billsfan89

If McNabb was still in Philly that year he probably would have had a much better season for various factors (supporting cast, knowing Reid's system etc.) That was my general point. From what you wrote you were stating that the Skins being a top 10 passing offense that year was proof that McNabb would have been good without Reid. Which given a further analysis of that season just doesn't hold water. My point was that even if you want to write off all of Reid's accomplishments with QB's as just him "Having good QB's" then you have to at the very least by that logic give him props for evaluating the QB position tremendously and having a system that utilizing good QB's. A lot of teams struggle to find good QB's and Reid always seemed to be able to find good ones. I think that's why people point to Reid as a positive when talking about Mahomes. Reid provides a proven offensive system and is a coach who seems to know good QB talent

LaFell was productive in 2016 and his drop in production in 2017 was more so due to the Bengals overall drop in offensive production than an injury or him suddenly declining. I think it would be a worthwhile pickup for sure.

"A top 10 passing offense." Is a very misleading way to describe McNabb's season as though it was in any way a reflection of McNabb having a good season. McNabb was terrible that year, the Skins passing offensive rank was more so a result of them being down late in games and having to pass a lot. Once in a while, a bad team can pile up stats in a particular category and not have it be a reflection of talent but a reflection of circumstance. The Redskins were 6-10 with the 18th best offensive yards per game and 25th in points scored. They clearly were piling up garbage time yards (Which would explain the much lower rank in points scored than yards.) They clearly were playing from behind and throwing more which inflated their passing total. The Skins that year had the 4th most passing attempts and the 31st amount of rushing attempts. So yes if you throw the ball the 4th most time in the league and play down late in games where there is plenty of opportunity for garbage time soft defense running out the clock you might be able to have the 9th ranked passing offense. At best McNabb had a highly below average season with the Skins having a handful of good games but mostly inflating stats with a high amount of attempts and garbage time stats. You can B word about Reid all you want but you have to stretch pretty hard to hate on his QB record. Reid isn't a perfect QB coach (Who honestly is) but he has a pretty good track record when it comes to getting the best out of a QB and scouting QB talent. If Mahomes fails it will not be because of the coach.

First game he played in nearly three years, I think for all the excitement he clearly was not set up to have success right away, dude seems like he knows its a process and he is early into it.

The Bills do not need a new stadium, there is nothing wrong with The Ralph functionally, But the NFL wants to generate more revenue and they will pressure the Bills to build a new stadium or do a heavy renovation so that they can build more luxury boxes and things that generate more revenue.

Are you seriously trying to say that McNabb was a top 10 QB in Washington? In 2009 his only year in Washington McNabb threw for 3,300 yards and 14 TD's to 15 INT's if he was so good in Washington why did they trade him for mid-round picks the year after. McNabb fell off a complete cliff once he left Reid. Alex Smith never had as good a year in his career as he did last year in KC. You are doing some real mental gymnastics to **** on Reid writing off anything positive he ever did as the result of others and then blaming him for everything negative that ever happened in his career.

Brees threw 27 passes his rookie year, they sat him behind Flutie, the Chargers also sat Rivers for his first year. I don't think anyone is dogmatic about a rookie playing in his rookie year. If the Bills are sitting at 2-10 with AJ then they probably should start Allen those last 4 games (And probably sooner than that.) The point is that each QB has a plan of development that suits them and a guy like Allen probably would be negatively impacted development wise starting the season. A lot of people point out that Allen based off his game tape has 2 major flaws in his game that impact his accuracy. 1- Footwork 2- Reading a defense. Now you could argue that reading a defense will be improved by playing but if Allen is playing behind a suspect O-line then that's the last thing you want for a player needing to work on footwork. Consistent pressure means you won't have time to develop your footwork habits and lots of pressure will more than likely lead to you developing bad habits. There is also the issue of confidence. If you toss Allen in with 4-6 games remaining in a lost season then his confidence is impacted less not feeling the pressure of the season. But if he starts at 0-0 then the whole fortunes of the season and the locker room are on him. I wonder just how much more successful QB's who sat at least one year were. Carson Palmer said he learned a lot sitting behind Kitna that first year. Rivers said similar things about Brees. I wonder if there is a higher level of success attributed to a player sitting his first year or at least a good portion of a rookie season?

3 years is a lifetime in the NFL. Year to year is hard to predict let alone trying to predict 2-3 seasons from now. The only long-term advantage a team has is a QB on a rookie contract and a QB in general (Even on a massive deal a very good to great QB is a tremendous advantage just the returns diminish when the contract occupies a lot of cap resources.) Other than assessing the health of a teams long term QB situation you can't prognosticate the NFL in any long-term manner. Sorry but, tons of coaches draft players who were great in college and really high picks and they manage to do nothing with them. Under Reid the Eagles always made QB's look better than they were (Hell the Eagles still continue to do that) and in KC Reid coached Smith to a level in 2017 way beyond the game manager he was in San Francisco. Reid has one of the best track records when it comes to coaching QB's, you can't dismiss a guy who made Kevin Klob look great because "Every QB he ever coached was talented." That's such asinine logic. There really isn't any coach that takes low round picks at QB and makes them way better. What coach would you describe as being a true QB guru? Compare that coach to Reid and I think you can write off any coaches accomplishments by just saying that they just happened to luck into good players.

Too early to tell in camp, I think by the time the first pre-season game is up you can really start to get a read for how guys are performing. I feel like with early training camp reports you often are subjected to the reporter's opinions too often. Dareus at least played at an elite level in his rookie contract, even when Dareus got complacent he was still a way above average NFL player at his position (The run defenses collapse after he got traded and The Jags improvement in that department proves he had decent value just not worth the massive contract and a locker room cancer apparently.) Washington just hasn't been able to put it together as an interior pass rusher, dude was never projected to be a great run defender but was drafted on his potential as an interior pass rusher. Hopefully he rounds into form as camp goes on but I suspect a poor camp performance and a strong performance from a player behind him will likely get him cut or traded if some other team wants him for a 7th.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820e6311/article/nfl-clubs-approve-comprehensive-agreement "Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 percent of local club revenue." Roughly all things equaling out the players get between 47% and 48.5% of total revenue. So once again if the owners charged less the players would get paid less. It's not as though the owners have to charge so much because they have to meet the player's salary demands. The owners are all billionaire businessmen, they are going to charge as much as the market will allow and the players take their cut.

But once again it's not as though if the QB made 10 million instead of 20 million that the owners would pass the savings along to the fans. The owners are always going to charge as much money as they can. If they made tickets cost $50 that's great but then scalpers would just charge as much as possible. So I don't see the players salaries being the issue. The players get 50% of what the owners makes, if the owners made less they would get paid less. It's the owners driving up the prices not the players salries.

If Allen starts he has a shot at OROY, but let's be honest he not only would have to start but he would have to at the very least put up a "good" rookie year. I think Saquan Barkley if he stays healthy could have a top 10 year at RB production wise. It's hard for a QB to beat that unless he has a really good season which is hard to do both as a rookie and with the current level of offensive talent.

Owners are greedy and there will for sure be a saturation point, I just think it is dishonest when looking at the facts to think that the players salaries are keeping the ticket prices high. The owners are charging those outrageous prices because people pay. They would pay the players less if they could and charge more if they could. The owners are not passing savings onto the fans. But as long as there is a lot of money being made and produced by the NFL the players deserve their share of that revenue. They aren't overpaid because they are simply getting their share of the value they produce. I think it is just silly to put out the blanket statement of "They are overpaid" without thinking through the consequences of what that statement means. The owners are going to be greedy regardless of what the players get paid. Do you honestly think if the players got paid less then the owners would pass those savings onto the fans? No the owners would just make more money. I would rather the money that is being paid by the NFL fans go to the players that are hurting their bodies and working themselves into peak physical condition than into the owner's pockets. So you can't really act like the money being paid to pro-athletes is being taken out of the hands of the fans or other people like teachers and construction workers. The players are just getting the share of money that the owners make off of them.

is Fede, Odighizuwa, Russell and these other back up DE's really going to outplay Shaq, is Shaq really that bad? Also is Lorax lining up at DE or is he in the LB corps? If Lorax is a LB then that means Shaq has to get beat out by 2 of those backup DE's to not make the roster.

So the poor owners are underpaid.

CEO's and super high-level executives and talents get years of guaranteed money, I don't know if it is 4 years worth or not I am not privy to their compensation contracts but high-end talent always gets guaranteed money. Because if you are integral to the running of an organization or producing the product a company will give you guaranteed money to be paid out to some degree, because if you are that good at your job some other competing company will give you that type of deal to acquire your talents. The "Golden Parachute" term comes from companies having to buyout CEO's and top executives of the remaining months or years on their contracts. I know for a fact that the commissioners of the NFL and other sports leagues are on deals that range above 4 years worth of guaranteed money so it must be common at some level. "Why should someone that plays a game to entertain people get 4 years of guaranteed money?" Because they are elite level entertainers responsible for a product that produces tens of billions of dollars a year. For one I did not say that they should get 4 years of guaranteed money unless it is a QB. I would cap contract length at 3 years for non-QB's and 4 for QB's but all deals are guaranteed unless you are making a minimum deal and don't make the 53 man roster. That would end holdouts as you wouldn't have players unsure of their future and both sides would be forced to honor the deal. The shorter length of deals would also limit the risk to teams. It also doesn't matter what you think someone should get paid. If they produce value they should be compensated accordingly. The NFL players are literally the product the owners sell if you think they are overpaid for their value to society or some nonsense I can't argue with you, but the notion that if you paid athletes less that money wouldn't just end up in the owner's pockets is silly. As though the reason we can't pay teachers more is that NFL players need their big payday. By saying NFL players are overpaid you are saying 1 of 2 things, the owners who are all billionaires should get more money or that the government should tax everyone's entertainment dollars and keep money away from the players and owners so that they can pay that out to teachers or whoever you think really deserves it. I am not mandating the government step in and force the NFL to handout guaranteed deals. But I think if the NFL players union were to get shorter length but fully guaranteed deals that it would actually be mutually beneficial to both sides since you wouldn't have holdouts and owners would have less year of money to pay out.

My point was that camp needs to play out more. 2 so-so practices does not a training camp make. You have to let it play out more. Players are in shape conditioning wise but there is still football rust to be worked out. Shaq is a player who is a little bit smaller than he was playing at in the past, probably needs a week or so to get used to playing at that weight. If its week 2-3 of pre-season and Shaq can't hack it then we have a real problem. Also Shaq doesn't have to beat out Murphy to stay on the roster. Shaq can make the roster as a backup/rotational player. The Eagles and Jags showed that you need a full unit of rotational guys to be effective pass rush wise. Shaq has to be the 4th best DE on the roster to make the team. Shaq is on a cheap contract so there is no reason they wouldn't keep him as a backup.

Anyone predicting 0 wins is an idiot. But honestly I myself think this will be a 6 win season. The defense will carry the team to win some games but the offense might be the worst in the league. That's not to say that I don't think the team isn't headed in the right direction. The defense is in place with lots of good pieces, the offense has a clear plan at QB and some other pieces. The culture change is in full effect and the team will be out of cap hell come the 2019 off-season. This Bills team reminds me a lot of the 2003 team (The same one that finished 6-10 I believe) there is a lot of potential for the defense to be a top unit but the offense will struggle a lot. There are also a lot of depth questions. The QB position will either be a game manager in AJ or a very raw rookie in Allen, either will put limitations on the offense, the O-line could be really bad and the skill position corps is lacking esp in terms of depth. It's not unfair for a pundit to put the offensive concerns and the pass rush concerns above the progress made last year to predict regression.

With the emphasis on the pass game the past 20 years there seems to be a premium placed on DT's to be a bigger force on the pass rush. Whereas in the past DT's were main there to clog up running lanes and push the pocket. There also seems to be a thought in the current NFL that big-time run stuffing DT's are "easier" to find than guys that can rush the passer up the middle. I don't necessarily agree with that logic but that's what people around the league think. DT is becoming more of a pass rush position in recent years and given that the interior pass rush is effective that won't be changing anytime soon. I personally think that in a 4-3 having a space eater like Star is effective. Run defense up the middle is important but also having a smart DT that knows how to slide around and take up double teams like Star does is also important for the pass rush and to keep players off of the line backer. A lot of what Star does won't show up on advanced metrics or in the stat sheet but it will show up in how improved the rush defense is up the middle and how well the LB's play.

GE guarantee's a lot of their top executives and talents pay. NFL players that make the 53 man roster are at the top 1% of what they do professionally. So unless you are an elite level talent at your profession where there is billions of dollars made directly off of your talent you can't really compare that to most people's jobs. The NFL shouldn't be different than any other company but any company would know not to low ball and degrade their product which also happens to be their labor force. Apple isn't going to lowball their best engineers because some middle management guy at GE doesn't get his pay guaranteed. You also can't compare curling to the NFL. What athletes get paid is heavily based off of what revenue is generated from the sport. TV contracts, tickets sales, licensing, sponsorships, merch etc. If curling produced multi-billion dollar TV deals then yeah curlers should unionize to get their pay. The NFL should be different based off of how much revenue they produce from their product which is also their labor force. As another poster pointed out there is nothing that prevents a fully guaranteed contract in the CBA but the question is do you avoid holdouts by simply having the only types of contracts be a guaranteed one? If you did that I think you would also only see teams giving out 1-3 year deals for non-QB players (With 3 year deals being very rare.) I wouldn't have a problem with it. Players get the safety of 2-3 years of pay while retaining massive flexibility (By the time they are 28/29 they have a shot at a 2nd big guaranteed deal.) I wouldn't have an issue with shorter fully guaranteed contracts.

This has to be one of the most idiotic arguments of all time and really one that is just people virtue signaling and trying to smell their own farts for how morally superior they are because they think athletes and entertainers are overpaid and how we should be paying teachers and firefighters more. The players are the product that is producing billions of dollars in revenue. They are the talent in an entertainment product that produces 10 billion dollars of revenue a year. The players should get every dime they could from the owners because the players are the ones putting their bodies on the line and absorbing most of the risk. Unless you want the government to ban people spending money on entertainment products you are going to have entertainers that make a lot of money. Football players are no different. It's not as though if the players get paid less that money will go to teachers and construction workers. If the players got paid less they money just goes back into the owners and the leagues pocket. So stop with this whole "They are over paid for playing a game" meme. It's not taking money away from teachers and the elderly to pay these players, they are taking their fair cut from the owners. I always side with players over the owners as long as the players are being even somewhat reasonable. Certainly, in football it is always easier to side with the players given the massive risk. I find it stunning to see how many fans side with the billionaires over the players.

I am in the same mindset. I thought Rosen was the better prospect but I am more than happy to eat crow if Allen proves me wrong.

It's not looking good, but there is still plenty of time for him to turn it around. Shaq looked like a legit NFL level player last year, so I certainly think he has a shot at turning things around. I think we get so knee jerk with day to day reports that we don't really allow for things to play out the way they should.

We have had 2 days of practice in pads, even if a guy isn't looking all that good there is plenty more camp and pre-season left to go. Shaq looked Ok in year 2 in real action against real pros. I think it is possible he plays better as camp progresses. Some players take some time to settle into camp. Then again it is possible Shaq just can't hack it. My overall point was that the sample size is just too small.

I think with Shaq it also depends who else is behind him and how well are they performing? If Shaq isn't fetching anything significant out on the trade market then why not keep him if no one else behind him is lighting it up. However, if you really like a player behind him why not just get what you can or cut Shaq? Still way too early to tell on him.