Chilly

Another stat that shows Buffalo's offense in the top half of the league, another thread where people say it isn't good enough. The defense is the issue.

This also has worked this season for the Giants and Tampa Bay, so there's some precedent for it.

The Bills are #6 in Points Per Offensive Drive and tied for #2 in Points Per Offensive Play. There's not much more room to get better there. The defense is #21 in opponent scoring efficiency, #14 in yards against per play, #22 in third down efficiency, #21 in TDs against. Tyrod hasn't been great passing but the offense has been more than adequate.

Are points through the air worth more?

I get your point on putting the defense back on the field. However, that seems to me to be a great job of making the point that our defense is the issue more than it is an offensive issue. The idea of lots of sustained drives is great, but the best team in the league averages 6.27 plays per drive. The second to last team averages 5.08. Miami is last at 4.77. We're looking at a difference between the best and worst team of 1.5 plays on average. The Bills are actually middle of the pack at 5.70, which, given that their 3 and out percentage is near the bottom of the league, indicates they are actually better than average at sustaining drives. If we look at ten+ play drives, the Bills are #12 in the NFL, so upper half of the league. On the other hand, the defense is #21 in opponent scoring efficiency, #14 in yards against per play, #22 in third down efficiency, #21 in TDs against. It's fair to want less 3 and outs, but overall the offense is also decent at sustained drives. Our defense is the issue.

I also saw Mike Clay tweet this earlier today. Very surprised by it but it does reinforce how bad our defense has been. A little better defense vs Seattle, NYJ, and Oakland, and right now we're all discussing a playoff team. I'm starting to believe the right thing to do is promote Lynn and give him a mandate to find someone to fix the defense. He's done a tremendous job given what he has to work with.

I agree with you that Graham is saying Whaley's way isn't a winning formula. The way the article is stated, he's saying it isn't a winning formula for the simple fact that they have more free agents than draft picks. He says it could be because of the way they scout underclassmen, but he also shows that the Bills have drafted similar starter numbers as successful playoff teams, so he doesn't really come to a strong conclusion either way on the why. The "why" behind it is crucial to establishing causation, and he doesn't make a good argument either way. About the only thing he establishes is that Whaley isn't doing it the same way as winning teams, however he clearly thinks this is an issue because he's attempting to use this article to argue that Whaley is "building a roster full of holes". I think the strongest part of Tim Graham's article is the part on QBs and I absolutely agree with him on that point.

I haven't once said in this thread that Whaley's way made him a good GM, what I said is that his strength is pro personnel scouting. What I am doing is arguing that Tim Graham is making a classic "correlation = causation" mistake in this article. IMO, Whaley's failings as GM have WAY more to do with not being able to find a franchise QB than it does the mix of FA and draft picks on the roster.

68% of our top-25 salaried players were drafted by us. Whaley tends to sign cheaper free agents with a couple exceptions.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/ Of our top-25 players: 17 were drafted by the Bills 4 were acquired cheap by the Bills then extended (Tyrod, Incognito, Hughes, Carpenter) 3 were acquired for big $$$ - Shady, Clay, Justin Hunter (relatively big $$$ contract for a waiver claim). That's not crazy.

I didn't misread the article, I understand that's exactly what he said. Graham is trying to draw the conclusion that doing it differently is and of itself is a bad thing because winning teams are generally built in a different way. I disagree completely that it's in and of itself a bad thing, and I think you could actually be successful building a roster that way if you made the right personnel decisions.

Completely agree, the Bills have failed at even trying to get a franchise QB. This, plus questionable depth (like Safety... really?) should be the things Whaley is legitimately getting criticized on.

The premise was that the GM isn't strong because he built his roster differently than the way the other NFL teams have built their rosters. Whaley's strength is pro personnel scouting, it's not surprising his roster is built to favor pro personnel. This in and of itself isn't proof he's a bad or good GM, it's proof he builds his roster using his strength.

I don't think the salary cap is nearly that big of a deal. You do have to work inside of the constraints of it, but Polian talks a lot on Sirius NFL Radio how easy it is to create salary cap room if you need it. He calls it basically a non-factor most of the time.

Doug Whaley is one of the best, if not the best, pro personnel scout in the NFL. Of course he's going to have a higher share of non draft-picks on his roster. The premise that this is a bad thing when your GM is clearly strong at it is silly.

He can't wait to punt in enemy territory!

I'd absolutely trade for Payton. If the Saints are willing to part ways, he's worth a 4th rounder for sure. He's a solid coach and we haven't had one of those in years.

I don't think I've seen a worse assessment of the Bills situation. What an awful take. The offense is top 10 in points all year, but apparently are terrible. The defense has shown depth on the OL and at LB. Depth at safety was an issue, I'll give him that, but the Bills would flat out get beat schematically on defense during large stretches of time in games.

Orange juice might work too

Oh great, in the same thread I get to read about how ****ty my College and Pro head coaches have been. *sigh*

FWIW, I heard Bob Papa and David Diehl mention this morning on Sirius XM NFL Radio that they heard that Buffalo and Jacksonville were the two teams that are serious for Coughlin. I'd imagine they both have connections to Coughlin, since Diehl played for him and Papa is the Giants radio announcer.

Watkins wasn't on the field for the jets.

Charlie is such a perfect fit for USF. His best recruiting ties in the country are in Florida and he'll have a lot less pressure there then he did at Texas.

One of the rumors was Texas offered Dabo about $7 mil or so to leave Clemson and come to Texas. I would have loved to have him.

My point being it's incomparable in the NFL to compare a rookie contract to a non-rookie contract, so it's silly to bring it up. What you're doing here is making a strawman argument that the Bills gave Tyrod a new contract because they are nice guys. What we can do, though, is look at Tyrod in the situation we're in, not the one we'd like him to be in. Here's where we were last year: Tyrod Taylor 2015: One year left on his deal before UFA (2016): 63.7% Passing 20 TD, 6 INT 7.10 ANY/A 5.5 Y/A Rushing 4 Rushing TDs #8 DVOA #7 QB rating #14 QBR Tyrod had a fantastic season. There was one year left on the deal. The Bills had two options: 1.) Go into the season where the player, who was fantastic, has 100% of the leverage if he plays well again. He'll be a free agent, we'll either have to franchise him or sign him to a mega deal. 2.) Re-sign him to a contract now, reducing the overall cost of the contract significantly if he plays well for another season. The smart thing to do here is EXACTLY what the Bills did; protect against the future if he plays well, and protect against the future if he plays poorly, by having an out-clause in case it didn't work out. What you're giving up is a pay raise for this year. This is how negotiations work. His $$$ amount is not big if we pick up the option. If we pick up his option, AND we add in the cost of a 1st round QB salary, we'll STILL only be at about the #16 QB in the NFL.