dave mcbride

I'm not talking about that; not sure why you think i'm talking about liability (I'm not). I'm referring to the idea that guys entering the league in 2007 "knew what they were signing up for for" when they chose this path. News flash: if you're going to Alabama to play football, you are choosing at a young age to try and make it as an NFL player. People don't play for Alabama in order to rest on their laurels after a 4-year amateur career. LOL. In a word, yes. Do you know anything about big time youth sports in America?

For a lot of these guys who were elite players starting at age 15 or so and who were tracked to football factories like Alabama, "choice" is a shaky concept.

Bear in mind that he was likely playing at a high level of HS football beginning in 1999. Plus 4 years of AAA semi-pro ball at Alabama. 2007 ain't when he started.

Agreed 100 percent on this.

Fair points.

Interesting, useful stat and chart; thanks. That said, I think you’re cherry picking a bit because in the top chart, which covers everything, shows the Bills to good to great nearly across the entire board.

If he has turf toe (ie, a torn toe ligament), that’d explain a lot. It’s a bad, lingering injury. Given that it happened in spring, i wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what it is.

Um ... https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef/2018 Also, check out opponents’ collective team passer rating against the Bills last season. It is regarded as the most indicative stat of defensive successfor good reason, and the Bills were third, just a hair behind the number two team. As for points allowed, the Bills offense was epically abysmal in every way and put the defense in bad situations all season. That has a huge impact on points allowed.

I don’t know, honestly. Maybe that’s it, but if he was hurt, wouldn’t he be inactive rather than playing 2 snaps?

I don’t have a good feeling at all about Foster. I really think that 2 snaps is not a good sign, especially when all of the other starters saw a lot more.

Lol. Btw, were you involved with the Chancellorsville episode in June?

But that's the system that the players negotiated! The change to the rookie salary structure was made in large part because unproven players drafted in the first round were getting massive - and in retrospect often ridiculous - contracts at the expense of proven players. From an individual perspective, Elliott can certainly make the case that he's underpaid relative to his production, but in truth he's "underpaid" for sound structural reasons. The current system is far more rational than the previous one with regard to how player salary dollars are allocated. Elliott's unique misfortune is that he's a running back, and he fears that he won't be able to capitalize on his elite skills because elite running backs don't have long shelf lives relative to other players. But he's one person, and his argument amounts to a fight against a greater good -- i.e., a more rational allocation of salary dollars based on actual (not projected) NFL-level production across all positions. Don't ever forget the days when a guy like Charles Rodgers deposited a $14.4 million check when he signed his first rookie contract or when Cedric Benson deposited a $16 million bonus check when he signed his first contract. And christ - it's not as if the players overall are receiving less than before. Collectively, they're doing pretty darn well.

Call me soft, but I think it should be a misdemeanor. Our drug laws are nuts. If it's his first offense, he shouldn't sit at all. Not sure if it is, of course. Anyway, that Bills team in the late 1980s was pretty out of control. Let's not forget that.

I have to laugh at all of those here passing judgment on Chung for getting caught with a little blow while remaining Bruce Smith and Jim Kelly fans.

The Bills essentially paid $65-66 million for three seasons of near-elite to truly elite production from a premier position (pass rushing DE). That is a very good deal in today's NFL, all things considered.

It really comes down to Flacco. He may well surprise everyone and have a good season. I've always felt he's a pretty good QB (not great; pretty good). He does represent an upgrade for them if nothing else.

Fair enough. I look at the Bills, and given my worry that they'll go 3-3 in the division, the road looks pretty tough: games against Dallas (at Dallas on Thanksgiving), Philly, at Pittsburgh, at Cleveland, Baltimore, and at Tennessee are all tough on paper. All had winning records last season except Cleveland, which went 7-8-1 and was playing really well in the second half. Plus Cleveland upgraded their already impressive talent. They have to go 3-3 in those games and hope they sweep the rest. It's not easy. Don't get me wrong - I like what the Bills have done and think they have a shot at 10-6. It's just a tough road ahead.

I don't have a strong opinion about Detroit. It all comes down to Stafford, who is the second best QB in that division. I could see them getting in because of that and a very good defensive front, and I could see them going 6-10. Fwiw, I thought that Patricia had some great defensive game plans last season (although they were really inconsistent). His scheme was the first to shut down Josh Allen's run game by flooding the shallow zones on pass plays, and he wrote the book on slowing down the Rams even though Detroit lost that game. He also had a great game plan against NE, who Detroit thrashed. I also think people here are underrating the Jets. They might not get into the playoffs, but I could see 8-8 (with one of those victories being over the Bills). They have real issues, but they have a number of studs.

The thing about Bell is that he's one of the best receiving backs since Marshall Faulk. His absence in the passing game last season really hurt the Steelers.

No, I'm saying that 3-3 in the division is usually the best outcome given the structure of the division, and that 7-3 against everyone else is tough to do. As for Detroit, they have two WC appearances in the past 5 years.

Barnwell watches football. He's a good analyst, and he backed up his argument with evidence. I'm more bullish on the Bills than him, but it is the case that the Bills offense was truly abysmal last season and that the QB had accuracy issues. Assuming everything is going to change for the better is what homers do.

In the last 8 years, the AFC east has two WC appearances (Dolphins in 2016 and Bills in 2017), which is way below what it should be statistically. Turns out going 0-2 vs. NE and splitting against the better of the other two divisional opponents (which will be the Jets this year for the Bills; they are better than people here think) perpetually gets you to 3-3 in the division. That means you have to go 7-3 against everyone else. In the NFC North, everyone has a shot. GB, Minnesota, and Chicago have all won the division in the past three seasons.

So much of this comes down to whether you think Allen is better than Darnold or vice versa. I like Allen, but I always liked Darnold more, and I think Darnold is going to be very good. That's not to say that Allen won't be very good! But I think most observers see a lot more in Darnold than they do in Allen, at least at this point. And that's sensible. I also continue to strongly believe that the Bills loved Darnold and would have loved to have taken him. Bottom line: the Jets have their problems, but winning and losing depends so much on QB play/talent. That's why people aren't as down on the Jets as some of us here think they should be. Um ... there is a team in the Bills division that regularly wins it walking away, making it impossible for any other team to get in except via the wildcard.

The Lions had winning seasons in three of the previous four seasons, and Stafford is a genuinely good QB. And as 122 says, they have a very talented D-Line.

His performance against Washington in 2016 was the most inexcusable performance by a Bills player I have ever seen, especially given how much money he was making. He’s a dope and narcissist. No excuses for that guy.