JoshAllenHasBigHands

There was a time when having a Mayor do something like this wasn't mixing politics and sports. The mayor was just a representative of the city. She is such a polarizing figure though. It just can't be done with her.

She is the worst

I mean, man, come on. You can't complain about hyperbole and then call free agency "0-9." Star was good, Ivory was good, Trent was good. Even Bodine was good for what he was brought in to do. And nothing of what he said was hyperbole. That is literally the state of the message board. They really are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Did you even read the OP? Really though, I don't think you can read the OP and then type these words thinking that it is at all responsive.

There is nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion. The problem is the "eye test" or dismissing the mountain of work done outright without even bothering to analyze the point.

Lol. Fire post. "I'm going to ignore the mountain of statistical evidence and accompanying analysis, and instead go with my gut on this." Its the literal equivelant of "The earth is flat, any one with eyes can see the earth is flat."

I disagree, but your position is perfectly reasonable. I think that was essentially the Doug Whaley school of thought in fact, and I really liked Doug Whaley. All the same (and ironically), I see Shaq as the reason that philosophy fails. Shaq was the top DE on the board, and a lot of it had to do with his pass rushing ability. I think saying that we drafted him because of his run defense is a little revisionist. But in any event, he is what happens when you reach for that "elite" position. You end up using a valuable pick on a very run of the mill player. I'd rather have the best guard than a pass rusher that gets me 7 sacks in the season. As far as Wilkins, a lot of the reason I like him is need. And I know, I know, you should never draft for need. But it's human nature.

See, I think that makes sense for top 5, but less so after that. The "big money" guarantee guys usually get taken well before 9. At 9 you are taking the second best DE, the second best WR, or something like that. Every draft does not have 10 blue chip prospects. History bears that out. I think you need to be more flexible. As far as DT v. DT, I take Wilkins, but I do appreciate your point. I just loathe DTs that can be pushed aside. DTs should first and foremost be run stuffers. Pass rushing is their secondary purpose. I realize that is an unpopular opinion. But the defense starts with the DTs ability to clog up the middle. That opens up pass rushers on the outside, etc.

If you watch the clips, they both faced the same number of double teams. Wilkins handled them much better, whereas Oliver was constantly getting blown way out of position. Again, thats just based on the clips I saw.

Cover1 has been analyzing Ed Oliver and Wilkins. At least from the clips he has posted, I would much rather have Wilkins than Oliver. That doesn't reveal the total body of work, but it looks like Oliver, against lesser talent, is often removed entirely from the play. The same is not true of Wilkins, against better talent.

I'm not new, and I know how confrontational people can be on this board. My point is only, why be confrontation/sarcastic/rude to a simple question? Have we really fallen that far? That a harmless question is now an attack?

So you do get it-it’s a question of tone. It is an appropriate response to an insult. Not so much as a response to a question.

Im guessing you don’t know what the word “condescending” means based on your response.

That is an aggressively condescending response to me asking a simple question.

Why do people think he would be a good pass rusher?

BPA all day....Best punter available

8 lines of text and not a single truth. It was a contract extension, not the repayment of a debt. They did it because they wanted to secure him for two extra years. Wood was an above average player to a pro bowler. Show me where its says the Bills considered cutting him? He was always an above average center.

I get not like Wood before, but after he left, and we lived with bad Center play, I don't know how you can think Wood was anything but awesome for us

I still don't understand the issue, it was a contract extension. Its fairly normal practice for a player to get extra money on the last year of an old deal if an extension is included. Why is this a problem?

Ah, I get it. I guarantee there was more to it than that, but yeah, if thats how it went down, it was a bad choice.

Wait, you don't think Wood was a smart signing? He was one of our most reliable lineman. Just look how bad things got when he left. This is wild take.

He'd be a great player, but its a waste of a pick. We already have 2 starting LBs, and the Bills (and the NFL) only play 2 linebackers at a time. There is just no need to draft a 3rd that high up.

That is very true.

If you want the "match up nightmare" (far and away my favorite dumb fan cliche) just draft a tall WR. Tight Ends are more than just that. The Tight End position is the most misunderstood in all of football. The great Tight Ends are amazing wide receivers, but they also block really well. And Cook is well below average.

This is a weird response. I don't really understand what you are driving at. The original point is that the best TEs are also good blockers. Gronk is a great example of that. Kelce is also a really good blocker, but Gronk is better. What does playing time have to do with anything?