ctk232

I was wondering that myself - I don't believe the outcome changes much, score wise. I do think we see more sacks, however from Allen holding on to the ball too long as Anderson's decisiveness (at times) was a marked difference from the 3-5 seconds minimum that Allen typically takes during certain pass concepts. However, Anderson did make decisions that regardless of how "veteran" he is, he won't be any better than he was, only worse. I'm not sure if we see more/less/same amount of INTs (I'm including the dropped pick six as we all thought that was coming until he dropped it). But I do think we see Allen extending certain plays with his legs - Pats played more coverage not expecting Anderson to scramble, I mean who would, but I think Allen has a good game overall. The Pats don't have a great defense this year by any measure, and I would have liked to have seen not just how Allen does at home against a division rival, but more importantly, against a team that doesn't have a top offense in the league. Mostly just to see the disparity in Allen's performance vs a top 10 defense and vs a bottom 10 defense and have better data to evaluate his growth thus far.

Good point - Mills has been serviceable, but an absolute liability at times I just don't have faith in the right side of our line. Dawkins at guard for that reason makes sense, but given his performance thus far, it's hard to argue him out of LT for anyone but Little or a franchise tackle. Tangentially, I've been begrudgingly surprised by Ducasse - I still hold to my belief that he is no longer a starter in the league, but he's performed well this season overall. Just not sure if it's a case of big fish small pond given our overall line talent, or if he's starting a renaissance of his career...

Not just that, but it opens the possibility of swinging Dion to RT and having Mills as depth. What would be amazing is if Teller comes out of nowhere and studs out at RG, but by drafting a tackle we at least can move other lineman around to minimize the immediate needs. Looking at free agency, there aren't many tackles worth picking up, but getting an interior lineman has more chance and worth, albeit not too much in this year's FA crop.

That's what I've heard too - him making OBJ catches just riles up the media attention and focus as well. Just don't want us to end up reaching for him in the 1st considering with a top 5 pick I'd be happier landing Oliver/Bosa or Little. Trading back though I may approach it differently given what OL talent is left, go N'Keal then OL in the second.

YES - especially given Allen's accuracy issues, I would love for us to be able to land this guy over other WRs. Just don't know if he makes it to our second round pick...I think our first would be a bit of a reach unless we trade back.

Yep, infinite PR and legal ramifications avoided there, sadly often to the detriment of various plays and games. The only thing I keep coming back to here is that Edelman's action wasn't in making a tackle, or football play really. He didn't need to block the guy, nor could he after calling the fair catch so the fact that he did on any level is against the rules itself (which I get was the called penalty). I can see it going either way, but for me it's the non-football action (i.e. making a tackle, inadvertent contact, etc.) in relation to targeting that keeps me on the fence. The vehemence here is amplified by the fact it was Edelman and the Pats, though.

It doesn't have so much to do with Edelman as it does with the league not knowing what to do. The Execs are hopeless in responding to issues, or responding to issues that aren't there for some. They only made the rule change to show face for "protecting" players, but even they have no idea how to write the rule, or how to enforce it, and likely don't care enough to actually follow through with ejections and fines. But considering how the roughing the passer penalty calls changed and fines were levied, I'd be very surprised if Edelman doesn't get a fine here.

Burfict was the first I thought, too. I think Shamarko Thomas was the first to be ejected this past August, but all I can find was "helmet-to-helmet" making a tackle: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2018/08/10/shamarko-thomas-becomes-first-nfl-player-ejected-helmet-rule/954522002/ Don't particularly care for SBNation, but: https://www.sbnation.com/2018/9/9/17492612/ncaa-targeting-rule-nfl-comparison Nice comparison of the NCAA/NFL rule on targeting, but as far as I can tell it's "lower the helmet to initiate and make contact with an opponents helmet" and they removed the language stating "if the action was flagrant" in terms of assessing ejection vs. violation. Idk, imo I do think Edelman's was "flagrant" enough, even though that phrase was removed from the rules, to warrant ejection in this case.

Right, and to the perspective of this thread it's believed he deserved an ejection for it, but it wasn't called. Not disagreeing with your points, but given the divisional rivalry, Gronk's garbage on Tre last year, Edelman having a rep as a dirty player, and Brady can literally never do wrong and argue his way into or out of any call (and even has his own rule), you're barking up the wrong logic tree on this board.

Just providing perspective - they may have missed it in real time, but they get paid not to. Either way, many feel here that this gets called and handled very differently if it were a Bills player who chose to call off a fair catch and headbutt another guy for literally no reason whatsoever. Also known as targeting and is a heavier penalty than what was called.

It's not that they ignored it, it's that we believe they ignored the severity of the hit. In real time it may not look it, but clearly Edelman calls for the fair catch, abandons the catch and literally launches into Pitts leading with his helmet, hitting Pitts straight in the facemask. Regardless of whether he was trying for the helmet or not, it's highly suspect a more severe penalty wasn't levied.

Get Little swing Dawkins to RT? I like it - I'd love for us to find a way to land a top WR as well like Harry or AJ in the second but I need to look more at where they are being graded. If we end the season anywhere near 4-12 it's possible. Would be hard to pass on the defensive generational talent like Oliver or Bosa if they were to be there, but I've heard this is a defense heavy draft. So while may not end up with the defensive dairy queen, we can at least get a bell cow.

I don't want Peterman starting at all, but literally any QB we bring on the roster now, Barkley included, will only be as bad or worse. Barkley was a clear cut bust, almost worse than Peterman - 14 INTs in 7 games?The only way we get a serviceable QB this year is if we made moves at the deadline, but who would ever trade for a backup QB? I'm just going to come out and say it and be hated, sign Kaep.

That's really interesting. Obviously not that I know Tony, but his rep is one of a stand-up guy who is a motivated competitor, but otherwise a lockerroom presence you want(ed). He doesn't seem like the guy to desire a military-esque style of coach, but he's still from a military family and would likely be able to play under him, unless he really is that bad. Says a good amount about Haley.

Wouldn't we all - why don't we wait these eight game and see, but yes hopeful. My only hope is every other team passed due to injury concerns and not for lack of ability at the actual position. I'd still like to see us add another WR in FA that is a bit more of an established vet at the position, and another in the draft. Pass catching TE would just be christmas come early, but Clay is serviceable there for now given many other priorities. Something I'd consider, even with Pryor now in the corps - move KB into the "pass-catching TE" role. Obviously we can't line him up to block, but his route running is prototypical large WR/mobile TE. He's not as physical as a Gronk TE, but with his ability to contest jump balls and still run most of the route tree I'm curious to see how that goes. Especially when he's matched up against safeties, DB 2's and 3's, or even linebackers as a result.

Let me try to add something that doesn't reference McD/Beane, nor contributes to the chicken little dialogue. Or at least something I don't see here as far as when I started this post... In a moderately sized nutshell: Schematically, we have a bend don't break defense. The purpose and success of a bend-don't-break defense is to limit opposing offensive production while your offense is able to put up a greater amount of points. The entire philosophy is predicated on having an offense that can 1) score TDs, not FGs, actual TDs, and 2) stay on the field. It's fairly obvious that bend-don't-break defenses spend A LOT of time on the field. What you are seeing late in games is that our offense cannot stay on the field long enough in games and our defense cannot keep up with opposing offenses given the disparity. If we had a defense that focused on three and outs every set of downs, this may play out differently. What you see happening is more a product of our lack of competency on offense than defense. More tangibly speaking, we play mostly zone coverage, with some hybrid coverage, and force offenses to throw underneath hence the "bend-don't-break" scheme. This also relies upon the DLine getting pressure to limit the amount of "bending" that occurs in a single drive. The down sets where we get adequate pressure on the QB we actually do force punts and turnovers. But if our DLine can't get pressure, our secondary tires and zones collapse which is why you see these single receivers seemingly wide open at times. Some of that is also great QBs like Rodgers and Brady who are very familiar with zone schemes. Speaking on the roster - our defense is very good, potentially great, but not yet elite. We need an extra talent addition at each level (Dline, linebacker, secondary) to be elite. Potentially swapping out the added line backer for additional secondary/dline help there if we are to continue with this scheme.

Retirement of Wood and Incognito was our elite running team, hard to fill both those spots with equivalent talent given the timeline. But I agree, some decisions on handling the offense are on them, but nothing warranting a firing imo. It's hard to gauge OC's as most current successful OCs either want to stay put or go HC somewhere else. I like the failed HC coming back as a coordinator thread, but definitely do not want Hue Jackson anywhere near this team. Todd Haley I don't know enough about outside of associating his name to Pittsburgh. I don't think we'd need a new HC, but if one were to be hired, please just go with an offensive minded coach...

Agreed - but even the choice to not pick Mahomes could be argued either way as a decision made and a decision not made...not to distract from the topic at hand. I personally believe the "pass on Mahomes" was not a decision they actively made, nor does judging them for something happening after the fact that likely wouldn't have happened had we drafted him - it's post facto assessment, but isn't accurate. You could say that for any team about any player that ended up playing well that was passed over. Happens to every team, just doesn't make a relevant argument for firing an FO all on it's own. If the FO also had draft picks that perform poorly after drafted then maybe, but even that can be blamed on coaching in some cases.

Given that Thomas and Tate just went, I don't know the likelihood of us passing him on. In all honesty, I'd like to see Pryor and Jones get more of the WR1/WR2 routes, and KB to actually be used to his skillset and see what happens. Not because Pryor or Zay is a number one by any measure, but I'm just curious to see what KB would do in matchups that fit his skillset of being a TE like WR who can make 1 v 1 jump ball catches in 3rd down and red zone situations.

And it could have just as easily went the other way. Not saying so to discredit your post as I also agree sometimes those decisions are necessary. But for a GM/HC banking their entire futures in Buffalo on landing the franchise QB, knowing this fanbase has an utter lack of patience, does picking Mahomes (as he was graded out to be, and not who he is now) seem like a decision they'd make?

Again, you assume that Mahomes/Watson were always going to be the players they are in making that comparison. Also worth mentioning that Mahomes was not graded to be a BPA at that pick nor was he considered "good" heading into the draft or even his first year in the NFL. People were actually surprised at the Chiefs choice. But you are right, two different positions cannot be compared equally by logical standards.

Word - that's all ESPN is about, and especially Monday Night Countdown. Anything the show does that isn't a replay is an advertisement. Like the graphic of the Bills QB situation over the falls? Mmkay. Regardless of intention or who prompted the idea, the reason a "wings piece" was done at all was because they were in Buffalo. So while it's not a news story, demonstrating that situational awareness and cognizant decision to say "yes, this is a great idea," is pretty bad. But of course, ESPN didn't lose any Buffalo viewership as ESPN is kind of the CNN monopoly version of sports news and entertainment.

I'll simply it, too. Just because you don't have a franchise QB already, you always take QB with your first overall pick, even if another BPA grades out better? I mean, it's a strategy for sure.

Not even close, where did I say you shouldn't draft him because he wouldn't have played well with the Bills? All that was said was there's a better chance of Tre White developing in this organization than either Mahomes or Watson, which is still an opinion. But you can't use the argument of "if the Bills took either Mahomes/Watson...this or that would be better" because there is literally no guarantee they end up anywhere near the player they are now, and it is more likely given the defensive mind of the HC and appalling assistant coaching staff that neither QB would have thrived by being drafted by the Bills. It's a complete hypothetical and can't be used as tangible fact. The point was in asking someone who would you rather have drafted, tre or mahomes you can't assume that mahomes would be the player he is now if the bills drafted him.

Fwiw he's saying tre white>a mahomes/watson drafted and coached up by the bills - which is a valid point when you try to make these hindsight comparisons. If the question is between mahomes now v. tre then duh, mahomes. But it wouldn't have necessarily worked out that way so it's a moot point.