Delete This Account
-
Posts
4,267 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Delete This Account
-
-
51 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:
That point is a little overstated, I think. "Mortgaging the future" is mostly in the minds of the fans.
The dirty little secret to the NFL is that the future never really arrives anymore. Between FA and trades, it only takes a year or two to bounce back, even after trading a bunch of picks.
Is it overstated?
Let's review.
The Bills made the foolish mistake of drafting EJ Manuel, which set the franchise back for two years wasting time waiting for him to develop.
If that wasn't bad enough, the Bills then doubled down on their mistake the following year by giving up a first-round draft pick to select Sammy Watkins to prop up a quarterback who wasn't going to succeed, thus mortgaging yet another year, and possibly two, of building the team.
Add in a few more ill-conceived contracts and a bad coaching hire in Rex, and It's taken six years to finally get out of that hole.
It's a dirty little secret only if you don't compound one mistake with another and another.
And that's what happened.
jw
10 minutes ago, sullim4 said:The decision to keep Peterman over McCarron was a huge blunder on both their parts. I cannot possibly believe that McCarron's performance would have been worse than Peterman's.
Here's a nugget: What if AJ wanted out because he was unhappy he got hurt and wasn't awarded the starting job.
The Bills weren't going to win the opener with either three of the quarterbacks.
The only mistake made, which Beane has fessed up to, is he should've brought in Anderson the minute he traded McCarron.
Lesson learned.
Move on.
jw
-
13
-
3
-
-
On 4/27/2019 at 11:55 PM, BigDingus said:
Josh Allen was always said to be a "project" QB, with a raw skillset but the physical attributes and athleticism that made him worth drafting on potential alone. Great size & arm strength were constantly noted, as were accuracy issues.
On the other hand, Tyree Jackson is said to be the liked for the same reasons. Great size and athleticism, fantastic arm strength, but also inaccurate. They both also faced similar criticisms for facing inferior competition throughout their collegiate careers.
Josh Allen is 6'5 and 240 lbs.Tyree Jackson is 6'7 and 249 lbs.
Josh Allen's hand size is 10 & 1/8 inches.
Tyree Jackson's hand size is 10 & 1/4 inches.
Josh Allen's arms measured at 33 & 1/4 inches.Tyree Jackson's arms measured at 34 & 1/4 inches.
Josh Allen ran a 4.75 second 40 yard dash.
Tyree Jackson ran a 4.59 second 40 yard dash.
Josh Allen had a 33.5 inch vertical jump.
Tyree Jackson had a 34.5 inch vertical jump.
***************************************************************************************************
So in terms of physical attributes, size & athleticism, they both are extremely similar in every way. Now to break down stats a bit:
Josh Allen's Completion Percentage his final season - 56.3%Tyree Jackson's Completion Percentage his final season - 55.3%
Josh Allen's YPG his final season - 164.7 yards
Tyree Jackson's YPG his final season - 223.6 yards
Josh Allen had 16 TD's, averaging 1.45 TD's per game his final season. (28 TD's in 14 games the the prior season)
Tyree Jackson had 28 TD's, averaging 2.0 TD's per game his final season. (12 TD's in 8 games the prior season)
Josh Allen threw 6 INT's, averaging 0.54 INT's per game his final season (15 INT's, averaging 1.07 per game the prior season)
Tyree Jackson threw 12 INT's, averaging 0.85 INT's per game his final season (3 INT's, averaging 0.38 per game the prior season)
Josh Allen rushed for 204 yards on 92 carries, averaging 2.2 YPA his final season.
Tyree Jackson rushed for 161 yards on 55 carries, averaging 2.9 YPA his final season.
Josh Allen rushed for 5 TDs his final season (12 TD's in 2 seasons).
Tyree Jackson rushed for 7 TD's his final season (16 TD's in 3 seasons).
Josh Allen was 8-3 as a starter his final season, 8-6 the prior year.
Tyree Jackson was 10-4 as a starter his final season, 5-3 the prior year.
Josh Allen's Passer Rating his final season was 127.8, and 144.9 the prior year.
Tyree Jackson's Passer Rating his final season was 136.7, and 148.8 the prior year.
***************************************************************************************************
Again, awfully similar in most every category. One of the only other factors to consider is whether you value playing in the MW Conference or the MAC more. Wyoming finished with a 4th overall W/L record at 8-5 in the MWC in 2017, with Allen not leading in a single statistical category in the conference.
Buffalo finished with a 1st overall W/L record at 10-4 in the MAC in 2018, with Jackson leading in several major statistical categories in the conference (Ex: Most Passing TD's and Most Passing Yards). He also finished the season as the MAC's Offensive Player of the Year.
Anyway... TL;DR - What differences between them were so huge that it lead to a gap in draft position as massive as A) being a top 10 pick in the 1st round and B) being passed over by everyone & signing as an Undrafted Rookie FA? I'm not saying Tyree is as good as Allen, and I'm not saying he's even worthy of being an NFL starter. I just can't see how one is worth the risk based on physical attributes & flashes of great talent, while the other has equally impressive physical attributes and also shows flashes of great talent.
I mean, at least he should be worth a pick in the 4th round based on where Allen was drafted right? At worst, a 5th or 6th rounder... Can you imagine if Josh Allen fell to the 5th or 6th, or simply went undrafted? "Intangibles" can be thrown around to fill in for whatever explanation that doesn't exist for such a weird difference in draft stock, but that should only cover so much.
On the other hand, I don't know if Jackson had any legal troubles or character doubts that I haven't heard about, but from what I know there wasn't anything noteworthy. So how did one guy profit so much his physical skillset while the other was written off for a very similar one?simple, because Tyree Jackson ignored all the advice to stay in school for on more year, not entirely realizing that few NFL teams had him on their radar last season, and that he was an average quarterback in a non-power conference playing for a team that was mostly run-oriented, making it difficult to gauge his potential after essentially one full season in which Buffalo lost its final two games and, without Anthony Johnson healthy, opened questions as to what was the cause of Jackson's inconsistencies, all but confirming reasons as to why he was so under-recruited coming out of high school.
other than that i'm sure you're lengthy post, which i failed to read, has all the other answers for it.
jw
-
On 4/27/2019 at 1:46 PM, Mr. WEO said:
So the “move up” tease JW tweeted last week was the second round pick of Ford?
It's my understanding the Bills were prepared to move up as high as the 7th pick if it came down to landing one of two or three players: QWiliams, Ed Oliver and possibly Hockenson. Not sure if Josh Allen was on their radar, because they expected him to go to Jacksonville.
When it got to 7 and with Hockenson and Oliver still available (and with a good feeling the Jags weren't going to pick either), there became no real need to trade up because they knew they'd land one of two players, and more than likely Oliver.
The scenario could have changed if not for what Oakland and the Giants did.
Now, if they failed in their bid to move up to 7, and missed out on one of their top-rated guys, then a trade back was likely because of the falloff grades on their board.
All that said, when looking at what Buffalo did in the second and third rounds, Beane continues to show his MO is to go after the player he wants as opposed to move back and risk losing out. ... This philosophy might change should Beane, at some point, desire adding more draft picks as assets. But so long as he has them, he likes to use them in all ways possible.
jw
PS: the speculation of the Bills moving all the way up to No. 3 was overblown.
a call was made, but the price was so high it proved to be a very short conversation. (actually, there were two conversations and both were short).
-
15
-
13
-
-
4 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:
Any football related tidbits?
1 minute ago, Chandler#81 said:yeah, jw, is this Bills/Jets trade talk your doing?
I dare not ask or dip a toe into that mucky swamp of rumors and spin that happens every afternoon before the draft.
The reasons:
1. I'd be skeptical of any front-office person or agent telling me anything today.
2. It would be next impossible to confirm.
3. There's little shelf-life to whatever scoop you may or may not have, because it will all be proven right or wrong in the coming hours. What's the point of risking being used and being wrong on something you might not entirely trust.
4. This is why I don't lean on my sources today, especially when I can get more insight on other things later on and with more riding on the story.
jw
-
8
-
1
-
5
-
-
On 4/8/2019 at 10:30 PM, 4merper4mer said:
The Replacements were your favorite right? They dressed up like giant eyeballs. They also had crap songs like Santa Dog.
Genisis dressed up like tree stumps and sang crap songs like Sledgehammer.
you're clearly high on some kind of delusional substance or substances.
i've never read a post filled with so much inaccurate information as this one.
not even the first sentence is correct.
The Replacements "are" my favorite.
the rest of your post is incoherent drivel.
jw
-
4
-
-
On 4/8/2019 at 7:11 PM, LSHMEAB said:
Rapoport reported a deal was finalized between the Bills and Steelers in terms of trade compensation. That's probably true. Lazy may be accurate because Brown's approval was always going to be an issue. A different reporter, forget his name, reported the very same thing but added the qualifier; AB could nix the deal.
that is both so erroneous and revisionist history that it's laughable.
his first tweet on the matter was: "There it is. ..." Bills and Steelers narrowing in on a trade involving Antonio Brown.
there was no qualifier.
and deal was dead in the water two days earlier.
jw
On 4/8/2019 at 7:52 PM, scribo said:What's the chance that Rappaport, and maybe Schefter today, put out not-so-reliable info as something of a favor to a source (an agent) in a way to pay it forward for a real scoop later? These guys obvious are as connected as anyone in the biz. That's not free.
doing favors is one thing.
doing favors while knowing the information you are putting out is erroneous or biased to the point its not accurate is patently irresponsible.
jw
-
3
-
-
I'll be in the Bills media room as per usual.
Thanks for asking.
jw
-
1
-
-
On 3/21/2019 at 10:53 AM, Chuck Wagon said:
I disagree on the last point. Schefter, usually Rappaport, in NBA Woj, etc do a tremendous job on confirmation. There's a reason they can be believed 99.9% of the time. It's pretty clear Rappaport got some bad intel on the Antonio Brown thing, but that situation could easily be explained as a source thought the deal was done, once the Bills talked to AB they pulled out and the spin is it never got that far.
rapoport was lazy by relying on simply one source, who either wasn't up to date on the discussions or was using rapoport to push Antonio Brown's value.
either way, it was irresponsible and erroneous.
jw
-
4
-
-
On 3/30/2019 at 7:14 AM, 4merper4mer said:
I have news for you Mr. Wawwrowrrwworow. Obsessing over bands that dress up as giant eyeballs and who can't carry a tune to the dumpster doesn't make you a music snob. It's just weird.
That said, thanks for the football update. Can you clarify as to whether the trade up is for the pipsqueak from UMass since he is on 92% of the mock drafts published on this board?
bands dressing up as giant eyeballs?
i do think you clearly have me mistaken for someone like an early genesis fan or something.
please.
jw
-
3 hours ago, N.Y. Orangeman said:
John: I always appreciate your work. Thanks for the tip. I'd love your opinion on the following:
1. Who, in your opinion, would interest the Bills to trade up?
2. In a scenario when we are trading up for a second first round pick, who would see as being potential targets assuming we went DL with the first?
Thanks!
I didn’t talk names.
But I will note that moving up for D help rather moving back for O help prompted the comment.
jw
-
1
-
1
-
5
-
-
9 minutes ago, Inigo Montoya said:
I once started a donnybrook by wondering if the Jets were rope-a-doping everyone and were actually going to draft Barkley and not a QB last year. You would have thought I wrapped the baby Jesus in Old Glory and set them both on fire.
Such is life on the mean streets of Two Bills Drive. An extended, wacky, mildly opinionated, dysfunctional family of Bill's Mafioso with just a sprinkling of trolls to keep life interesting. : )
oh, i’m quite familiar with the place.
?
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Rockinon said:
Interesting how most people are taking this tweet and running with the assumption that the trade up is with our 1st pick. Could be they stay at 9 and trade up afterwards. And perhaps Wawrow is enjoying himself watching everyone salivate.
i’m not at all surprised how much this has taken off and been to some degree twisted to satisfy some folks’ narratives and hopes.
the significance of my initial tweet is, in reality, more of a tidbit and not five-alarm fire that came up during a recent conversation.
again, as i’ve posted here an on the tweeter:
i dont know what chance of a trade will happen. simply, a trade up is more likely (odds? dunno) than down in first round.
jw
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, JohnC said:
You stated that you usually don't posts opinions about the draft. That is in contrast to your copious thoughts on exotic beers. Your haughty sneering of the favored beers of the blue collar population that leans toward Miller and Bud is a an example how you set yourself apart in the upper balcony of the opera house.
libel!
i’m a music snob.
beer? Blue and Guinness
jw
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, familykwi said:
Heh. Sorry John. I live in San Diego. Where would I see your stuff?
PK
I’ve on occasion had a story or two linked on TwoBillsDrive.
jw
-
14 minutes ago, familykwi said:
Can't imagine why I'm being insulted for not knowing the guy, but thanks for clarifying that. Apparently I don't read sites he contributes to.
What I have read indicates the cost of moving up, at the top of the draft in particular, does not usually result in a net gain. I also believe there is enough evidence to support the idea that the draft is an inexact science, so putting more eggs in a single basket to get a particular guy instead of identifying multiple guys is statistically unsound. Not every high pick is a stud and not every stud was a high pick. That's all I'm saying. I'd rather have multiple chances personally.
I'd love to go back over the last 10 drafts for example and see how many trade up guys paid off vs trade down players. Julio was a hit and so far, so is Mahomes, but Watkins was a real miss. I wonder how it all actually shook out.
apparently
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:
I don't know if you are really JW or someone who uses his name as their screen name. But lets assume you are...I wont even challenge you if you say you are.
The very obvious question is simple: Was your tweet of what you are hearing from some sources...or is this tweet reflective of just your opinion on what you think is more likely?
I feel very confident that we will NOT be drafting 10 players in the draft. So I do expect Beane to move around the draft at some point. I do though find it hard to believe it will be up from 9 given the cost to go up from there. It would take away at least one, if not 2 valuable picks to do that and Beane certainly covets his picks.
I feel like Beane could stay at 9 then trade up from #40 to get back into the first or even just earlier in the 2nd to grab a guy he covets...maybe that could be Fant, AJ Brown, N'Keal Harry, Simmons, etc. Then he is getting at least 2 impact rookies. If we trade up from 9, I cant imagine doing that with out at least including our 2nd and could cost us more picks than that depending how high we went. This is such a deep draft in rounds 2 and 3, so I have been pretty skeptical we would go up from 9.
My opinion has been we would trade down to get an extra 2nd then move back up into the first to get another player. And maybe move up again at some point to get another 2nd or 3rd round pick.
But all that being said, the one thing I know is that Beane is not afraid to go get a player he wants, so wouldn't surprise me that much if we went up from 9.
1) i'm me.
2) i rarely, if ever, do i have opinions when it comes to posting about the draft.
jw
-
3
-
1
-
2
-
-
Not saying it's going to happen or not. And certainly don't have any idea of who the Bills might target to move up.
What I'm simply suggesting is Beane is more comfortable in going after a player he's targeting, than moving too far back and hoping a player he wants is still there.
And that very much applies to this year's draft.
Again, he could be very happy at staying at 9 and not moving based on his board and where the drop-off of talent begins.
This part is merely gut, as it wasn't discussed.
As someone noted, the Bills have 10 picks, and it would make sense to use some of those assets to work from a position of strength and landing better players or players the Bills have higher on their board.
They did that twice last year.
jw
-
22
-
1
-
5
-
-
20 minutes ago, familykwi said:
Never heard of John Wawrow. I hope he lacks creditability because we need to stop surrendering assets.
That warrow guy's a dope.
jw
-
4
-
39
-
4
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Can I get your thoughts on this? I see many if not all reporters invite readers to correspond via email or Twitter. Do you do that voluntarily or is it a requirement of the job? And while I agree your respondents should keep it reasonable and not take personal shots, is the reverse also true? I ask the latter beacuse I have tried a couple times to disagree with a columnist and have a dialog only to get back snarky coermnts like "if you don't like it don't read my stuff". If that's the attitude, why provide contact info?
I mostly engage with folks on social media. And no, it's not a requirement.
It all depends on how you approach it, especially when it comes to a columnist. The person is providing his/her take, agree or disagree, but there's no point in arguing with the point. It's the columnist's point of view.
That's a broad overview. When it comes to specifics, that all depends on how you approached it.
jw
-
1
-
-
For what it's worth, Tim's a very good friend of mine.
He left this board after being challenged -- unfairly, in my opinion -- by several posters who ganged up on him and essentially demanded he reveal a source about something, rather than taking his word for it.
The posters who went after him so much crossed the line that I believe SMS established several rules in regards to the limits of how far people could go in these cases.
jw
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MPT said:
Yikes. Overreaction indeed.
How is it that some some people can disagree with one thing the coach said and all of a sudden they're a Bills-hating pitchfork mob? Someone clearly thought it was an important enough topic to make a thread about, so why not debate it?
Woah, it's a thread. good golly, then it must be important.
how about simply ignoring it.
rather than pounding this dead horse into the ground, pouring oil on it, and lighting it on fire, and then adding a handgrenade or two just to make sure every atom of the creature has been obliterated from the face of the earth.
or flying to your computer with arms waving, squealing breathlessly awaiting to submit a hot take about something essentially meaningless.
My Gawd! He, he, he, he said 21 points!
jw
we at 10 pages yet? can't wait.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, MPT said:
"Can't even respond." Then don't. I'll make it very simple for you: you can't show me a "fire the coach" post in this thread because it doesn't exist. You'd be hard-pressed to find one in the entire message board.
Just because someone disagrees with something the coach says does not mean they're never happy or that they want the coach fired. Un-wad your panties and make an actual argument if you disagree.
Disagreeing? This isn't disagreeing with what the coach said.
This is bringing out the pitchforks and torches by parsing something McDermott essentially said in passing.
Holy bejeez.
He said he'd like the Bills to score at least 21 points a game.
So damn him because he didn't 42 or 487 for that matter.
Chill.
This wasn't some Sermon From the Mount or a State of the Union address in which every word must be parsed and interpreted and then taken as pure and unadulterated Gospel.
And it's ... checks calendar ... March 1 for cripes sake not Week 8.
jw
But please, proceed. I'm here for the over-reaction.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I'm absolutely shocked this is only a 7-page thread.
C'mon, folks, you can do a lot better in the over-reaction, hand-wringing department.
jw
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:
Quotes from a press conference vs. an interview with Joe Buscalgia. Saying something similar, using slightly different words. Logically, he is not going to stop scoring once they hit 21. So.......... "at least" or "21 or more" could be inferred from however he chooses to say.it.
But what if that's exactly what he meant?
They get to 21, and that's it. He puts in the second- and third-stringers.
Maybe, one day, they score 17. And the next he stops at 24.
What if they get shut out one week, and now he's gotta score 42 just to make the average.
I pretty sure it's especially important on this day ... checks calendar ... Feb. 28, that everything said must be taken seriously and without question.
There's no room for inferringness.
jw
John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
1: The Bills weren't going to make the playoffs one way or another last year. They knew it. Most discerning Bills fans new it. It was a "wasted year" only because of the decision to go with a very young roster and a patchwork lineup, while getting out from the under the salary cap rock the team inherited.
Thus then puts the onus on Allen to show signs of improving, and from everything I saw from last year, he's ahead of EJ Manuel in that department. He's a better, more athletic quarterback. Not saying he's great or good yet. He's better than Manuel.
2. All I'm saying is the selection of EJ Manuel was a bust from the beginning and Nix should never have painted the team into that corner in the first place. By many accounts, Allen's performance last year was better than that of some of the other first-rounders taken.
3. You seem hellbent on proving your little notion that things can be turned around swiftly.
How about we provide some examples of that.
The St. Louis/LA Rams were world beaters for so long under Jeff Fisher.
The Oakland Raiders have made leaps and bounds under all the people they've had coaching them, plus DEREK CARR!
Cleveland.
4. The decision to trade up 5 spots to draft Sammy Watkins was questioned when it happened, and continues to be second-guessed by just about everybody. It was no different than Donahoe, unhappy over losing out on Roethlisberger, to trade back into the first round and draft JP Losman on what was essentially an egotistical whim.
That move set the franchise back for four years.
But you clearly have all the answers, and there's nothing I could say to change your mind.
So let's leave it with me wishing I could agree with you, but knowing I can't because that would make both of us wrong.
jw