billsfan89

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.

I wouldn't hit the panic button on Luck just yet. He has looked so so in camp and pretty ass in pre-season. But it's only half way through pre-season and he is coming off of a major injury. But If we are in week 7 and Luck still looks horrible it is cause for serious concern.

Football analytics has its place, but football analytics will never be as well respected as baseball and to a lesser extent basketball. But there is a place for PFF style analytics it just has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Fortunately it looks like a more minor injury than previously thought. I hope they just sit him out the rest of pre-season and maybe even week 1, they have Phillips to take over his role.

Everyone here always overreacts to everything. So the calls of bust and savior will be thrown around frequently.

I disagree, although I understand your point that training camp and pre-season is no longer needed in terms of getting players into shape but with the huge amount of coaching and roster turnover teams need some time to build chemistry and incorporate new schemes. Coaches also need to formulate their depth charts and practice squads. College may not have pre-season but they do training camp and scrimmages between teams. Players get hurt in training camp and in scrimmages. So if you got rid of NFL pre-season and did more inter-squad scrimmages you would still see injuries happen there. So is it better than injuries happen under scrimmages as opposed to pre-season?

I wouldn't let pre-season get you too excited in either direction. Tyrod has looked pretty good in pre-season and in training camp. The Browns aren't going to hamper Mayfield's development by playing him too early esp when they have a competent option in Tyrod.

If you shorten pre-season to 2 weeks that doesn't solve the issue. The starters don't play much in game 1 and they don't play at all in game 4. So trimming it to 2 weeks doesn't lessen the playing time of the starters by much. I don't see an issue with the current pre-season format. Game 1 the starters get a few practice swings while the rest of the depth chart is set for games 2 and 3. Games 2 and 3 are the tune ups for the season. Game 4 is a last shot for the reserves and bubble players to make the roster. For the starters it basically is a 2 week pre-season. I find it funny that fans will call for an end to pre-season because of injuries but then when injuries happen during training camp they don't call for an end to training camp. I don't think there is a solution. Teams do need live game simulation to get ready for the season. If you just allowed teams to do more intersquad scrimmages you would just see more injuries happen during those scrimmages.

Ironically I see Rosen being a Sam Bradford/Drew Bledsoe type classic pocket passer. Rosen can make all the throws and moves decently within the pocket. It is just that his mobility won't be a big factor in game plans which could hurt his ceiling.

The talent he is playing with should be better but the talent he is playing against is also much better too. The injury to AJ really hurt because now the team might be in a position to force Allen in or start Peterman who I think isn't very good (He looked great in the pre-season last year too and we know how that turned out.) I lean towards starting Allen but I would also hope that the front office tries to bring in a veteran guard if one were to hit the waiver wire as a cap causality.

He certainly has improved his bad habits but Allen would not be stepping into an offense conducive to being successful esp successful as a rookie. It would be hard for almost any QB to walk into this offense behind this thin group overall and a core lacking along the O-line and WR corps and make an offense good. Asking a rookie to do that might shake his confidence and further entrench bad habits that lead to bad throws. But then again why waste starts on Nathan Peterman? At least McCarron plays a game managing style that works with the process. It might be the right move to start Josh Allen, but I worry it ends up damaging him longer term.

Miller was a 3rd round pick as well, a fairly high pick too. They had a good veteran acquisition in InCog along with 3 players drafted in the first 3 rounds (Wood, Glen, and Miller) and their weakest player Mills at least was fairly good in the ground game. It is clear that the O-line now needs to be restocked. Dawkins a 2nd rounder in recent years is a good chip to have at LT and I do think Groy and Miller could be capable players but LG and RT are clearly areas of need. A lot of Allen's bad habits (which caused him to miss a lot of "easy" throws thus lowering his accuracy) were developed as a result of him playing behind a poor offensive line. I feel like it might be best to take that into consideration when pushing him out as a starter behind a bad O-line. Do we really want Allen's NFL career to start under the same conditions that led to the flaws in his game?

Generally speaking the O-line has been pretty poorly neglected but in 2015 and 2016 the O-line was one of the best units in the league. Glenn was a high draft pick and a pro-bowl caliber player at LT, InCog was a pro-bowler at LG, Wood was a pretty solid center and Groy a good backup for when he got hurt, Miller at RG was a 3rd round pick who played well in 2015 and 2016, and Mills at RT is a poor pass protector but above average as a run blocker. I actually think had InCog been healthy and given us one more season this O-line wouldn't be nearly as tragic as it is looking. That being said they poured the resources into the D-line instead of the O-line. They had limited resources cap wise and they made their choice. I hope next off-season they make a big play to solidify at least one of the guard spots or RT via free agency and spend a high draft choice along the O-line.

The Bills played a game in the Wild Card round of the playoffs, that counts wither or not they "backed in" is completely irrelevant. If you personally don't want to count it then whatever but that is irrelevant to wither or not it actually counts in the records of the NFL. I also would counter your Mets point by saying that RA Dickey should have had a no-hitter because the one hit he allowed in 9 innings should have been ruled an error.