could go even farther. I'm talking 5-6 starting players. When you are building for long-term success, you can't justify that.

The arrogance of some players is unbelievable. Until you are a proven commodity in the NFL (and have become a free agent), you should just be grateful at being in the league. If you want to play for a contender, then help make your team a contender.

OK. Go ahead and argue for those guys. Throwing random names out isn't actually saying anything. There is no way to prove that any of those players were "ruined" by playing too early, or if they would have just busted regardless. Everybody likes to talk about David Carr, but statistically his best seasons were his 3rd, 4th and 5th in the league. If he was ruined by playing too early, you wouldn't expect to see any progression after his first season. But like many NFL quarterbacks, he just peaked at a certain point and never got better.

The Bills were a ridiculously talented team. Anyone that says they "knew" the team was going to lose in the Super Bowl is just being negative. That team was totally capable of beating the Giants, Redskins and the Cowboys. Despite that, I will say that those NFC East teams were a nightmare matchup for our defense. If the 90s Bills had one weakness, it was an undersized front 7. We sometimes struggled with powerful offensive lines and strong/smash-mouth running games. Which happens to be the common denominator with those Super Bowl teams. Our gameplan should have been airing it out, racking up points and trying to force the opponent to give up on the running game. But we tried to play too conservative, and got punched in the teeth. The 90s Bills probably would have matched-up better against the 49ers. Somehow, the 49ers appeared in 6 NFC Championships between 1988-1994, and never faced us once in the Super Bowl.

Lots of people had Josh Allen ranked #1, or right around that spot. Just look in the Top 10: Cleveland allegedly was debating for months between Allen and Baker Mayfield. Like you mentioned, the Giants/Pat Shurmur have said Allen would have been their top choice if they decided to go QB. Many have reported the Cardinals being "heartbroken" on settling for Josh Rosen instead. We know what the Bills thought.

I guess we'll see. I've voiced many of the same accuracy concerns, and was very vocal that I preferred Josh Rosen. At the same time, a very large chunk of NFL Scouts (the guys who get paid to do this) had Josh Allen ranked extremely high. Even the team that actually drafted Rosen reportedly preferred Allen.

If the Bills are without LeSean McCoy, the season is pretty much shot. Losing three of our best offensive linemen, our Pro Bowl running back, installing a new offensive coordinator's system, AND completely starting over at quarterback (possibly starting a rookie). That is way too much to overcome, regardless of how good our defense can be. The only silver lining is that McCoy is 30 years old, and our team can't be counting on him long-term anyway. Even if nothing happens with these accusations, his contract runs through 2019 and then he's a 32-year-old free agent. I think most of us were expecting the Bills to take a step back this season, even anticipating McCoy on the roster. Hopefully we can get Josh Allen some experience, add some strong pieces next offseason and then be ready to compete in 2019.

But where is the evidence this happened? Do you really think the NFL owners called around and told each other - "Hey, let's show that Kaepernick guy and make sure none of us sign him!" There are thousands of other NFL players who kneeled for the anthem and still have jobs. Like I said. In terms of other NFL Quarterbacks, Kaepernick had played himself into a backup role (at best). His decision/actions caused a ruckus across the country, and enraged thousands of fans. Nobody was going to deal with that headache for a guy holding a clipboard. Nobody forced Kaepernick to kneel. Nobody forced Kaepernick to make his statement about "refusing to respect" this country. Those were his own decisions, and he should take the consequences like a man. But instead, he's choosing to play the victim.

Why would that make a difference? I am a salesman, traveling from business to business. For my job, I spend 99% of my job outside of the office. My company still expects me to be on-time every day, gives me a dress code and tells me how to act while representing them. If I don't live up to those standards, they have the right to fire me. When you are employed, your boss makes the rules.

The NFL didn't discipline him. Kaepernick actually opted out of his contract, so that he could become a Free Agent. The league didn't suspend him. The league didn't fine him. Owners just didn't want to sign him. Again. He has nobody to blame but himself. Even Hall of Fame players like Terrell Owens and Randy Moss eventually ran out of interested teams, because they were too big of a distraction/headache to compensate for their talent. Kaepernick brings the baggage, but without the high level of play. Nobody was going to deal with this kind of media frenzy for a backup QB.

Tired of the whole anthem thing. Nobody else in this country has the right to demonstrate/protest on company time. Nobody else in this country could expect to keep their job when they purposely p**s-off a large chunk of the company's customers. Guys like Colin Kaepernick and Malcolm Jenkins don't even realize it. But ridiculous antics like this are one of the primary reasons Donald Trump won the election in the first place, and why he will probably get re-elected in 2020.

It probably depends on which team buckles first, and decides to start their rookie QB. I don't get the impression either coach is in a big hurry.

1. If NFL Owners made the collective decision to only give out "incentive-based" contracts, the Players Union would call for an immediate strike. They would also probably sue the league for unfair labor practices. There is absolutely no way they could get away with it. 2. If individual team owners (let's say the Pegulas) made the decision to only give out "incentive-based" contracts, it would set them at a massive disadvantage in Free Agency. Why would anyone re-sign or sign with the Bills? They could easily get guaranteed money elsewhere. The current system is fair. Both the owners and players make ridiculous amounts of money (compared to the general working public), and the fans are happy enough to keep buying tickets and merchandise. No reason for anyone to complain.

I think most people are ignoring the "depth issues" on the Bills, because they are more concerned with the holes in the starting lineup. Considering the Bills made the playoffs last year (when many thought they would be tanking), I'm certain my opinion will get a lot of backlash. But truthfully, I think the Bills were very lucky (mostly due to weak Wild-Card competition in the AFC). This really wasn't a playoff-caliber roster last season. Now with the unexpected losses of Eric Wood and Ritchie Incognito, the trading of Cordy Glenn, and the high probability we start a rookie QB - it would be totally reasonable to expect us to take a step backwards in the win column in 2018. I think the Beane/McDermott plan is clear. Become a true AFC playoff contender in 2019. Last year was about purging the roster for draft picks, but we got lucky and squeaked into the playoffs. This year is about adding the franchise QB, some key pieces on defense and fully transitioning the mentality of the locker room to McDermott's vision. Next year, the Bills have all their draft picks, tons of cap room and should have Josh Allen ready to lead the team.

Smart decision by the NFL owners, in my opinion. 1. The NFL is a business. They are in the business of making money. 2. The anthem-kneeling controversy is very likely bad for business. I can't speak for everyone else. But the vast majority of people I have discussed football with over the last year have been furious with the players. They feel the kneeling is a sign of disrespect for the flag and the country. Now of course, I don't know how many fans actually followed-through on their promise to quit watching the NFL. But the owners would be foolish to wait until ratings and ticket sales plummet before addressing the issue. 3. People need to stop talking about "Free Speech" or accusing the owners of "controlling the players." Those arguments are absolutely ridiculous. The players are employees. I don't know a single legitimate business that would allow its employees to engage in political protests on the clock. And every single legitimate business is going to exert some level of control over the staff. That is how employment works. Employer gives money. Employee does what they are told. 4. The NFL made the decision to continue playing the anthem, but will not force anyone to participate. That's a good compromise. All they ask is for players to stay in the locker room and not engage in a political demonstration. That seems reasonable. Bottom-line, keep politics out of sports. Personally, I'm very Pro-Life and against abortion. But I wouldn't expect the owners to allow protests/demonstrations during games. The players have plenty of time to engage in those activities on their personal time.

Let the man coach how he sees fit. Some coaches (like McDermott) believe that all starting jobs should be won in training camp. Some coaches default to the veteran, and wait until he fails before sliding in a rookie. Some coaches default to the rookie, believing his team will benefit in the long-run by getting the growing pains out of the way. There are examples of each method succeeding. There are examples of each method failing. If Hugh Jackson listened to this Sports Illustrated article, and then Baker Mayfield struggled badly - the same reporter would criticize him for not being patient in the development of his young quarterback.

I assume you are talking about Ritchie Incognito? Honestly, I'm not really seeing the connection between the two examples. When it comes to money, the door swings both ways. It takes two sides to agree on a contract. NFL players get paid very well. Even the ones making the league minimum. And when they sign on the dotted line, they know all of the money is not guaranteed. That part of the league is the business side... just like they constantly remind the fans when they hold-out of training camp or leave for big bucks in free agency.

Based on everything we know, I don't think Josh Rosen was on our board at all - or he was significantly lower than Josh Allen. I always got the impression the Bills were disappointed in the Jets/Colts trade and were targeting that spot. They were also making attempts to trade up, even as high as #2 to make sure they got the right guy. I just can't see them pushing so hard to make a deal with Denver if there were two guys left they were comfortable with. After Sam Darnold was taken, it's pretty clear that Beane was starting to get desperate. That's because he only had ONE GUY left at the top of his board. The Bills front office places an extremely high premium on character. And for some reason, lots of teams (not just a few) had problems with Rosen. Maybe we won't know the specifics for a few years, but GMs and coaches just didn't want him on their team.

That's not true. It all depends on what Josh Allen shows during limited time on the field. Let's assume your scenario comes true (AJ McCarron is fantastic and becomes our franchise QB). Then at some point, the Bills decide to recoup some value by trading Allen. Teams have shown a willingness to part with very high picks (often 1st-2nd Rounders) for players that show even a small display of competence on the field. The Bills just need to plug Allen into a few meaningless situations (preseason, garbage time, etc.) and hope he shows well. If a guy with Allen's physical talent looked good, QB-needy teams would be lining up around the block to trade for him.

Seattle is a perfect example of why you build a team around the Quarterback, and not around an elite defense. When it comes down to it, a team like New England only has to worry about ONE player on the roster. Tom Brady. They pay him what he wants, and make sure he stays healthy. The rest of the roster just needs to be decent, without any glaring holes. They will compete for the Super Bowl every single year. A team like Seattle needs to worry about ELEVEN guys on the other side of the ball. Earl Thomas or Richard Sherman goes down with an injury, they are in trouble. Salary cap builds up, and they are forced to trade Michael Bennett and let Sheldon Richardson walk. Make a few bad draft picks, and suddenly depth becomes a problem. It's an impossible task to juggle for any extended length of time. With a talented QB like Russell Wilson, I'm sure the Seahawks can purge cap space and build their way back into being a contender (if they draft well). But a team can only count on the "surrounding pieces" to be elite for so long, and then it's back to the QB being forced to carry everyone else.

I wouldn't attribute the "swamp drain" to Sean McDermott specifically. The Pegulas were not experienced in the football business when they first purchased the Bills. They weren't planning to just walk into the building and fire everyone, regardless of what the fans wanted to see happen. The overhaul was something that would clearly take some time. When Doug Marrone quit only a year after the Pegulas bought the team, I think it really caught them off guard. The team looked pretty talented on defense, and had just put together the first winning season in a very long time. Things were starting to look up. Usually head coaches are fired as part of a team totally clearing house. That wasn't the case here. The Pegulas liked the direction the team appeared to be going, so they kept Doug Whaley as General Manager and tried to find a coach that could work with him. When Rex Ryan was fired, the Pegulas were clearly ready to start-over. But in order to keep the scouting work done over the previous 12 months, they decided to wait until after the draft to get rid of Whaley and the scouting staff. Once that move happened, it was only a matter of time before everything underneath was overhauled. This whole Russ Brandon thing was an unexpected situation. I don't believe he makes football decisions and hasn't for awhile. If all of this questionable conduct stuff hadn't come around, I believe he would have continued to be part of the Bills organization for a very long time.

Based on everything we know, and everything that has been reported - the answer is almost certainly no. Josh Allen would have definitely been picked before #12. Over the last few months, I've been very clear about my preference. I personally had Josh Rosen as my #2 quarterback (after Sam Darnold), and very much wanted him before Allen. In fact, I wasn't much of an Allen fan at all, and was pretty disappointed when the Bills decided to go with him. But it's clear that NFL teams did not feel that way. At least a good chunk of them. Whether Bills fans like it or not, many GMs and coaches had major concerns over Rosen's personality/character/leadership. The Browns have openly admitted there was something about Rosen they didn't like. There were countless reports during the draft that Rosen was going to be the 4th QB off the board (he was) and some teams refused to draft him altogether. I like what I saw with Rosen on tape. But there is something about him in the interview process (which fans are not privy to) that totally turned teams off. Two weeks ago, we could have chalked this up to a smokescreen. Now that the draft is finished and teams are more willing to discuss their thoughts, it's becoming clear those reports were very accurate.

Very good point. It's also important to recognize the higher level of scrutiny that players face today. Back when Losman was picked, the NFL Draft started on ESPN early Saturday morning. Unless you were a college football fanatic, your only source for "feedback" on a prospect was Mel Kiper. You watched his "Big Board" and then waited to see his reaction on your team's pick. Today, the NFL Draft is nearly 3 months of build-up, leading to a primetime event on multiple channels. There are thousands of "experts" with thoughts on prospects. Anyone with an internet connection can pour over hours of game film and YouTube videos, and gain their own opinion on a player.