JoshAllenHasBigHands

That's fair. I probably wouldn't use a third, but if you don't think Allen is going to pan out, then that is what you have to do.

Analyzing just their rookie year, (I am counting Mahomes' second year as his rookie year just to be fair), 3 of those guys were better their rookie year than what Allen is right now. That is a 15% percent chance of being successful, in the way you describe. Plus, your assumption ignores that the top QB options will not be available to us by the time we pick next year. Seeing as you would have to settle for the third QB off the board (in all likelihood), it is fair to drop that number by half (7.5%). So the question becomes, is there a greater than 7.5% chance Allen improves in year three. It takes a cynical mind to think he cant beat those odds. 2019 Kyler Murray Daniel Jones Dwayne Haskins Drew Lock 2018 Baker Darnold Allen Rosen Jackson 2017 Triubisky Mahomes Watson Kizer 2016 Goff Wentz Lynch Hackenberg

Its an odds game man. What are the odds they find that guy? What are the odds JA takes the step? Seems an easy bet that the odds of the latter are better than the odds of the former.

History also said JA wouldn't be able to complete more than 60% of his passes this year. I genuinely think JA is not subject to the normal progression of things, for better or worse. That said, he has shown the ability to do everything you want a franchise QB to do. Make the tough throws, throw with anticipation, read defenses, move around the pocket. He just does them at different times, is inconsistent, and has yet to put it all together. Most of the guys who never take that leap never demonstrate the ability to do two or three of those things, and just stay static. As far as the coaches go, they live and die by Josh Allen. If they drop him next year and bring in a new guy, this is inevitably going to be a 6 loss team, and they will lose their jobs. Conversely, if they keep him, and JA fails, they still lose their jobs. Their better bet is stick with Josh Allen, just because then they at least have a shot at him putting it all together.

So I saw quibbling over the term prolific is a race to the bottom, and you decide to double down on the quibbling. Nice.

Man, you don't understand why your data is irrelevant to the question. My point has always been that the data/information you need to make this claim is confidential and not really something you will ever know. I don't think you get it. I didn't disengage because I don't have data. I stopped responding because I don't think you are even bright enough to warrant a response.

I too think we should fire the guy responsible for leading us to the number 3 defense in the NFL. *sarcasm off*

You are responding to a blow hard take. That dude is fake as hell.

I didn't find it, but Cover 1 is the type of nut to have that wildly specific stat handy.

Few things frustrate me more than wildly baseless assumptions being used to criticize a coaching staff.

I meant the back shoulder throw. I didn't consider the coverage. I know JA isn't great against Cover 0, but I don't know the stats. Where did you find that?

Almost 38 points is really good. I guess we can quible about whether it is "prolific," but semantics are always a losing argument. There are 130 teams in college football. The 19th ranked offense is more or less equivalent to the 4th best offense in the NFL. (19/130 = appox. 4/32).

Meh, you kind of got smoked on the Wyoming point. Those rankings aren't as meaningless in college rankings as you think they are.

You want your offense to attack matchups. If the opposing defense gives you one on one coverage, with more guys in the box than you can block, than you pass. It is not as simple as finding a good pass v. run equilibrium.

Look, my original point is that they are "trying" to accomplish certain things, and that saying they haven't found an "identity" misunderstands what they are doing. All of what you are saying has nothing to do with my point. I understand they are failing. That doesn't change my point.

Badol, you have been laughed at on this board more than ButchfromtheEastSide did on BBMB. You should walk away.

Yes. That is why they are "trying" to accomplish it.

Ok, man. You say so.

Tre White is still here for two years! We don't have any reason to believe Tre White is going to hold out! The team calling for Tre White doesn't have reason to believe that if they are patient they can just sign the player and not give up any picks! Revis and Ramsey were all-pro players!! Teams didn't even throw their way. That is not even remotely true of Gilmore. I appreciate that you are pulling a bunch of data points, but none of them actually warrant your claim. It is not about stats, it is about league perception and market value. You have no idea how the league, as a whole, viewed Gilmore (we only have the pro-bowl and the Pats contract). That is why I keep bringing up Ramsey and Revis' all-pro status. It clearly defined how the league saw those guys. We also have no idea what Gilmore's market was. We do not know how many teams would have been interested in him, and who would have parted ways with pics as well. Its all speculation.

Are you serious? You took the time to find links to say this? You're gonna need some practice at this before you come in hot with these takes.

Oh it happens! I do not deny that. But it happens very rarely. Too rarely to just assume success as a given.

Is that a serious comment? You have posted 16,000 times on this board. You obviously love the Bills and love football. There is no way you can spend that much time thinking about football and think that Fitzpatrick comment makes any sense. I'll make it simple: The overwhelming value of a trade is dictated by how many years the receiving team will have that player and at what cost. So, the Steelers received Minkah for 3 more years on a low-cost rookie deal. In the Gilmore Scenario, the receiving team gets Gilmore for 1 year at the most expensive price tag in the NFL. Do you see why the former is worth more (higher pick) than the latter? I refuse to believe you do not understand this concept, but that Fitzpatrick comment tells me you don't.

Players on a tag and trade do not have the same value as players traded with a year or two left on their contracts, especially their rookie deals. You are talking about trades that rarely happen as if it was a given that not only would the Bills be successful, but they would also get a prized first round pick. There rare cases where it works, but Gilmore, with his accomplishments and failures, is not one of those cases.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Besides, if the rest of the NFL thought he would be worth a first in a trade, he probably would have been selected to more pro-bowls. On top of that, I think its fair to say there was a general surprise around the league when BB handed out that contract to Gilmore. He had some good stats, as MajBobby points out, but he gave up a ton more in penalties and catches than Revis. That is why he did not make the pro bowl until his last year here. That said, I loved Gilmore and thought he got a bad rap. But, at that time, when it was decision time, he was not worth a first round pick on a tag and trade. Last thing, trades don't happen in isolation. Markets determine trade value. We have no idea what Gilmore would have been worth in the market. I guarantee the FO did at least some digging into what the market might yield. It is telling that they didn't even attempt a sign and trade. That tells me the market value would not have yielded a pick that would have justified the franchise tag price.

Dude, why are you dying on this hill? You lose so much credibility claiming he was worth a first. All you need to say is we would have gotten something, and you would be right. But you make this absurd claim about a first round pick and you end up sounding like such a cliche troll.