thebandit27

Nope. The 2012 Bills had a bust RB that averaged nearly 6.0 YPC for the season. The 2016 Bills lead the league in RB yards before contact per carry. Both units were dominant in their respective seasons. But here's hoping we see something similar next year to help the kid. And yet they found a very good RG off the scrap heap. It isn't really about "wasting" a pick on a guard; it's about value. Can you find a LG elsewhere? Is it common to do so? I say yes. Furthermore, is a LG a cornerstone piece of a franchise? If so, then sure, take him 6th overall. If not, then don't do it. Use that pick on a cornerstone type position

Well, you'd have already lost that wager since he scored 15 TDs this season I don't think I said anything about 5 years. How about 2 years while your young QB develops?

Sure, that opinion holds water for me. Basing it on a supposed decline in production doesn't.

You've got that backwards; if you have an elite QB you're going to win, but add an OL and you can become close to unstoppable. I mean, the 2012 and 2016 Bills are the epitome of great OL play, but they both finished below 0.500. Again, that's not to say that the Bills shouldn't be aggressive in upgrading the OL; they should. It's just outdated thinking to say that the OL is the key to the offense. I mean, Houston won that division with some of the worst pass protection in the game. But let's talk upgrades for a minute: FA offers plenty of volume at guard, but not so much at C and RT. I'm hopeful that Beane can capitalize on the veteran trade market for OLmen that always seems to materialize prior to FA. I've suggested plucking Osemele from Oakland for a mid-round pick since he's got a huge salary and Gruden hates his own players. Ordinarily I'd say Daryl Williams is a great fit (plus there's the Beane connection), but I worry about his health status. One guy I'd love to grab is Ty Nsehke; he's been great in Spot duty at 4/5 OL positions and is a veteran. I wouldn't let him walk if I were Washington, but he'd be an outstanding 6th OLman moving forward. Center is the tough get. It's basically Morse and Paradis. You could wait and see if someone like Maurkice gets released, but that's a long shot IMO.

We've seen his peak? Didn't he lead the NFL in receiving TDs and have another 1,200-yard season with close to 100 receptions? That's a highly debatable statement

A dominant OL helps--provided you have the QB first. Make no mistake: the Colts offense is great because of Andrew Luck. Should the Bills upgrade their OL? Yes. Spend FA dollars so that you don't have to waste precious assets like the 9th overall pick on non-premium positions like LG. That way you can focus the draft on premium positions like pass rusher, WR, and cornerback, where the top players rarely hit the open market.

Since I'm the person that brought up the visiting locker room, let me make this clear: My point was that it's easy to see how an opposing player would get the idea that Buffalo's facilities are lousy given the condition of what part of them they see. I didn't say that the visiting locker room would or should prevent a FA from signing here, and I also made it clear that the facilities are among the nicest in the NFL. I've seen a fair amount of confusion over my comments, so hopefully that clears it up.

Sure. I just think that they could do themselves a favor by bringing it up to 21st century standards

And all of that has exactly what to do with how bad the visiting locker room is, and the effect it has on FAs' perception of the team's facilities? Nah, not crazy, but surely you see why the perception is out there

Glowinski would be a solid acquisition for sure. I'm not much of a Sweezy guy; he's really benefiting from playing for Solari right now. Still think it stinks that Buffalo missed out on him when Rex was hired, even if Kromer ended up being solid

Yes and yes The only salient point here is that you can quite easily see why an opposing player would believe--erroneously--that Buffalo's facilities are shoddy in general.

Yep, many of them are lousy. Ours just happens to be the worst.

Not really. We're on a whole different level; not a home game passes where an opposing team member doesn't mention it

So, what does "competent" mean? That you CANNOT win a super bowl with him? Because that's not competent. If a QB is good enough to not hold the team back from winning a super bowl, then he's competent, a/k/a a franchise QB. Because if he's not good enough to win a super bowl, then he ain't franchise baby.

They do. Interestingly enough, the visiting locker room isn't on the tour ?

It's small, dilapidated, ugly, worn, dingy, etc Back in 2006, a players' survey rated it tied for 3rd worst with Arizona and behind SF and Oakland, and just ahead of SD and Minnesota. All of the others have either built entirely new stadia or made major upgrades. 'cept us

It's shameful. If you took a formal poll of players and coaches around the league, it'd be unanimous that it's the worst

The big issue at play is the visitor locker room--it's heinous. Worst in the league. The de facto facilities are actually quite nice. Once this summer's athletic facility remodeling is complete, it'll be among the most extensive in the NFL. The Pegulas have done a nice job of making things attractive to FA visitors, but the ***** hole stigma left by the visiting locker room remains a hurdle to overcome in attracting outside talent

A franchise QB is simply one with which you can win a super bowl with him being a key part of the offense. He doesn't need to be THE reason, but it cannot be in spite of him. Great examples of the above: Joe Flacco, Russell Wilson, Eli Manning

I just saw that Julian Love - CB/Norte Dame declared Please, please find a way to draft this kid.

Apparently it was only the 2nd hall in which he allowed zero catches. For the game, he allowed 3 for 19 yards: https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2018/02/06/how-the-patriots-secondary-graded-in-super-bowl-lii-without-malcolm-butler #shredded

Oh. My. Word. The important part of the article is not Turner's analysis; it's the link to the raw data. The post I linked to has the raw data for the "top 10" corners in 2016. Read the data, draw your own conclusion that goes beyond the "I don't like him" test. I have to believe you're messing with me here, because the other possibility is frightening.

I don't really care if you're impressed by Turner or not. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of looking at the numbers and comparing them to his peers. The article linked in the post states the statistics clear as day. If you want to argue that he didn't play well in 2016, perhaps bringing some type of context aside from "it's my opinion so just deal with it" will carry more weight? What you're saying is akin to me posting Patrick Mahomes' stats from ESPN as evidence that he's an MVP candidate, and you telling me "I'm not impressed by ESPN". The numbers are the numbers, and they don't really care about people's feelings.

Partly, but mostly the answer is because Rex has an 80-page playbook with 12 plays per page, each of which has between 4 and 6 different variations that can all be checked to, so you might have a play call set, but then the alignment of the TE changes it, so you have to check, but then the same TE goes in motion and the play changes again, so you need to check that too. It was lunacy.

Well, having seen, read, and re-read Rex's playbook, I usually had a pretty darn good feel for it. I spent a LOT of time that year trying to explain why Rex's scheme had people doing stupid things that don't look right on film.