billsfan89

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.

Just under QB is a mistake on my part but pass rushers are one of if not the top Non-QB position in the league. Pass rushers are probably the most important players on defense. Sacks are drive killers and pressures and hits are the most effective defense against a QB. Mack is a top 3 pass rusher in the league if not the best pass rusher in the league. Even factoring in his age (27 this season) and the fact that he wants a big contract I still think there is at least one team out there willing to give up a 1st plus a mid-round pick for him. The rumor and innuendo state that there are at least 4-5 teams that have significant interest in Mack. I think one of those teams is willing to give up at least a 1st. The Seahawks gave up a 1st plus other picks for Percy Harvin who they gave a big contract to, The Seahawks also gave up a 1st round pick and their starting center for Jimmy Graham who was on a big contract. Now these bold win-now type moves aren't limited to Seattle (Who did not benefit for either move.) As I said the Rams were willing to give 1st for Cooks and a pick swap that amounted to a 5th round pick. The Colts gave up a 1st for Trent Richardson. These trades happen for players. Every circumstance is different as some of these players like Richardson were still on rookie deals. But when the top or one of the top pass rushers in his prime is out on the market a 1st plus a big contract isn't the most unthinkable bounty. I hope you are right in that maybe the Bills can get it done for a 2nd and Shaq or Hughes but I just don't think the market will come down to that. The Packers are desperate for defensive help and have 2 first round picks (They have the Saints first rounder from a draft-day deal) I could see them sending the Saints pick plus a mid-rounder to the Raiders for Mack. The Packers are in win-now mode as Rodgers gets older and have extra draft capital to pull off the deal.

Mack is a pass rusher probably one of the few positions just under QB in terms of value in the NFL. The Rams just gave up the 23rd overall pick plus a late round pick for Brandin Cooks who they gave a fairly big contract to. Teams do make these kinds of trades for players they feel will put them over the top or if they can get a dominant player for the next 5 years at the cost of 1 premium draft pick. So I think that you will find at least 1-3 trade offers building a package around a 1st round pick. Like I said if I were the Bills I would give up a 2019 1st plus KC's 4th in 2019 and a 4th in 2020 plus Hughes if the Raiders wanted him (Although I would lower the 2020 4th to a 6th for Hughes to be in the deal.) I think that Mack would have a generational impact for the next 4 seasons and at the cost of a 1st round pick and 2 mid rounders I think it would be worth it. The Cap isn't that big of an issue as the Bills have plenty of 2019 and 2020 space to commit. The Bills don't have any major resignings coming up in 2019 or 2020 outside of maybe Shaq. But I see the trepidation as that's still a significant commitment to make to a pass rusher who might only have 2-3 great years left.

True but there seems to be interest in Mack from multiple teams. Although I do think that the fact that Mack wants a huge salary bump is going to drag his value down a bit. Mack should command a 1st in 2019 and a mid rounder in 2019 plus a pick in 2020. I would if I were running the Bills give out Hughes (If they were interested in him but lower the compensation a little) 2019 1st and a 2019 4th plus a 4th in 2020. I would be comfortable doing that type of deal but who knows exactly what Beane is comfortable with. The Raiders are going to want a 1st. Some team would be willing to at the very least give up a 1st plus a mid round pick in 2019 and 2020.

It would take more than that for sure. I think the Raiders wouldn't value Hughes as anything more than a throw in. The Raiders I imagine would probably come in asking for a 1st and 3rd in 2019 and a 2nd in 2020. If Mack wasn't demanding such a huge contract I might bite but that's a lot of money and draft capital to give up for one player. Even if you got the deal down to a 1st and 4th in 2019 plus a 2nd in 2020 that's still significant draft capital.

I thought McCarron fits processball very well. He is a game manager but an effective one in a sense that he can play the type of low risk football that the head coach builds his strategy around. Not that McCarron is anything more than a good backup but I thought that considering the offensive line issues and the uneven play of Allen early in camp it might have been best to toss McCarron to the wolves and see what he has while putting in Allen later in the year with lowered expectations and less pressure. But AJ's injury and Allen's strong performance have kind of pushed me in the direction of starting Allen. I do agree that Peterman sucks ass, he crushed it in the pre-season last year but when he got into the regular season he sucked ass.

This is Gruden's first year with them, so the bad picks from 2017 can't be attributed to him. That being said I don't think this expiriment ends well. I think he has a pair of sub par 5-7 win seasons, then one good season followed by 2 bad ones. I think it will go about as good as Joe Gibbs return with the Redskins in the mid 2000's. Although Gibbs had 2 playoff appearances in 4 years the Redskins were never able to reach their lofty expectations with Gibbs despite the talent they gave him.

Footwork and mechanics are the two biggest things that can lead to inaccuracy from a physical perspective (Decision making is the other major factor.) Both are hard to fix but footwork is the "easier" fix compared to throwing mechanics. What made Allen an intriguing top 10 prospect was that he had literally everything you would want from a QB from a physical perspective. Allen has the cannon arm, Big hand, Big frame, good mobility for his size, has all the intangibles (Smart, good leader, good work ethic, and coachable) and Allen has a great compact throwing motion. Allen's biggest issues leading to inaccuracy was his footwork and decision making (Although there were other factors such as supporting talent and the nature of the offense he played in.) Allen seems to have improved his footwork (Although we will see if he is consistently pressured if he doesn't fall into that patter again) and improved decision making should come with more experience.

There is cause for concern. The secondary is legit although if Davis gets hurt or gets old (Even though he isn't that old he has played for a long time and he has a significant injury history) the corner back position could look dicey. The front 7 could go either way. Edumonds is raw but one hell of an athlete, Milano showed flashes last year the team only needs him to be decent and Lorax is a strong side vet who should be able to provide decent play. But the LB core rests on Edumonds young shoulders. The D-line looks stout over the middle. Star should be a capable run defender, Henry is looking like a young stud and Kyle Williams should be a rotational player. The pass rush has Hughes who is a player who you should be able to expect a better season from, Shaq is a young player with upside having a good pre-season, Murphy a nice veteran addition (although he is hurt which is concerning) and there are also other younger players on the edge. Overall I think the defensive optimism stems from confidence in the coaching staff and front office more so than anything else. The talent is there but depth is lacking and there are some questions esp in the front 7, but people seem to think that the coaching will be able to develop these players and find the best fits talent wise.

I will be fair to the Browns, Hard Knocks is going to pick the most salacious and buzz worthy soundbites of the many hours they are filming these guys. If you got recorded for 6-8 hours a day doing a high stress job you are going to provide the crew with some soundbites. I do think the Browns coaching staff is a bunch of clowns but the show is designed to play them up more than they are.

Is it really an excuse or just a time table of expectations based off of his injury history? I think that taking those factors into consideration you can lessen the need for panic until you get deeper into the season. It's not like Andrew Luck tore his ACL or some other injury in week 1 of 2017 where he at least got a full off-season's worth of training in and then came back during OTA's. Luck's injury was serious enough where he didn't do any football activities until this years training camp. It's possible he won't ever be the same QB he once was. But he is likely to take some time to come back to form if he is on the comeback trail. I don't know what 1984 type treatment you are talking about but if you are saying he gets over hyped then you have an argument but my points were more so just taking into account the type of injury he had and the possible time table for him to give you enough of a sample size to know how well he is coming back.

I don't know why you have this hard on against Andrew Luck. You can say Luck was/is overrated and that he probably hasn't lived up to his draft status. I think that is an arguable point although his 2014 and 2016 seasons were legit great and he has been at least above average in the 3 other seasons he played. Luck's resume is pretty solid even if you feel others have overrated him (although you could place the blame more so on the Colts inability to surround him with talent.) My point was that Luck is coming off an injury serious enough to have him miss an entire season. Luck hasn't played in just under 2 years. Luck didn't even get any off-season training in during the 2017 off-season. So for a player coming off that serious of an injury playing in a new system to look rusty is understandable given the circumstances. If Luck gets deeper into the regular season and looks hurt then you really know something could be wrong. But a guy in his circumstances looking rusty in pre-season doesn't mean the guy is going to be a complete failure.

It's pre-season they have to play against both QB's anyway.