JoshAllenHasBigHands

It's a tough way to live being that dumb

Yes. It was a move that didn't work out. But based on the information available at the time of the trade, there was a low percentage likelihood it would end up the way it did. Let's imagine we trade a 7th round pick for Aaron Rodgers, and immediately after the trade he blows out his knee and retires from football. The outcome is as bad as it can be, but does that still mean it was a bad trade?

Scott, comments like these are why no one takes you seriously... Yeah, that's fair. On the other hand, the team that drafted him wasn't just "cutting ties." They had a younger version of him still on a rookie contract. I don't think his size was any different from when put up a 100 yard season. At that time, it is fair to say it was debatable, but it wasn't nearly as bad as you are representing.

Trades should not be judged by how they ended up, but rather based on the information available at the time. Benjamin didn't work out, but at the time it was a solid trade.

Yup. This is exactly right.

Well, I suppose neither of us wants to find out who is right on this. There is a 99% chance they are back next year, and just as good a chance they win more than 4 or 5 games next year. I guess the whole thing is just academic.

I think you are confusing what you think will or should happen, with what the Pegulas are likely to do. Should they be in trouble? Maybe, but that's not my point. It is pretty clear the Pegulas want to see this thing through, one way or another. They seem braced for growing pains, otherwise the staff wouldn't have been comfortable rebuilding the way they did.

Its wild that this doesn't get mentioned more. I have to believe the Pegulas are on board with this plan. I say this in all sincerity: people saying there is any scenario this staff gets fired after next year, regardless of the outcome, just haven't been paying attention. Football is football, and the season is short. A lot of strong opinions for a guy that doesn't watch that much Bills football.

You know, you may be right. And every talent evaluate in and around the NFL may be wrong. You may, in fact, be the genius, but based on a couple logical fallacies and your inability to really handle the Khalil Mack example, I am gonna stick with you are probably wrong.

All projections are based on suppositions. That is why there are so many first round busts every year. It is the same reason judging players by the talent they face is not a workable model. Guys dominate draft eligible talent regularly and then bust at the NFL level, and then vice versa. In any event, if your problem is with judging player without "concrete" evidence, you should probably sit out the draft analysis game. I am not sure you understand my point. Let's image players on a scale of 1-10. To be drafted, a player needs to be 6-7 or above. The guys you are talking about are 5s. Now, if you put a 5 against a 7 in a College game, the 7 is going to be only slightly better--and that is because of parity (and that these guys are often drafted based on projection). But if you put a 5 against a 10, the 10 is going to blow them away. That is what Oliver did. I don't really mind the point you are making, I do understand. The mistake you are making is thinking that he didn't dominate based on your nit-picky critiques. Now, the problem with your nit-picking is that we are evaluating players and projecting what they can do at the next level. You are not critiquing strength, athleticism, etc. You are critiquing technique and other things that are corrected by NFL level coaching--something he hasn't had.

So this is in response to this post and your line by line of the Texas Tech game. I think you are being super nit-picky. It is obvious, even through your quibbles, that he is heads and shoulders more athletic and talented than the guys he was up against. Now, yes, those guys weren't the same talent level as what he will face in the NFL. Buy the guys who don't get drafted aren't miles behind the lineman that do. Not the way Oliver is miles ahead of them. Mack had more production against Ohio State than Oliver did, but Mack played a position and style that lent itself to putting up that kind of production. Mack could be moved around and isolated into one-on-one situations against a variety of lineman. I really do think your critique is a little over the top.

That's what they said about Aaron Donald; how did that work out? Height used to be important for QBs too, but thats out the window now. The game changes; try to keep up.

Measuring Hughes solely by sack numbers is super reductionist. He has put more pressure on opposing QBs than any other DE in the league over that time period. He is at the very least close to Elite.

Didn't Bandit just do that above? You are right about the talent of the Gs and Cs. I think that was true of Khalil Mack as well, at least for the most part. All the same, I can't judge a guy for his performance against guys he has never seen. He can only play the guys in front of him.

Man, watch the game--it's on Youtube. He was a wrecking ball. It was almost comical seeing him surrounded by three guys. And to still get that kind of production is crazy.

I was really feeling this comment when I first read it. Then I looked at some of the stats against power 5 teams, particularly the game against Texas Tech. Then I watched the video. Holy cow are you wrong--he got double and triple teamed every play and still managed to affect 50% of the snaps in a major way. The whole offensive game plan was geared at avoiding him.

Yeah, I get it, and I won't fight you on your opinion. I am all about learning more about analytics. Not to be confused with stats (60% is a stat, not an analytic). The point is the more we learn the smarter we get. With that, we are learning that pressures make more of difference on the outcome of games than sacks. (To supplement the point) I look at it like this: If Jerry gets 16 sacks, he is a guaranteed pro-bowler and maybe an all-pro. Great. But what does that really mean? It means he has gotten one sack per game. Do you think that one sack made a difference on the game? Maybe, but its not likely. However, he gets pressure on 15% of snaps. Pressure means he is altering the throw--making it a shorter throw, inaccurate, or incomplete. That 15% of altered plays is more important than one sack. As far as that 60% number, it means things and it doesn't. For Allen, it means he needs to take the shorter throws that are there and not play hero ball. If he does that, he will make it in the league. If he doesn't, he will be a middling quarterback. But its because 60% is a magic number; rather, it is a symptom of his need to start taking the short throw.

It was a stellar pass defense, but an atrocious run defense. Teams ran all over us that year, and didn't even bother passing the ball. As a result of the constant running, the game slowed down, meaning teams had fewer drives and thus lower total yards. That defense sucked. Sacks are overrated, because event the best teams do not get enough sucks through the course of game to consistently matter.

I hate blanket statements, and so I think my comment is really a response to overemphasis on season sack numbers. We should always be trying to get sacks, but I don't think the number of sacks we get at the end of the year should be the metric or focus.

I wouldn't had occurred to me if Hughes had 15 sacks, that is probably true. But now that it has, I really think I am on to something. It reminds me of the year we had Pettine and got all those awesome sack numbers-our defense still sucked. Or Mario, even when he had those 10+ sack years, he was invisible on every other play. It never sat well with me, but I couldn't articulate the problem. If Hughes had 15 sacks and half the pressures, I would say he is not worth the money.

I am like 75% on the way to a complete change of philosophy: Sacks don't matter! And by that what I am really saying is that sack numbers are completely overrated. Like, if you get a sack, it will be a drive-ruiner. But even NFL sack leaders do not get enough sacks to significantly alter the course of a game. This of course excludes well timed sacks. I think what really matters is consistent QB pressure + coverage; something that is attainable as compared to sacks.

It's your argument, you aren't just the "messenger." Sounds like excuses literally lets you ignore all context and argument and be critical of whatever shortcoming their may be. It is literally refusing to make a real argument.

"Excuses" is usually code for "I am unhappy but too lazy to think"

Wait, we have a need for play makers in the secondary?

Great idea, man.