ctk232

There's a lot of good here. But especially the point that if Peterman showed us more in the preseason than AJ, how exactly does anyone expect that retaining AJ would have gone any differently/better? I get going into the season with NP and JA only was an issue and we likely should have picked up DA at that time if we could have, or someone else for contingency, but the fact that NP beat out AJ in preseason says everything. Caveats? One game from Barkley doesn't all of a sudden prove this all to be true. Our OL is still atrocious and our WR corps depleted - I'm not sure we've seen an NFL TE on the roster for quite some time either. The other point in reference to this post - it's still too early to tell whether it was good or bad. We haven't picked our guy in the 5th yet with the raiders pick so long term we may actually end up being okay and it'll be a complete non-issue when we create a perennial playoff contender. Even if we don't, there's no pointing to this as the exact reason why as keeping AJ wouldn't have set us up in any different a position as a result. Short term? Likely hurt us only because we didn't replace him and put too much faith in Peterman to carry the team. But even then, I wonder exactly just how different things would've been if we kept him on the roster. My guess is not much at all.

Funny you say that as that's how my ideal draft would go as well - however, I don't know if N'Keal will creep up draft boards in round 1 which would take him out of consideration of the trade back option. The other piece also being with a top 5 pick, and if they are there, can you for sure pass up on Oliver or Bosa? Even the hypothetical where they are off the board before we pick, do you still trade down if Little is there? Imagine drafting Little to be the franchise LT - swing Dawkins to guard with Teller, address C in FA, and RT in FA. Plan B is get a LG/RG in FA and swing Dawkins to RT but feel like he may be more wasted there. Lot of ways this gets patched up in an ideal world - just wonder where this goes in actuality.

I don't disagree, I see the lack of effort and performance and I too don't think he's worth 9mil or a roster spot on any team. But given the current state of our offense I'm wondering if there's an effective way to use him at all that would be worth resigning over other options out there. This is just one scenario where he could be utilized, but is entirely dependent on that roster having a set WR1 to demand coverage (something we desperately need and don't have), as well as other talent filling out the roster (like Zay, and Foster from yesterday - Pryor I think we were just too desperate but hope he gets his game back). Beyond other measures, we are severely hurt by not having that WR1 and I would like to see this filled by N'Keal Harry in my ideal world. But given our OL demands as well, not sure the likelihood this happens. KB's issue isn't so much the catching as it is completing the catch - I know semantics. But should he have those more favorable matchups, maybe he comes down with those contested jump balls on key third downs and in the red zone. That only gives a raw, underdeveloped Allen all the more options to use without too much added risk. One could argue that especially with Allen, the only receivers you should be drafting are those with catch radii of over 5 feet until his accuracy improves... It's all just curiosity but the most likely scenario is we don't resign him at the end of the year.

I get you posted before I responded elsewhere in the thread, but without repeating too much - it's not that I want him to stay over anything else, and I don't think he's earned the right to stay either. All I'm saying is that I'm curious if he'd produce in a more role-specific spot on the roster given that the only WR worth paying for in FA is Funchess, and we can realistically add only one WR talent in the upcoming draft that could actually demand coverage in their rookie year. Objectively speaking it's hard to argue as you would have to resign him after this year and he's already making 9mil/year. He wouldn't be worth resigning at that price, but if no other team wants him for that price either, could his use in a specific role outweigh the amount we'd overpay for another FA WR? Especially in this year's group.

Not arguing he's actually a WR1 and being misused. Far from it and I'd even argue he's being overpaid. But he would be useful in a role scenario where he can contest jump balls in favorable matchups - hence being misused. He can still be misused in either argument of whether he should be kept or dropped.

It's probably best to rephrase my concern by saying it's not so much losing KB as it is what else do we have to work with and in a year where we need to continue to build out the OL and have much more than one hole in the WR corps? But who's there to even overpay for in the first place? Beyond Funchess I can't agree with bringing in anyone and saying they'll be a positive contribution for the contract - which will matter when it comes time to pay our young talent.

I'm not blind to the lack of effort and would certainly be contributory to me not caring if he goes. And I'm not trying to make the case to keep him either - I don't think a one-dimensional WR is worth ~9mil in the least, which is the larger, other reason I'd let him walk. But I just don't see us adding enough depth at WR without overpaying in FA outside of Funchess (who is looking to stay it would seem), and a draft pick (hopefully Harry), that would let us feel the least bit comfortable saying to Allen that these are the options he has to work with...

Beane's only had one draft fwiw. As for Teller, give him time to establish himself as that type of player first. We still have no idea how his development will go, but I'm thrilled for it to be trending positively. This guy is a late round rookie and by any NFL average standard wouldn't see the field this year. Our OL play has been atrociously below average which has led to him seeing time this year. He's an absolute monster in the run game, but his pass pro still needs much work against the NFL stunts and blitzes, but he's shown he can handle himself for the most part. His footwork still needs work in pass pro, and needs to work on his recovery/switches, but otherwise has shown the framework for potential. For him to be playing, at all, is remarkable and says a lot about our team at present. And for him to be playing as well as he is right now given that context is nothing short of amazing. Our OL is by no way or means set after one full game from a 5th round rookie. But if we do end up hitting on him, what a blessing it could be.

The offensive line...every offense starts and stops with the offensive line. You need a good QB to make the passing game, but it all starts with the OL. Board refreshed so apologies for the redundancy. I do wonder about the QB position, but I do think you'll see a difference in Allen's play with a more stout OL. Granted it won't solve all the issues, but it will hopefully give him more of the mindset to work within the pocket and find the open route.

Honestly I'm back and forth, but couldn't care either way. Given the amount of holes we have on our roster, though, you can't expect us to fill them all out in one year. At least not realistically. I know he's about to be an FA, and he hasn't contributed this year. But if he can be resigned for cheap on a one year prove it, or even two year with low cap repercussions, I'm all for giving our WR corps all the help it can get, even if it is KB. I wouldn't make it a priority, but I'd honestly rather have him than Pryor. I think we got the wool pulled over our eyes on that one as well. As for KB - he's a one-dimensional receiver being misused. His issue isn't his hands on the catch so much as it is protecting the ball through the catch. He could be very useful in 3rd down and red zone areas for those contested jump balls in more favorable matchups. But looking ahead to the offseason, if he can be had for cheap, I don't feel like any other WR is worth the price we'd have to pay in FA outside of Funchess. And even if we somehow are able to land someone like N'Keal Harry in the first or second, who else is there to fill out the corps roster? Zay and then...Foster? Pryor? Ray Ray? McKenzie? Having a true 1 like Harry would be great, but all he would do is eat their DB1 and the rest of our corps would be just as worse off. We don't just need a WR1, we need a guy in addition to Zay to be able to contribute and give our developing QB some real options. If we land Funchess in FA then I'm more willing to part ways with Benjamin, but name another FA receiver worth the money we'd have to pay that would put us in an overall better situation.

And between two different regimes - which is not easily done, nor often seen. In all honesty I wonder how long we can keep this up with landing late round picks. I also wonder if my perception of us landing late round picks (i.e. teller and phillips) is slightly skewed by just how bad the rest of the roster is, but can't help but be thrilled for Taron and Milano panning out thus far. I'd really love for the trend to continue, but it's not something to rely on. Landing the late round picks will more or less determine whether McD and Beane are given another year. More so McD, but with all the holes in our current roster, we really need to hit on the late round picks so we have internally developed, cheap talent that can contribute on a serviceable to average level and support the overall cast.

The first move they should make regarding the OL this offseason? Let go of Castillo. Starts and stops there. So once the train has started: If he can be had for cheap due to poor play, I'd rather they keep Miller than Ducasse for depth just simply for youth. But in all honesty, having Teller pan out into a serviceable starting guard would be amazing. Though it would slightly screw with the offseason plans. Best case scenario depends on what they are able to bring in, but would include cutting both Miller and Ducasse, and having Bodine/Groy for depth fill out. Next, my hopes are for us to sign both Paradis and Saffold in FA buckling down Center and RG/LG respectively. I wasn't especially impressed by the FA market for RT, but not sure if anything is also better than Mills at this point. It would be preferable to get at least two, my priority hope being Paradis to land someone capable of anchoring this line in the middle like Wood did. But with OL, if you don't start with LT the most important line position is Center. Saffold would give us much needed interior help as well, but not sure if we're better off going RT here instead. With a top pick, I was hoping we would take Greg Little for LT, swing Dawkins into LG because of his crazy mobility/though Teller might even be able to fill this role and swing Dawkins out to RT but that would almost be a waste of a talent there. Say we don't end up signing a guard in FA, but do land a starting LT. Swing Dawkins in at LG and hopefully Teller's path continues to RG for next season - both are crazy mobile and physical guys; would love to see them get to the next level and pancake some backers, or pull on screens. Either way, I don't see us being able to bring in more than two OL in FA, and maybe one high pick in the draft outside of our depth picks later on. But trying to find four starters in one offseason would be a challenge, even for the sexiest of FA destinations.

I'd say we're having exacerbated receiver by committee syndrome, but it's more like WR1 Deficiency... KB and Zay are being forced into roles their talents aren't suited for. KB is misused as a WR1, Zay a 2, and Pryor at least doesn't give us too many formation penalties. If we can draft N'keal Harry or a similar WR1 talent, move KB to a hybrid receiving TE role, zay to the slot, and pryor/foster/whoever can fill out the 2's and depth of routes in various concepts. Having the 1 will allow KB to have those more favorable matchups where DB1's like Claiborne can't knock jump balls out of his hands when he brings them to the ground...Zay can finally get separation from nickelbacks and linebackers in mismatched sets and mesh concepts gouging teams for 10-15 yards if done right. And our WR1 can demand coverage and open the field for the rest of the roster. Watching N'keal Harry almost makes me want us to draft him over OL in the first for these reasons...but then there's the rest of the board thinking we're going to win the super bowl this year after beating the jets and sitting at 3-7 so maybe I'm the one getting ahead of myself...

Not to detract from this but the Jets DL is most certainly not good anymore. Always watch the Jets games with a buddy of mine who is a Jets fan and one thing I asked him is "guy, what happened to your DL? Our OL is not this good." To which he said with the exception of Leonard Williams, they don't generate a pass rush and only do well on runs with 7/8 man boxes. Since losing Mo Wilk, they've lost an identity upfront, but more importantly he said Bowles isn't getting the job done and his seat is one of the hottest in the league. Again, he isn't an expert, but just from being with them week in and out, I saw what he was saying. I think the OL played well yesterday, and I'm just as excited to watch Teller's All-22 to see if we hit something there. But either way, let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet.

I'm skeptical on both Beane and McD, more so the latter, but I'm also realistically seeing where this goes. Not an attempt to defend either here, more so just logic. To answer your question, it's because he's declared to be in a rebuild as early as April 2018. A rebuild is different from a tank, and no you can't assemble an offense in one offseason much less rebuild one in a single offseason, even with resources. Doesn't mean it has to be this bad by any means, but you're missing on a few key analogous points there. Pure 100% speculation heads up: the only reason he won't own up to a "tank," nor any team for that matter, is because the league will "investigate" them for not competing/throwing games, and cause a circus that is frankly just not needed. He also does not need to be accountable to the fans who want him to say what they want.

Totally agree - for Philly I think it was an attempt at trying to become modern and going about it in all the wrong ways. I never liked Chip's offense and his philosophies as a coach, especially since it's nothing new, just like you said. And I agree with your point that his time was up, even then when it was happening in Philly, and now, Reid's time was likely up - I just wonder if they could've had the Andy Reid today if they approached the situation differently, but it's likely it never would've happened. I just hope what we're seeing this year for the Bills is in fact a greater reflection of the current roster, than a swing and a miss in a coaching staff attempt to stay modern. Not as though that was necessarily their intention to begin with...

Had to look up this interview after reading this. It makes more sense than not, and makes me wonder why analysts have always touted old adages with "translation." I fall victim to the same thing by watching and repeating them, too. But it makes sense the way Reid puts it out there. It's interesting how something simple can have such a drastic affect on a league that's just gotten too comfortable in traditional packages and schemes on a widespread level. What's even funnier is after having grown up in Philly, the fans basically wanted Reid to go after McNabb's run was done. They called his football schemes "antiquated" "stuck in his ways" and "old-school" and philly needed more of the new look. So they go to Chip Kelly and much more was in play there, but they seemed to have tried to do the same thing in the wrong way when all they had to do was look at what their draft talent was doing in college. I always find it funny how the NFL is the pinnacle of football in almost every regard, and it's treated as the ideal form of the game. Yet anytime something new is developed concept-wise, and changes the landscape of the ideal league to "modern," it comes from the HS/College ranks.

Really a great three part article - and contributes heavily to many of the thread conversations on here regarding both our defense and offense within the modern NFL. I keep waiting for Sunday to see how much our defensive schemes incorporate this into their coverage. I should've read this before responding to the Mahomes comment earlier, but it does certainly highlight how the scheme he was drafted for allows him to maximize both his ability and what's familiar for him. While it's hard to judge our offense in any regard at the moment, especially with our vastly limited playbook due to the QB situation. I want to equally see us implement some of these tight formation concepts that really confuse defenses and create situations like the Kupp TD. I do see us running a good amount of hank and some mesh concept routes as they seem to fit to our QBs strengths - but I remember watching the Kupp TD against the Saints (referenced in part 3) in real time and just attributing it to blown coverage and the Rams being good, but the play was schemed to be exactly what we saw without realizing; tight 11 personnel with a mesh concept crossing route called and executed at the perfect time. Sure, that explanation is most every play in the NFL and that one happened to work at that time, but seeing it explained out is rather enlightening to how the modern NFL offenses we are pining away for are actually just pretty base concepts from college and even high school, tweaked to attack an otherwise antiquated defensive philosophy of the league. Further hamstringed by the rule changes, Bowen and Riddick are right - it's only going to get worse until DCs and HCs step up and start to develop new schemes in response.

That's a really good point - though I've never particularly thought of mainstream and ESPN analysts as experts capable of accurately assessing college talent, it's true that they succumb to old adages about what translates into the NFL, and what doesn't. And for the most part, they would be right about Mahomes maybe 5, 6, 7 years ago. Not because Mahomes didn't have what it takes, but because the offensive schemes being run in the league at that time "demanded" a different type of QB. But what they don't account for is things change, and you can't hang on to every traditional approach every year if you hope to compete and win in the NFL. In the last five years, coaches like Reid have adopted a spread based offense and have tweaked it to fit NFL personnel and present coverage issues in opposing defenses. I have to admit, I was also down on Mahomes (but I'm definitely no expert) for the same reasons. But looking back how can an "air-raid" offense not translate to today's "air-raid" NFL?? That cognitive dissonance is unreal, despite that I was guilty of the same thought. Reid was absolutely observing college offenses and was liking what he saw, and brought in college coaches to help develop the system with Alex Smith per the article. When he realized that, while Smith was a good QB to implement a scheme switch to a spread-based focus, he wasn't the long term answer. He went looking for a QB that could handle this offense AND develop for the future of the scheme - he found his guy in Mahomes, but after reading this, it makes all the more sense how Mahomes has had such success this year, beyond Reid, beyond the talented roster around him, it's ALL he knows. It would be the same thing as us running an entire playbook schemed for play action, short routes, and bootlegs for Allen. Kid lives off the play action because it's what he did for four very competitive years. For Mahomes to come right out of an offense in college that basically gave him a degree in the spread offense, he now had the prerequisite courses to get his graduate degree in the NFL version of that offense. I don't say this to minimize his success, quite the opposite, but this is a great example of how you can still find players to fit your scheme and do it in the right way while still fitting the scheme to maximize the talent of the players.

Are you in the Bills locker room and privy to every conversation about the QB? Never said I knew he wasn't 100%, nor am I claiming to be any sort of expert? But the obvious now being aside, my slightly informed guess (personal experience as well as from speaking with friends who are ortho surgeons and have handled these cases, since you seem to care about citing opinions) is that he isn't 100% as a UCL sprain second degree is not nothing, and while he could be 100% by Sunday, there's a greater likelihood based upon the average prognosis (several weeks to several months, depending - JHU ortho source for a third party source here) of UCL grade 2 sprains that he may be 90-95% by now at best. Granted, he is a QB so it is different than my own personal experience (collegiate baseball, pitching) and multiple UCL sprains at various grades as the throwing motion is different. But since it's a grade 2, or at least was last I checked, and he didn't have surgery for it, it would still be partially torn - there will always be a risk of a greater tear, even with PT to strengthen the supporting muscle group. Point is what are you so eager to have him back for this Sunday as opposed to after the bye? Is he going to really learn more in this one game that missing it would really set him back that much? Trust me, I get the reason to get him experience so he can develop. He'll get that after the bye, no problem. If anything, and if he's healthy enough, have him play a few snaps/drives to see how he's feeling in game to further assess. That's why they have him throwing this week in practice. Kid will bounce back and be fine (not to jinx anything), but don't get all crazy about him not playing one meaningless game that we're honestly better off losing at this point.

Because it's the meadowlands and the jets, and anything Manhattan/NJ will never be cheap, nor have to be really

Not necessarily disagreeing here - but there's a stronger case to rest Allen through the bye week just in case, he is the franchise's future and no reason to rush him in an otherwise meaningless game, that we actually, and arguably, need to lose more than win at this point. You're also assuming it's the former based upon McD's "head scratching" decisions. There's nothing uber conservative about making sure your entire future is healthy before throwing him back in with this OL. I also don't know that I'd call his QB choices "conservative" more so just the game management in certain ways. The defense this year could be described as more conservative with the bend-don't-break approach, but the offense has had to be stupid simplified to accommodate Anderson and noodle arm Peterman. Cover 1 mentioned it, but for Pryor to play 70+ snaps in his first game with the bills tells you just how stupid simple our playbook is right now as a result of the QBs on the roster, and how the only throws available to us are within 5 yards. The FO's handling of the QB situation is suspect but I don't know that conservative aptly applies in that situation either. McD has no reason to pander to the fans wanting to see a more competitive team this season. It's all but over. Allen will have plenty of snaps after the bye, once he is 100% healthy and ready to go.

He has a UCL sprain and is not 100% healthy even if he started throwing - even if he were, there's no reason to rush your future franchise back into a meaningless game just before the bye week behind a line that would do him no favors in protection.

Here's some more good stuff courtesy of @26CornerBlitz

Awwwwwww yea part 2 - clearly starved for actual football discussion. If nothing else, gives me something more to watch for on Sundays to see if/how the Bills are incorporating match coverage into their schemes, how effective it is, and is McD "young" enough to incorporate and teach these schemes, or has he been coaching defenses in the NFL too long to have developed this philosophical approach? The other aspect of this is how much does this play into the consideration of our blowout losses? While I get many more variables can contribute there, could games that get away from us actually remain manageable (even with this offense), with a defensive scheme that prevents offenses from driving the field through passing and options like match? I also wonder if we have the personnel to fit for the man/zone match coverage - I think Hyde and Poyer are great safeties, but I wonder how they can take to implementing a coverage scheme like this and optimize the communication. Especially since Tre is really the only stable DB option, I wonder how much of our younger guys (Taron, Lewis, whoever we bring on in the offseason maybe) can acclimatize to this scheme, or if they're used to it and have played through it in college. Lastly, it's interesting how Farrar and Riddick also equate youth to innovation in the NFL and I do see the point. A lot of coaches in the NFL have been there for so long it becomes a groupthink issue, where as they "work their way up the ranks" they otherwise learn the way things "should be done" or "the way things are." But I don't know that this has to be addressed at the HC level, where we can have an HC who at least sees the need for this and hires younger coordinators or assistants like with Andy Reid to develop these schemes. I remember growing up seeing the RPO in college and noticing the game being different, and asking my dad (who is no football expert by any means) why the game looks so different. He told me there were a good amount of offensive schemes that simply do not work in the NFL since the depth of talent on rosters is so much greater than in college; backers have the speed to hit the sideline on RPOs, shed blocks, and cover much more effectively than the offensive scheme would produce. Granted, the spread offenses we're seeing now allow for much more than the RPO, but it's still being used effectively in the NFL today with the right personnel. Either way, I have to question how much of those traditional philosophies hold true, and how much is just recycled knowledge from the past when what is needed are people who haven't been in the NFL long enough to develop this groupthink approach of coverages having to be one way and not another. Totally missed there being a part 3 - noice