billsfan89

They also drafted Allen, found Foster undrafted, drafted Dawkins, and Teller might be a find later in the draft so its not all negative. I think they have to be better BUT they have not had an offensive signing greater than 3 million dollars. So its a bit hard to say they won't be able to upgrade the offense given more resources. Its not that you can't find players on the cheap on offense but rather that it is harder to do so when you are bargain basement shopping. I am skeptical of the front office's ability to sign free agents but I would say that the context of them not having many high AAV signings does give you some context that maybe if they actually had money to spend the results could be better.

The McBeane regime hasn't had a major free agent signing above 3 million aav on the offensive side of the ball. The only major move they made was KB which while a bust is only a singular move made at the trade deadline. So I can't really say how good or bad this regime is when it comes to signing offensive talent because for the most part they have gone shopping in the bargain bin.

Not every team has the same amount of cap space, cap commitments and draft picks. The Bills have a top 10 pick and extra mid to late round selections, its not an Oakland Raiders type amount of picks but still a nice set of picks to work with and the Bills have a top 3 amount of cap space to work with. So its fair to say the Bills have a great set of tools to work with in order to construct a roster.

If the Bills make zero roster improvements in 2019 then yes their talent level is currently that of a 6ish win team. But you have to be a huge hack writer to make projections before free agency has even started.

10 years ago it used to be that RT was the second most important position along the O-line because most of the pass rushing pressure was from edge rushers. Most interior D-line players 10 years ago were rush defenders or guys pushing up the pocket eating up sacks via QB's stepping up from the edge rush. Now I think LT is still the premium position but by less of a margin. I think all the other positions RT, C, and G have about equal value.

I think the O-line and D-line game is getting smaller, similar to what happened to the NBA with big men. Oliver would be a steal at pick 9, the reason Donald fell to the mid first round was mostly due to concerns about him being undersized. I don't think the Oliver Donald comparison is necessarily accurate but I think Oliver could be a very dynamic DT.

10 years ago it used to be that LT was the top position along the O-line and was by far the most expensive position to secure while RT was a distant second and the interior players were viewed as pretty easy to find. Now its a different story. Defenses are rushing the QB along all positions along the edge and interior. College football is not turning out NFL ready linemen at a high rate due to changes in the college football game. So now all offensive line positions are hard to find and very important. I would still say that LT is the highest premium but the gap has shrunken considerably.

I would rather have a top 5 offense with a top 15 defense than the reverse. This is an offensively driven league now. You do need defense (at least a decent mid level defense) and special teams but you have to be able to put up points. Is it possible we could see a generational defense like Seattle 2013 or Denver 2015 win a Super Bowl with a limited offense? Yes, exceptions do happen. But it is more likely that more than likely that 8-9 of the next Super Bowl winners will boast a top 5 offense, with a lot of them having defenses ranked outside the top 10.

Oliver would be a good pick. Some compare him to Donald but he doesn't have the same strength as Donald and his size is a bit smaller. I still think that he could be an outright great interior pass rusher and at pick 9 would be a risk worth taking as I think the interior pass rush is a more intimidate need than the edge.

Edge rusher is both a long term need and a short term need. The team desperately needs more from their pass rush and it is an aging unit outside of Lawson. I would rather an interior player but if a top tier D-line player is available then go with them.

The market for a QB trade down isn't great but a lower top 10 pick (as the Bills have) could be an interesting spot where some mid-level teams try to trade up. I don't think a trade down will resort in a huge haul but a 2nd rounder and a late rounder to trade down 6-9 spots would be a very nice return.

I would love to see the Bills be super aggressive in free agency. I think 2 high end OL starters and a front line WR would be an excellent way to build some talent leading into the draft. I would also like to see a pass rusher added to the mix on defense. But I think more realistically they go with one big OL move, one mid-level WR move, and some mid-level depth moves. I just don't see McBeane wanting to go that aggressive in free agency.

The Rams were a historically bad offense Goff's rookie year and the years proceeding. In the 2017 off-season they spent big adding Witworth and Sullivan on the offensive line and added Woods and Sammy to their receiving core. In the draft despite not having a 1st round pick they added Gerald Everett and Cooper Kupp to the receiving core. The Rams went from one of the leagues worst to leagues best offenses with little more than Goff, Gurley, and Saffold in place. The essentially remade their WR core and heavily upgraded their O-line in a single swoop. That being said big flashy moves are not always the stuff of legends. The Rams contracts to Woods and Sullivan were rather modest, Witworth was their only truly huge signing. Although they did dip into future draft selections to trade for Sammy.

I have no issue in the regular season an offense not seeing the field if a defense yields a TD, its the regular season, get these teams off the field on reasonable terms. I am coming more around to the idea of a post season last licks system but I do not think the current system is as big a travesty as it was when teams would stop trying to score after getting into the redzone in order to preserve a field goal opportunity.

That's a fair point however there will almost always be the possibility that one team will have the ball more unless you always give the other team the chance to respond even after 3 or more possessions. If lets say you win the coin toss score a TD, then the other team gets a possession scores a TD, and the team that won the toss scores again does the game end? If so one team got an additional possession. I think you could make an argument in the post season maybe there should be last licks. But in the regular season in the interest of avoiding ties and additional injuries I think the current system is fine.

The current rules are fine, a TD is a significant score to give up. It was a travesty under the old rules where a field goal on the first possession would end the game. A field goal is a partial victory for the defense and thus giving up one on the opening possession is not sufficient enough to make a game end without the other team having the ball. The current rules are fine, don't give up a TD ever, if you give up a field goal that's a partial defensive victory, that should not on the first possession end the game. Also OP the Saints possessed the ball in OT and they turned it over.

Bruce Smith is the obvious choice, he is a trans-formative player and the best player in franchise history. That being said the more interesting question is which offensive player in Bills history would you want to pair with Allen? To me that would be Jason Peters. Peters would dramatically improve the offensive line and be a decade plus anchor there. I would also love to see Moulds, Lee Evan, Thurman, and Ruben Brown too. Lee never made a pro-bowl but with that speed dam what things he could do with a cannon armed QB like Josh.

I thought his deal would be in the 4-5 million dollar range similar to the deal Kyle got last year. So to get him for 3 million is a really great deal.

I hope the NFLPA makes resources available to these linemen to help them with their weight and health. The NFL Players are rare talents that have a lot of leverage with their employer. The union that represents them needs to look out for the health of retired players. To the fans you are a piece of meat and to the league you are a line item. Its up to the union to look out for retired players.

NFL teams are college All-Star teams with players who are grown men most of whom have spent the past 2-10 years playing football as a profession. Even Alabama last year only had 11 players drafted. 4 players drafted in the first round, 0 players drafted in the second round, 1 player drafted in the third round, 2 players drafted in round 4, 1 player drafted in round 5 (A punter), 2 players drafted in round 6, and 2 players drafted in round 7. That means that they only had 5 players drafted in the first three rounds and 7 drafted in the first four rounds. Odds are that out of the 11 players drafted at least 5-6 will struggle in their rookie years and there isn't going to be more than 1-2 players that go un-drafted that are contributors right away at an NFL level. Even if you think there are 3-4 really good NFL ready underclassmen that still only leaves you with 7-9 NFL caliber out the gate players on the entire roster with maybe some fringe backups sprinkled in on one of the best college programs. That's not too shabby but you need 22 starters, rotational/role players, special teams players, and backup players all of which even the worst NFL team provides all across their roster with elite college players. This idea that any college team would be able to compete with the worst NFL team is always laughable when you breakdown the numbers of how many NFL draft picks each program produces and how many of those draft picks actually have good rookie seasons.

RIP, 62 is way too young to go.

If multiple teams are interested in a QB that hovers around 9 then things get interesting and the return for a QB could be significant. I would love to get a 3rd and a 1st next year or a 2nd in 2019 and a solid pick in 2020.

The draft is all about value. This draft is loaded with defensive talent, teams are always looking for more pass rushers and there just isn't a Quinton Nelson or a lot of other dynamic offensive players at the top of this draft. I hope a trade down happens but it take two to tango and one might not be available. I think the team will make major acquisitions in free agency on offense so I don't hate taking the top defender on the board if that's by far the best type of player available.

If you think it takes hours for willing people to go over a wall then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. People trafficking drugs will use tunnels and ports of entry and other methods that will not be impeded by a wall. People looking to cross the border will hire people to get them around the wall or over the wall in a matter of minutes. Its not about not trying but rather if you method is massively ineffective and expensive maybe you should look to other methods that get you more bang for your buck as opposed to something that can be a huge waste of time and money that would be better spent elsewhere. I also see you guys keep saying that CBP is in favor of a coast to coast wall spanning all of the border and that's outright not true. The CBP union has come out in favor of it but that's only after years and years of being against it as a waste of money. I don't know why they would come out in favor of it after years of being against it. If there is evidence as to why they did it and that it is supported by something evidence based I would reconsider my opinion. The actual agency has not come out in favor of an all encompassing border wall. They have come out in favor of a border wall system but have not endorsed a full out coast to coast wall. I am not against limited fencing in more remote areas. But an all out border all that encompasses is not only ineffective but tirelessly expensive and comes with other costs. https://qz.com/1525881/customs-and-border-protections-radical-new-approach-to-a-wall-the-boring-truth/

This is the most hilarious straw man arguments I have ever heard. I claim that there is a better more cost effective way to handle securing the border and you basically equate that to supporting slavery and child molestation because I state that your solution is expensive, ineffective, and is still reliant on other forms of manpower that is subject to change. That's some Stephen Colbert level hilarity. Dam I knew this place was a Trump echo chamber but this one really made me laugh. "Hey I agree there is a problem at the border but I don't think a wall solves it and its not cost effective for the level of security it provides." "So you support sex trafficking?" The other costs such as imminent domain are things the government can do but do we really want to exercise federal powers to take people's land for a border security measure that is massively expensive and isn't going to be effective enough without manpower behind it? Not to mention the other costs that would come with such a large construction project.