Rocky Landing

For the record, I was a big fan of KW when he was a Bill (wasn't everybody?), and his mother and I were very disappointed in him when he couldn't keep himself together. In retrospect, however, could his record-breaking rookie year be one more indication that our system at that time made it very easy for RBs to succeed? Would KW have had the same level of success in any other system?

Isn't he now a KNOWN over-eating, out-of-shape pothead?

And we switch to a 4/3 under a different DC; our #2CB becomes our #1; our nickel competes for #2 with our first round rook; all of our LBs compete for starting roles; there is certainly no guarantee that Brown starts, let alone wears the headset, and neither of our DEs are set in stone. And, of course, as you said, two new safeties. That's not exactly ordinary roster turnover, is it?

Be that as it may... Offensively, there is very little competition for starting rolls, barring some unforeseen, rubber matt style circumstance. We know who is starting at every position save RT, and #2WR, plus whomever is going to be the eleventh position on the field (FB?). Defensively, sure seems like a rebuild.

If he plays outside, it will be because he beat out White for #2, right? But, even if that is the case, how does Seymour playing outside, as opposed to nickel, discount the PFF assessment?

Or there's a revolving door at OBD that takes two years to go around... and around... and around... and around...and around...

The funnier thing is that if you didn't see the sarcasm in my post, it doesn't actually matter.

I don't like that his name is Brandon.

I will give Beane the same benefits given to Whaley from much of this fan base-- especially since he is clearly the cause of our constant pattern of failure. Sheesh, what a joke this guy is!!! HANG HIM!!!

NO

Link not working. I'm still depressed.

Is this going to be a new crusade? If so, count me as a passenger on the Josh Woodrum train. He's going to be the next Tom Brady*, but without all the asterisks.

One of these four statements is correct.

Y'all could probably put the Mahommes crusade on hold for a little while.

I'm not so sure that Yates has to tank in order to be cut, if they saw more potential in Jones and Kelly-- both could have a high ceiling. It's been said, and seems likely that Yates was primarily brought in because of his familiarity with Dennison's system. That shouldn't be such an issue in September, right?

You have no idea who you're talking to.

All of a sudden, everybody is panicking, and worried we won't draft a QB. No one's going to draft Kelly before the fifth, if at all. He has an injured wrist on his throwing hand, and won't be able to play through training camp. With all the other issues, what team (other than the Bills) is going to risk a flyer on that?

I'm at work. I've got it cued up on my DVR, and I've warned everyone that I will stab them if they let loose with any spoilers.

He'll be Cardale's favorite check down.

I'd be surprised if we didn't draft a QB at some point in the draft. My own worthless guess would be fifth round. Secretly (ok, not so secretly), I hope we sign Kelly as an UDFA.

You didn't mention trading out of the first round. If we traded down with Houston, for example, and took their 25th pick, it's not unlikely that two of the three- Mahommes, Watson, Kizer- would be available. But, even if we did trade out of the first round, one of those three, as well as Webb, Kaaya, and Peterman would likely be available as late as the third round. Frankly, I would suspect that trading down would make it easier for us to draft a QB.

How do you figure trading down is "opting out of this QB class?"

I don't believe I have ever witnessed a crusader as relentless as you on this site. C.Biscuit used to be exceptionally rabid regarding EJ, but you make him look like a slacker. IMO, and only time will tell, Mahommes is a long shot, and about the third best QB in this rather weak QB draft. But, I have no real certainty in my opinion. In fact, I would not trust a professional scout who exhibited half the certainty in their opinion that you do in yours. Which is fine, of course. But, if you cut down your pro-Mahommes posts by two thirds, we'd all still get the picture.

This is one of the better fan analyses I've read. I think I'm less high on Mahommes than many on here. I don't think I have witnessed as effective a crusade on this site than I have regarding Mahommes. But, I mostly agree with everything you've said.

A return to the dominance of our front four.