billsfan89

Murphy was a lowish risk high reward type signing. The contract is fairly easy to get out of with a 3.5 million dollar hit next season if they were to cut him. But Star could be a dumpster fire if he is a bust. Star can't be cut next season and the cap savings in 2020 are very minimal. I was actually big for signing Star but I thought the contract was awful way too much money committed to him. If Star's deal was easy to get out of after 2019 I wouldn't have minded. The team needed a big anchor up the middle and Star fit the bill but the salary commitment they made too him was too rich for my taste. Hopefully he shows up better in the regular season.

All the issues we thought this team was going to have were on display today. Bad O-line, subpar pass rush and subpar receivers are 3 issues that on paper you knew were going to negatively impact the team. There were other issues too but sadly I can't see how you put Allen behind this O-line.

The Bills were pretty capped out so they addressed the defensive line with the Star and Murphy signings. The Bills had a boat load of draft picks but mortgaged a lot of them to trade up for Allen and Edumonds. Eating a lot of dead cap to get rid of bad contracts and mortgaging a lot of draft picks to trade up was going to result in some areas of the roster being compromised, the O-line and WR positions being the most compromised parts of the roster.

The run defense was bad against the Browns but the overall bend don't break defense from last year seemed to be in place. I think that the passing defense being bad this week was way worse.

The defense could have just had a bad day. I think the defense will be better than it was in the first half. But pass rush remains the biggest concern on the team.

This game confirmed a lot of the issues we thought this team was going to have. O-Line, reviving core, growing pains at QB, and depth will remain an issue throughout the season. But the fundamentals of this team are not worse than we thought. Throw McCarron or Peterman behind this line early and then push Allen in once the harder stretch of the season passes.

Any new rule always gets over analyzed in pre-season. The pre-season ends up being the first time refs have to enforce new rules so there is actually an intrigue to how the refs call it in pre-season because that is an indicator of how it will be done in the regular season. But overall it is played out because that's one of the few relevant things they actually have to talk about.

Haha, dude seriously this is one pre-season game. This board is !@#$ing bi-polar. One week the team plays well this is a potential dynasty the next week the results aren't as good and everything and everyone sucks. The one big thing this game showed was that the O-line is pretty terrible and Allen is indeed a rookie.

He looked good for a rookie QB in pre-season and showed some flashes in the regular season. There was hope in EJ since he was a modestly high draft choice who was playing well "for a rookie" but he of course never took off. Even the national media was throwing some positive accolades towards EJ.

If the Raiders can't get a first round pick by the trade deadline they will franchise Mack and trade him in the off-season when the draft order is set. The Raiders can at least get a late 1st and a mid round pick for Mack once teams know where they are drafting. This isn't a situation where the Raiders are just going to unload him for whatever they can get. They have the option to franchise Mack and work out a trade in the off-season. In fact it probably would be easier to trade him for a 1st in the off-season when teams know where their picks are slotted. I think a team that needs defensive help would be willing to trade pick 25 and their 4th round pick for Mack.

It's going to be mostly a package built around draft picks. Any players involved in any deal will likely be a throw in cheap player that Gruden likes. I think that the Jets won't make that type of deal. They are still a year or two away from being in a true "Win now" position where trading for a big time player like Mack would be a sensible move. I suspect the Packers are where Mack ends up The Pack have 2 first round picks and need a lot of help on defense, they are also in big time "win now" mode with Rodgers getting older and a suspect defense that could use a big time pass rusher. The only issue for the Packers would be their cap in 2019 isn't very good. With Rodgers getting a new deal and adding Mack they probably would have to make a few cuts and not be very active in free agency. But with the Saints 1st to center a package around they would still have a good amount of draft capital to basically have a full draft class to work with while adding Mack to the defense.

I don't think the Bills would consider signing Bowman. I think they would rather develop younger players at LB. That being said I would consider signing Bowman if it were up to me. I think Edumonds might have serious growing pains at MLB in his rookie year. It is to be expected and it might benefit the team to have a vet MLB for early running downs and have Edumonds cut his teeth as a passing down player.

It depends on how bad. If Allen looks like a rookie (a bad decision that leads to a turn over and some bad missed throws) but still shows flashes of improved footwork I will still have confidence in him. But if Allen looks horrendous then I think you have to reconsider starting him. I think that even if he is bad he won't look bad enough to consider benching him for Peterman who sucks.

I feel like scouts saw a player that had literally everything you would want out of a QB prospect physically and mentally. While the analytics and game tape showed a QB that missed some easy throws and had more bad throws than most top of the line QB prospects have coming out of college. I think in the end scouts saw the why of Josh Allen's inaccuracy issues and thought he could iron out the 2 issues that were causing him to be inaccurate (footwork and decision making) while analytics just saw a pattern of inaccurate college QB's not translating well into the NFL. Josh Allen won't disprove analytics if Allen blossoms into a top NFL QB. Allen will prove the limitations of analytics (you have to understand what is correctable by coaching) but analytics will still be a useful tool for NFL scouting departments. I think the scouts saw a QB prospect who had literally everything psychically you would want from a QB prospect. Cannon arm, great throwing motion, prototypical size, big hands, good intangibles, good work ethic, and smart. The biggest issues with Allen were his footwork and his decision making, both were the major source of his inaccuracy. Although footwork isn't easily correctable it is correctable and decision making can be improved with good coaching and experience.

It could also be boredom. Gruden has been in the booth for a decade. He knows what that is and got comfortable doing it. I think at his age (Gruden is 55) he has to know that it is pretty much now or never to get back into coaching. He is still young enough by the standards of coaches and I think the insane offer of money and control from the Raiders was just too good to pass up. All these coaches are egotistical control freaks. Gruden just had too good of a position in the booth to leave for a less than immaculate offer but one team finally gave him what he wanted for some reason. There is supposedly a lot of interest in Mack from various teams, we just don't know if the Raiders asking price is too high or if the offers are coming in low. Some team will give up a least a first round pick for him in my estimation. I think this is a case of the Raiders holding out for more than what his value to another team is. I think the Packers would package the Saints first rounder with a couple of their mid round picks but I suspect the Raiders want at the very least a first, a second in 2020 and a mid round pick in 2019 plus a player. Mack is an elite player and even factoring in his contract demands which make him less valuable (You have to essentially give up draft capital and cap space for him) I still think a 1st rounder will be included in the trade package to get him. It won't be 2 first rounders or anything insane but give past trades of this nature Mack is the kind of player that some win now team would be willing to take a risk on.

I think longer term they might end up making the right decision on Mack despite doing it for piss poor reasons. If they a respectable haul of picks for Mack (which I suspect they might, let just say a 1st and two 3rd round picks spread out across 2 drafts) they will set themselves up nicely to address their needs in 2019 having a good amount of cap space (so much more if Mack isn't on the books) and draft picks along with a good young QB in place. But they could also lose one of the best pass rushers in the game who might have 4-5 great seasons left in him for a late 1st round pick and some upper mid round selections that might not pan out. Pass rushers like Mack aren't easy to find, I think the Raiders will quickly see that.

I think one first will be the central component for a trade but I speculate that 2 additional mid round picks will likely be what is traded for Mack, Something in the range of 2019 1st and a 2019 3rd (Swapped with the Raiders 5th) and a 2020 3rd (Once again Swapped with the Raiders 5th) along with maybe a throw in player that isn't of high value (think EJ Gaines during the Sammy trade.) That's not crazy since the amounts to a 1st and two 4th rounders plus a player of modest to no consequence. Overall it will be a decent return for the Raiders but not a crazy one.

Also Sammy was on the last year of his rookie contract plus 3 years younger (although with a much bigger injury history) not holding out for a new deal. So even though Sammy wasn't nearly half the player Mack is Sammy came with a lot more favorable terms. That definitely added value to Sammy in terms of a trade. Mack's value as a player is much higher than Sammy's but Mack asking for a contract brings down his value a bit. The Raiders will get a 1st plus a mid round pick or two and possibly a player for Mack. But they aren't getting 2 firsts or a 1st and a 2nd or anything super crazy. The central piece to a package with Mack will be a 1st plus some other value added picks and players.

The Raiders are right up against the cap in 2018. But their 2019 situation is pretty good. They have 45 million in space but they also have about 5-6 contracts they could cut to free up 35-45 million more in cap space while not taking much dead money (Jordy Nelson and Bruce Irvin alone would free up 16 million in space while not having any dead cap.) So in terms of 2019 that shouldn't be an issue. But I do not know if their lack of cap space in 2018 is presenting any problems. I honestly doubt it is the cap since if teams want to they can always find a way around the cap. I think it is more Gruden's old school mindset of wanting to set their standard of not tolerating holdouts. I think this will end with a trade to the Packers. They will give the Raiders the Saints 1st plus their own 4th in 2019 along with a conditional 4th that could be a 3rd. That's not a bad return as the Raiders set up a nice 2019 draft and have a ton of cap space. But they really should have realized how special Mack is and given him a contract.

I am in the camp that Groy should be starting, even if at guard Groy should be the starter. You can't tell me that Groy isn't one of the top 5 OL players on this team.

I think if the Raiders are holding out for something more than a 1st and a mid round pick or two and it doesn't come they would just let Mack holdout the rest of the season and franchise him in 2019 and trade him once teams know their draft positions. I am sure a contending team would definitely trade a pick from 20-32 plus some other picks for him on a franchise tag. So this notion that the Bills are going to come in and get him on the cheap for a 2nd or 3rd round pick "Because its better than nothing" is just wishful thinking. The Raiders can definitely pull a late 1st from him on a franchise tag. The issue from what I have read isn't that they can't afford him. Davis just handed Gruden 10 million a year. If they were pinching pennies they wouldn't have done that. The issue is more so that Gruden doesn't want to give into a player holding out and thinks that the Raiders defense would be bad with or without him. Also if they were pinching pennies they still could franchise him and trade him since they don't start to pay out most of the money on a franchise tag until training camp and the regular season (Although it is fully guaranteed.)

Couldn't the Raiders just franchise Mack? They have him under control (2 franchise tags plus his current year under contract) until 2020. They aren't going to be in a down to the wire trade him or lose him for nothing situation. Some team will at least offer a 1st plus a 4th for Mack. I can't see the Packers turning down Mack if the cost is the Saints first rounder and their 4th round pick.

Teams Value cheap rookie contracts much more than they did in 1988. Mack's value is also diminished by the fact that you would be paying him a large 20 million dollar or more per year contract with a hefty guarantee. Even in the context of the Bennett trade, you were trading 3 future picks for a rookie. Mack is 27 years old and about to get paid. The Bills didn't even trade up for Bennett they drafted Shane Conlan at pick 8 then traded those 3 future selections plus Greg Bell a running back of value to get the number 2 pick outright. The Bills got the number 2 overall pick for 2 future firsts, a second rounder and a decent running back. Whereas with Mack they would be trading for a player who is older and taking up a lot of cap space.1st round picks are even more valuable now because it can lock in a player for 5 years fairly affordably. Teams are certainly willing to part with 1 first round pick and cap space for a premium player that isn't a QB but 2 first round picks and a 2nd is insane esp given the cap considerations. Yes Mack is more proven than Bennett was but Bennett once again was younger and there wasn't the same cap considerations. It would just be insane to give up those picks for anything other than a QB or a player with multiple years left on a rookie deal.

The Raiders are not getting more than 1 first round pick for Mack. No team is giving up 2 firsts for any non-QB player that will require a hefty extension. The Raiders would be extremely fortunate to get a 2019 1st, a 2019 mid-round pick, plus a 2020 2nd or 3rd for Mack. As much as teams covet pass rushers they simply aren't going to give up the kind of draft capital (Two firsts and a second) for a non-QB. That's the type of package you give up for a QB on a rookie contract not the type of trade capital you give up for a pass rusher on his second contract. I think realisitcally the trade package looks more like this 2019 1st, 2019 4th (Swapped with a 7th from the Raiders), 2020 3rd or 4th (With the Raiders throwing back a 5th or 6th in a pick swap) and a throw-in player.

I think the Raiders also would rather pay Mack than trade him away for a 2nd and 4th round pick. I think Green Bay being in win now mode and having that extra 1st is what lines up for the Raiders to at least get one of those 1st round picks plus some other mid-round picks at the very least. Green Bay is desperate to keep Rodgers happy and they need a lot of help on defense. Mack wouldn't solve all their defensive issues but he would be a big help immediately and the Packers would still have a 1st round pick at their disposal in 2019. The Packers window to win with Rodgers is about as lengthy as the remainder of Mack's primer years (3-5 seasons) so the window to win also lines up well for them. I think the final trade package for Mack ends up being a 1st plus 2 mid-round picks one in 2019 and one in 2020 along with a throw-in player.