ctk232

Exactly - the problem is it still is a big nickel package regardless of how you run it. While you make an important distinction there, the media have no clue, nor do they care to pay mind to how it's run either.

I hope so - he's been given A LOT for any rookie, no matter how league ready he is. I wish we had more efficacious data here, but we certainly will in a few games. Here's to hoping, but I think you're right he'll be markedly better than where he is at now. Just don't think it will translate to considerable effect on this season is all.

You're right, how you draft and drafting well matters more than where you pick and certainly contributes. But on a very fundamental level, the goal of every team is to win the Super Bowl, not 7-9 games each season and maybe crack the playoff bubble. It's also just a logical strategy that a higher draft pick simply allows you more options to select from - and choosing from among a greater pool of talent is always better than a smaller pool. I would even argue that the teams that draft well outside the top 10 and are successful usually have a team and system in place designed for their draft picks to succeed, regardless of any single team's intentions to foster these environments. So ultimately, draft grades usually come at the consequence of rookies playing on teams where they can succeed more. For those frequently in the top 5 - it takes time to turn these teams around and for other things to happen. But you're starting to see these results pay off for a few (i.e. Rams, Jags, even the Browns so far) Needless to say, higher draft picks don't guarantee success, no - my argument is simply that they provide the greatest chance of landing talent. And for a team that perennially achieves 7-9 wins and never goes anywhere isn't bad, but it isn't the reason they play in the NFL either.

The rebuild was always on? It's only their second year. And it's called purgatory for a reason - 7-9 wins doesn't guarantee a playoff spot or a high draft pick. You just perpetuate mediocrity for decades, or in the Bills textbook example, 18 years with select seasons of 6 or less wins. But hey, if just watching 16 games each year is enough, then power to you. But if we're going to be the worst team this year then be the worst team, I'll still watch every game excited to see how our future talent develops and plays. Besides, it's only week 2, who knows what will happen in the next 15 weeks.

Any improvements we see this season will be a result of scheme changes, and approaching teams differently each week - so mostly coaches decisions. There's very little player development that could actually occur given our current cap space, and roster. Next year or so? We'll hopefully see improvement from the young guys - outside of our safety tandem, we do have solid young talent that we can see take the next step (Edmunds, Phillips, but also White and Milano for sophomores). Unfortunately, the rest of the defense is aging closer to the vet side of things and unless we make some more young additions, our defense could be seeing a few too many holes to fill at once, very soon.

It's the one down side to rebuilding through FA - no player really wants to come to a team that won't compete, especially one that looks like this. Rebuilds are best started through the draft to build a talent base for 1-2 years before bringing in real top FA talent to fill out the roster at key positions of need. Right now we have the cap space, but I'm worried we'll have to overpay to get anyone here. Hate to say it, but it looks like we made our playoff push a year too early given our cap situation next year

I just want to see the kid healthy - him and Murphy. Chargers took us to school on outside runs and passes to the flats. While neither will likely be able to really cover the latter, it couldn't hurt to have someone who can set the edge on the other side while our LBs are learning and developing. Shaq as a first round pick? Unfortunate, but hopefully he becomes a solid rotation guy at least and we can gear his contract to reflect such given his injury history. Cheaper team guys heading into next year that can fill solid roles and contribute will be vital to keeping our cap space open, while remaining baseline competitive. As important as those top skill position players are to pay and have on the roster, we need average to lower contract guys contributing if we're going to have a shot at being a perennial playoff contender.

Because after all we've been through the last 18 seasons, we want immediate gratification, all or nothing... The guy does exactly what our defensive scheme and coaches are requesting of him, and he's executing what the coaches have asked of him. Whether it's enough based upon the contract offered is the issue, but he won't make any highlight reels since he isn't the one making the tackle. The better assessment is of our defensive scheme as a whole and whether it's actually successful.

Been in support of this since the preseason. Unless we are actually trying to make a playoff push this year - what is the harm of starting Teller and putting him through the same wringer we're putting Allen and Edmunds through? Ducasse shouldn't be on the team next year, and Miller is a question mark.

That seems to me more conspiratorial than logical. I believe Beane even admitted that they thought AJ was someone he wasn't, and that the plan was likely to show Peterman the door. But based upon offseason performance, Peterman just played better. We're speculating entirely as to the FO's true intention, but there was no debating the fact that this kid is more of a project than a day one starter. Anyone could see that Allen wouldn't be our day one starter from scouting - he was/is just the best option we had/have on the roster. Things happened and now he is QB1 due to a deplorable first game. It's speculation, but we can make an educated guess to say it is likely the FO never intended Allen to start this year, or if so, at least not this soon. There are much more productive, planned progressions of welcoming a rookie into their first game that teams take - this was not one of them as we had to respond to something pretty abhorrent in our first week, following an entire offseason of limited first team reps for Allen. I still think our Week 1 loss has just as much blame on the Defensive side of the ball, which carried into our first half of week 2. There's no going back from this either way, and we are where we are.

I think it's important to separate the statistics from the implications and interpretation...you also have to consider the variables and factors that go into those grades and ask if they truly correlate or cause any effect on actual game performance. For example, the argument that Star grades poorly per PFF because he plays the one-technique and just eats up double teams every down. Let's assume he is actually doing well per his assigned role in the defense. This is not a flashy PFF grade, but it helps Kyle and others who make the tackles grade out well, too. It's incredibly easy to say that both rookies didn't grade out well, and their performances were contributory to us losing the game. They were not the only reasons, though, and to think this summary and grading takes blame away from the OL is rather confusing. Does Allen's play not get affected by the OL's performance? So if we hold these grades to be all and end all, should Allen's grade not then reflect the immense protection and security the likes of Ducasse and Miller supposedly provided? How have they performed in the run game? Seems to me we haven't been able to establish an effective run game behind this OL either. Grades are fine in interpreting statistics, but they are not useful tools in determining actual player performance in relation to the outcome of a game. Even statistics fall short in that regard, and need to be properly interpreted to accurately capture that comparison. That being said, they can also bring to light circumstances that might not otherwise get picked up in the eye test, but take care how you use these arbitrary af grades. Lastly, these analysts you proclaim do an immense amount of studying and should be taken seriously...do they not also have personal agendas to prove their draft predictions come true? Or write stories to increase readership which is directly tied to their paycheck? Do they not also consider other factors in determining these grades? I can read and study all I want about football, doesn't automatically make me an "expert" whose opinion is worth considering at an exceptional level. Take from this what information there is, but don't sensationalize a response based upon tangential "grading." We all think this team is ultimately headed in the right direction beyond what we're seeing this year, no point in trying to save the face of players on an OL that likely won't be here next year. So yes, you are absolutely right the OL is not the problem, the team is. But they are a large part of the performance that we are seeing.

Rest of the post too, pretty spot on. If we're talking winning the SB, it's the perfect storm of events going right, not just in the years leading up to it, but during that season as well. So many different kinds of teams have won SBs - game manager QBs with great defenses, HOF/Stud QBs and solid defenses, and even teams playing their backup QB (Eagles). A million things can contribute to a successful SB run, including those mentioned in the quoted post, but last season we saw a year with exceptional parity among teams in the league. It was a large part of the reason why the Bills made the playoffs, but it also opened the door to give other teams a chance that wouldn't even be perennial contenders otherwise. One last piece to this perfect storm was also alluded to in the quoted post, which is drafting in relation to cap space and the window of opportunity. You can have the most talented roster in the league, but you will likely struggle to keep all those players for extended contracts without losing cap space. Every single player on the team has to be performing at that level during the small window of years when a team can literally afford to have them all playing at that level, before bigger contracts are demanded.

Exactly - Allen was not the QB to draft and expect to become the franchise on day 1. We all knew he was raw and needed developing, that was the intention with the pick. If we had a halfway capable QB on the roster and team behind him, we would likely not have seen Allen play much at all this year, and just Mahomes him while he develops his game. He's being thrown in over a year before the FO intended and this is the result of the current product before any development can really take place. But developing what exactly, with the team this year, I'm not so certain. The games he will be seeing each Sunday are not case studies of typical NFL games...I hope he/we can re calibrate his barometer to adjust to what an NFL team actually looks like and how a team is supposed to perform in this league.

Agreed - I need to re-watch the games to see how much of Star playing one-technique is offsetting PFF grades, which mean what they mean, don't exactly have completely translatable implications. But I do agree that stopping the inside run is the one thing we've managed to do fairly well. It's runs to the outside and passes to the flats that kill us. I agree that the safety love isn't entirely justified. Beyond Tredavious our secondary is not performing as expected, which isn't entirely a surprise tbh. I don't think we have the safety tandem people think we do, albeit they are still one of the better duos in the league per these grades...the bigger issue contributing to this though is lack of depth at DB and coverage positions. Doesn't matter who your secondary is if a QB can just throw to his WR2, Slot receiver, and TEs all day.

That pretty much nails it. 1. Feel good draft 2018 2. Horrible cap space issues in 2018 from Whaley era 3. People we brought in FA were pre-retirement waves, and we had little space for last minute adjustments 4. We overpaid on Vontae Davis, Star, etc. - though at least Star is most of our inside run defense at the moment if nothing else...but we never truly intended to contend for a playoff spot this year nor even last year until Week 8 5. 2019 FA with $80 mil, likely a top 5 draft pick, and the intention to not compete in 2018 and build for the future? Sold.

They were both development picks, Edmunds much less so given his scouting report, but we all knew he wasn't perfect at the position, just a physical exception at his age. That coupled with the rest of our lackluster defense doesn't exactly provide a stable learning foundation. I get the pressure on Allen, and the massive media attention it demands. But going with a potentially unpopular opinion here that Edmunds has had just as much, if not more pressure on him as a result of the staff dumping more on him, all while they are taking a slightly more coddled approach to Allen where they can. If we expand our secondary with DB depth (which is literally a cliff once you get past Tredavious), and some actual line play on passing downs, Edmunds will come around just as much as Allen will with a full OL and WR corps. There's symmetry with it.

First five games of the season the Turnover Diff was unreal - you can practice for turnovers, but the majority of them is the ball bouncing your way. Our defense has some pretty glaring holes as well, and a rookie MLB who's quarterbacking the defense and doing a pretty solid job considering his age and lack of experience. It's just as much of a learning process on that side of the ball, too. We're getting gouged on outside runs, swing passes out to the flat, and LB mismatches. Edmunds will get there, but we are asking a lot of a very young rookie who is playing every single snap. Somehow we seem to manage with run stops between the tackles. I'm curious to see how much of that impact is Star, as McD claims it to be with his one technique.

For sure, I think we're right on track as far as the rebuild is concerned, to be honest. I do wish Allen had a few more talented weapons to develop around before he became full fledged starter, but I'm hopeful after Sunday. I just never understood where the shock was coming from on the board, aside from the point differential in our first game.

Thanks for posting, agree he doesn't pass the eye test, but interesting that's how the stats read. Though don't be fooled by grades - also says nothing for run blocking, but that's another story. This is not an NFL caliber line, and they are not playing like an NFL caliber line. Ducasse will not be a part of the future line, nor will Miller or Groy the way things are going. So they can grade however they would like right now, it's still not going to be the line of next year. Just hope that Castillo is also shown the door. To be honest, I think our OL play is more an issue in the run game, and passing game is occasionally, if not frequently, exacerbated by WRs not getting open plus Allen learning his reads and progressions while holding onto the ball.

To answer your question, nope. The first loss was deplorable regardless of expectations. Most of us knew what was coming, but no one was prepared for that. The camp of those that understood increased in population on our way into Sunday's game, leaving us more hopeful how Allen would play less so than the team. The rest of the posts this week are from the remaining diehards still clinging to last year's playoff berth as a sign of immediate results to come, regardless of offseason reality and present cap space. We were always in a rebuild, playoffs or not. But who wouldn't want their rebuild to start with removing an 18 year monkey off the franchise's back? We just don't want to be told to be patient again...that's all this is.

0% for these exact reasons. It's also Week 3. Let's give it a season and call it as we see it once we have some semblance of an OL, some WRs, DB help, and more of an effective DL...

From the sound of it he needs a coach more than a vet QB...but not to worry we just worked out Tyler Ferguson... But agreed that the current staff doesn't offer much in the way of resources and knowledge of the QB position...I'd like to see the organization invest in our QB's future by bringing in an actual QB coach, as McDermott is of the defensive school. I don't think signing a vet QB to fill this role would make sense when it's really just for coaching purposes. I think i said it once way back in July, but hell, I'd even throw an offer out to Romo to coach QBs. Still feels weird saying it the second time...

Agreed - there's no consistency with the NFL and they'd rather throw a PR title solution at the problem rather than sit down and actually plan out a way to make it happen. The new rule is 100% for PR purposes of protecting players, yet little to nothing has been done to determine how the rule is and should be interpreted. They've effectively red shirted an entire position in the game. To the Bills point, I'm wondering if the past two games had more to do with having Rookie Refs both weeks. Not like the vets call a good game anyway, but at least give us less excuses come Monday... Intentional grounding seems to be this thing that exists everywhere, yet goes unnoticed every time...maybe because the refs are too busy looking at: where the QB got hit; how hard; how far; how long since he threw it; was it actually bad or did it just look bad; is his name Brady; what do I want for dinner tonight; etc. and not so much where the ball is actually being thrown...

Why are we working out a QB? Not like they can trade Peterman, unless they're going to pull Allen for fear of losing his life behind that OL and lackluster WR corps

Actually though, ha. I think our Defense steps up a bit more if they play like they did the second half for the whole game, keeps us in it for four quarters, and I agree with a close twenty point turnout one way or the other. Selfish plug: after growing up in Philly my whole life, I'm finally going to my first actual game with multiple generations of bills fans (uncle moved to MN) - would be nice to see a close game and a W, otherwise you can blame it on me lol