billsfan89

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.

My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol.

As many have stated a walls effectiveness is only as good as the maintenance and manpower behind it. So why put up a 20 billion dollar structure whose impact is limited to how well you patrol it? So this idea that you put the wall up and that solves the issue for all time is just not true. If your manpower behind the wall and the funding to maintain the wall gets lower than it becomes very ineffective and just stands as more of a symbol and a minor inconvenience over come by ropes, carpets, and ladders. Not to mention the other secondary costs of a wall such as having to take land from citizens of the US, the logistical and legal implications of such a large use of imminent domain, the environmental costs, and the loss of access to the Rio Grande river. You could literally take the 20 billion in funding a full scale border wall would create and pay for 10 years worth of 10,000 additional border patrol agents, new technology, and even limited fencing. But instead you want a wall that will still require all those things and come at a much steeper cost?

Donald Trump asked that same question only to two seconds later claim that the technology behind ropes would foil a 30 foot drop. You could also toss a ladder on the other side and have someone climb down with a rope then place the ladder on the other side to make things easier for people who might not be able to use a rope. I don't doubt a wall would provide some impediment but is it honestly cost effective compared to other ways of border security? To build a wall that covers all of the border is going to cost more than 5.7 billion dollars. I am not opposed to limited fencing for more remote areas but a massive border wall would cost 20 plus billion dollars and still need billions of dollars of man power and technology behind it. I would rather put that 20 billion into hiring 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. implementing technology to secure the border, and do limited fencing in higher risk areas if that's something border experts would think is necessary. A wall across all of the border seems like a symbolic gesture devoid of any real impact.

I think his completion percentage can't just be explained away by outside factors. Although they could be a factor it is what is over the course of multiple College and his first NFL season. Allen does have issues missing some throws and he does need to improve his decision making to take easier throws when available. Allen's cannon arm is a blessing but it means that he thinks he can make almost any throw. That leads to bad decisions or more risky less high percentage decisions. I think his footwork issues certainly prevent him from making some of the easier high percentage throws that he sometimes misses. That being said, can him improve on his deficiencies that lead to his accuracy/completion percentage issues? That's a big maybe. Yes he certainly can improve his decision making, Allen is a bright hard working kid. With good coaching and more experience he can certainly improve on that aspect of his game and making more sound decisions will improve his completion percentage, lower his turnovers, and improve his overall quality of play. Now can he improve his footwork enough to keep him from missing some easy throws? Well that's a much harder thing to do. From my understanding footwork is something that can be improved but its much more difficult to dramatically improve your footwork as a QB. Again Allen is a smart hardworking kid, he certainly is going to put in the work to improve and has the intellect to improve but to what degree can he do it? We all know Allen has the arm strength, the release, the size, hand size, speed, and intangibles of a high caliber NFL QB, but can he make the improvements needed in those two critical areas of the game?

I wouldn't mind bringing him in on a one year deal. I think he could be a mauler at RT. But I would still draft a RT in the mid rounds behind him for depth and to take over in 2020. Glenn did miss 3 games last year but it was his most healthy season in awhile. Overall I would rather not take on an injury prone player but the tackle market is thin and if Glenn can be had on an affordable one year deal then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

It would cost more than a 4th round pick to move up 3 spots in the first round. I suspect it would take a 3rd rounder swapped for a 7th at the very least.

Allen and Darnold still have a long ways to go in terms of what their final product is. Darnold to me (Thus far as a rookie) looks like a less dynamic mobility Jamis Winston, lots of big throws but lots of sloppy play and mistakes. He can throw for 400 yards and 3 TD or throw for 4 INT's in any given game. Allen on the other hand looks more like Cam Newton but less dynamic in the passing game. Both players have a long way to go, I honestly wouldn't mind having either player to try and build a team around the next 2 years. Both could be top 5 QB's in the league both could be busts. I honestly do have a slight favor towards Allen because I think Allen has the tools to be much more dynamic.