billsfan89

I think AJ starts week 1. Allen is a project who needs to not be put out behind a bad O-line and some suspect skill-position corps. Peterman stinks in my opinion and AJ is by far the most consistent but nothing spectacular. AJ will take on that game manager role and won't look spectacular but he will look the most like a pro-QB. I predict Allen will look spectacular at times but also have some bad plays, Peterman will just look bad and AJ will just look the most consistent. Out of those 3 expect the conservative head coach to pick AJ.

It also goes to show that your pick could be rated as an A by all the prognosticators and be a bust. I am not willing to write Shaq of just because 2-3 days into training camp he isn't dominating, in 10 games last season Shaq had 4 sacks that is roughly 6.5 if he played the entire 16 games, which for a player in his second year coming off of an injury isn't that bad. Toss in the fact that he graded out decently against the run and I think you can have some hope for him. I think this idea of Shaq being toast at the moment is premature, certainly a make or break camp/pre-season but nothing so far to me indicates he is a goner just yet too early to tell in my opinion.

I would consider a 4-4 first half of the season a "good" start, but in the NFL every year teams you think will be bad are good and teams you think will be good are bad. So I think that there certainly will be some easier games in the first half and harder games than expected in the second half. Overall though I think the season hinges on the first 2 weeks. Baltimore and San Diego will be close games that will come down to a turnover or a big play or two. If the Bills have any hope this season it will be to start out 2-0 and then squeak in 2 out of the next 6 games to hit the second half of the season 4-4 where the Bills could go 6-2 (Dolphins twice, Jets twice, Bears and Lions all winable games with the Jags and Pats the only tough games.) That being said I think the Bill likely start 2-6 and finish 4-4 and go 6-10. The defense will carry the team to some wins but I just don't have faith in the offense.

I really like Edumonds and Phillips, both could be foundational defensive pieces but I was not for Allen and that draft is going to hinge on how good Allen is. I would have taken Rosen if it were my decision. Obviously, I am not paid to do player evaluations so my opinion is just that of a fan. But after looking at Allen more closely I see why they thought so highly of Allen. Allen is straight out of central casting for a QB. A big 6 foot 5 guy with big hands, a quick release, great intangibles and one of the strongest arms you have ever seen. He also has some speed and mobility although no one will confuse him with a guy like Mike Vick. But Allen didn't light it up in college and you can see he has footwork issues and issues reading the defense. He also misses some easy throws once in awhile. The footwork issues and playing behind a bad O-line probably contributed more than anything else to bad accuracy. Both are correctable for sure. But what Allen is, is a confident coaches wet dream. Allen has all the physical and mental tools to play the game, Allen just needs to be coached up on some fundamentals (footwork) and decision making processes. But if Allen can't put that together he could be a top 5 QB in the league, it is just that history and outcomes in the past say that it is rare to turn around that type of player to that degree.

IF and this is a big IF, if the NFL decided to do only guaranteed contracts you would see only 1-2 year deals for non-QB players after their rookie deals expire. Which I am fine with but that would mean a tremendous amount of volatility year to year as teams will have a shot at signing almost every All-Pro player each off-season. I think you probably would have to fully adjust the CBA. For one you would have to massively increase the 5th year option on 1st round picks since under a 1-2 year scale of guaranteed contracts having a 5th year option would be a disadvantage to players drafted in the 1st round (Basically punishing a player for being drafted in the 1st round by giving them less flexibility.) Secondly, you would have to cap contract length to 3 years. Most elite free agents would only be on 2-3 year deals while the vast majority of the league would be on 1 years deals. Capping the length minimizes risk for teams and allows players to collect on 2-3 massive deals while having flexibility. I think you would also have to see picks drafted in the first 4 rounds receive fully guaranteed 4-year deals while rounds 5-7 have 2-year guaranteed deals with team options for two more years. Any UDFA that signs a one year deal and makes the roster has that year's salary guaranteed and the team has an option for a 2nd year. After that second year, a player hits restricted free agency. The risk of securing these massive deals goes down for owners as they are never tied to a player for more than 3 massively guaranteed seasons (Which I suspect would be rare most players would be on 1-2 year deals.) The players get short-term security and long-term flexibility. I also think that fans wouldn't be as hurt because the amount of "Dead Cap" wouldn't be that much worse. If a team now hands out a big 5 year deal with a lot of guaranteed money the team is still stuck with that player for 2-3 seasons anyway. So a big 3-year guarantee that gets hurt right away only really drains you of 2 additional years. I also think that you would have to change the franchise tag a bit. In order to provide some stability for teams, you could give teams 2 "Franchise Tags" each off-season. However, all a franchise tag does is give the player the current "Top 5" average salary offer sheet that they could sign and play out or the player could sign with another team and the team that tagged the player could match the offer. That would help player retention a little bit as teams could save 2 critical players each off-season but since the player can still get an offer from another team you won't have holdouts. This system would prevent holdouts and make things a bit better for the players.

I think it is a little early to write any player off from the roster. We are what 2-3 days into minicamp with not very many days in pads yet. Lawson is make or break this training camp/pre-season. But lets give the kid a week or two into camp to see just how he is doing. Lawson looks to be in great shape after an off-season of hard work. I think he has a chance to show some value.

People kind of forget the large turnover each year in the NFL, toss in a new scheme on offense and you are going to run into some mistakes on offense, the key isn't coming out of the gate perfect, it is progressing as training camp/pre-season progresses.

Just to be clear I was not saying that is what is happening, but rather that my worst case scenario is that Allen will be forced in when he isn't ready. Another plausible scenario is that AJ or Peterman start the season and the offense struggles out the gate big time. McD turned to Peterman last year after the offense started to struggle with Tyrod. I wouldn't be shocked to see Allen start 6-8 weeks into the season if the team is off to a rocky start offensively. I have no problem throwing Allen in the last 3-4 games of the season. By that point, the pressure is off and he won't be developing habits in that limited amount of starts but 8 or more games and that could throw off his development if the offensive talent around him is bad. I think McD knows that long-term Allen is best off handled with kid gloves. But in the NFL the long term isn't always what coaches do.

My fear is that the Bills will force Allen into action because their other options stink and the worst thing you can do for a QB that needs help with his footwork is to put him behind a bad O-line. I think Allen needs at least a year to develop and the analytics are correct in that based off of his college performance you can't see the precedent for Josh Allen. But ever players circumstances are different. There is real reason to think Allen will be a bust but also a lot of reason to think he won't. You just have to let it play out.

I think he had a major off-season surgery, maybe have even had a rod inserted. If he finishes the season healthy some team would have signed him for sure.

We don't know how much pressure will be generated. The Bills should be more than solid up the middle run wise, I also think on the edge with Shaq and Hughes against the run the team should be decent. But the pass rush is a huge concern, Murphy is coming off of a major injury, Shaq coming off a injury and struggled to get pressure in his second year, Hughes is coming off a down year and Lorax is coming off a strong end to his last season but who knows exactly how good he can be at his age for a whole season. Now you could make an equally strong case each player turns in a better season but the point remains that there is a lot of questions about the pass rush. I could see a few more tackles for a loss from him. I think that there is a lot of hype with Phillips that he probably won't live up to but he should turn in a solid rookie season. The main impact Phillips and Star will have is hopefully improving the rush defense greatly.

The defense is very strong up the middle with the additions of Star and Phillips as well as the returning of Kyle in more of a rotational capacity, even Washington or John Hughes as a 4th option is decent depth. The team is also very strong in the secondary (Although the depth there concerns me greatly) and more importantly the secondary is very well coached. The Linebacker core is also solid with Edumonds and Milano but depth is a concern. The defenses fortunes will rest on its biggest question mark and that's the pass rush. Hughes, Shaq, Lorax and Murphy all could be good or they could all be busts. If the Bills can get 2 of them to pan out I think the defense will be a top 10 unit. Unfortunately I think that the offense could be a bottom 5 unit. Still I like the direction the team is headed in, good defense with young pieces in place, a young high upside QB in place on offense, a good LT in Dawkins to build the O-line around and a lot of cap flexibility coming up.

3-5 is a tough spot but considering the "easier" back half of the schedule 3-5 at least gives the Bills a chance to get to 9-7 and throw their hat in the ring for a wild card. I wouldn't be too upset with a 3-5 start but 4--4 is much more ideal.

A team thirsty at WR has fans thirsty for receivers.

I could see a bad start but not 0-8, the start of the schedule is brutal. I think the Bills could legit go 2-6 to start the season and then finish the back end 4-4 for a 6-10 record. I honestly think that if the Bills go 3-13 and get a top pick that might actually be to their long-term benefit (If there is a top QB prospect that nets the Bills a haul of picks from a trade down.) Looking at the schedule if the Bills want a crack at the playoffs they need to start 2-0. The Ravens game is a defensive struggle (most likely) that will be decided by turnovers and plays late in the game. If you win that game you have to hope the Chargers start the season slow in week 2 and the Bills scratch out that game. Then at 2-0 you can survive a 1-3 against the Titans, Texans, Vikings and Packers and a 2-2 puts you in a good spot. The only way I see the season shaking out for a crack at the playoffs is in this capacity. Ravens- W Chargers- W Vikings- L Packers- L Titans- L Texans- W Colts- W Pats*- L Bears- W Jets- W Jags- L Dolphins- W Jets- W Lions- W Pats*- L Dolphins- W That takes you to 10 wins which should sneak a wildcard birth. But I don't honestly see it panning out that way. I see a 1-1 Start at best, I see a split with the Jets and Fins and I see a split between the Lion and Bears. Which takes you down to 6 wins, maybe 7 in the likelihood that the Bills win a game they aren't "supposed" to which happens almost every year.

Much like the Steelers the Seahawks are going to have to build around their QB. Although Wilson's current contract isn't massive it is significant and after this upcoming season they will have to pay him a top 5 contract so if you have that much cap space invested in your QB you should build around that position (it also makes more sense to build around a QB when having a great QB is such a huge advantage and you want to protect your QB as an investment.) The Steelers have been able to cobble together an above average to good defense while putting big-time pieces around Big Ben (Big Ben's offensive line is much better in recent years, Brown, Bell and Juju are elite weapons too) now the Steelers defense is far from as good as it was earlier in Ben's career but they still field a top 10 or close defense every year (only year in recent memory where they were below 16 was 2014 where they were 18th hardly that bad.) I think the Seahawks will be fine long term even if they finish below 8 wins in 2018. The Seahawks are getting out of cap trouble in 2018, they will have a lot of cap space in 2019 (only five contracts above 7 million dollars in 2019 on the books so far) and their full complement of draft picks. Even if Wilson gets a massive extension his cap number for 2019 is 25 million (the last year of his second contract has a spike in cap number.) They Seahawks should be able to start rebuilding their offense rather quickly around Wilson and their defensive system still has some quality veteran players that can be a respectable unit with a few additions. Not building up the offense could torpedo Allen's chances. My ideal scenario is AJ kills it in training camp and he gets thrown to the wolves behind this terrible O-line and suspect skill position core. Give Allen that first year to just learn the system and not learn footwork and reading defenses behind an awful supporting cast. You can develop bad habits if you are trying to learn around a bad offense. In 2019 the Bills could really put Allen in an offense where he can actually have success and the defense will still hopefully be talented.

The Seahawks "dynasty" (Hard to say in the modern cap NFL what a dynasty is) was built off of 3 insanely good draft classes from 2010 to 2012. First they heisted Marshawn out of here only costing a pair of 4th round picks. The Seahawks also traded a 2nd round pick in 2009 (37th overall) for Denver's 2010 1st (which ended up being the 14th overall pick.) In 2010 the Seahawks added their franchise running back via a trade and then drafted Russell Okung, Earl Thomas, and Golden Tate with their 1st 3 picks. They also nabbed Cam Chancellor in the mid rounds. Then in 2011 they followed up that draft class with James Carpenter who was a fixture along their O-line, KJ Wright who has anchored one of their LB spots since then, Richard Sherman who of course was an All-Pro corner and they also nabbed useful starters, Byron Maxwell and Malcome Smith, late. They also nabbed Doug Baldwin as an undrafted free agent in 2011. They followed up those insanely good draft classes with a phenomenal 2012 draft class. They drafted Bruce Irvin and Bobby Wagner in the first two rounds both players went on to be fixtures for their defense and then the mega-hit of Russell Wilson in the third round which pretty much put everything in place as they had a stacked defense and now enough pieces on offense. They haven't drafted that well since 2012 and at first because the 2010-2012 drafts were so great it didn't matter if they had a few bad draft classes. But as those draft classes got older and the subsequent draft classes didn't pan out it had a bad impact on the team that is starting to really be felt. I guess the point of this long ramble is that if the Bills hope to have a large run of success they need to put together 3-4 really great draft classes and toss on some good acquisitions via trade and free agency. 2017 looks good hopefully in 2018 with Allen, Edumonds and Phillips those players become a big part of the teams future.

The modern NFL offense is streamlined into a single QB. The QB is the fulcrum of the offense. Even a team with a "game manager" has all of their offense based off of their QB's strengths or weaknesses. Having a second QB that is a great athlete like Lamar Jackson come in and do a few trick plays might work for 3-5 plays a game. Trick plays help keep a defense honest and once in awhile, you can pull off a massive gain. But I don't see an offense that regularly switches QB's near a 50/50 split working nor do I see an offense with 2 QB's on the field at the same time working consistently. Not saying it can't be done but it just doesn't seem like from what we know about the NFL and how it is currently structured that an offensive gameplan with multiple QB's would makes sense other than for a few trick plays. Think about how hard it is for an NFL offense to get 1 good QB now try to find 2 of those guys. There are 2 types of QB controversies. The first being a rookie or young QB vs. an established veteran starter. In that case, you can have a good QB situation because you are deciding between your future and your present. However the other type of QB controversy is almost never successful and that's between two veteran QB's, odds are if you have two older QB's on the roster competing your QB situation isn't very healthy.

Trent Murphy was a big veteran signing coming off of a massive injury. Vonta Davis also has a similar injury issue. I think it just more has to do with McBeane knowing the veteran market (Which has been pretty static since June) and wanting to see what he has currently on the roster before dipping into the vet pool.

Mills is a good run blocker but a really bad pass blocker. In a passing league and with an inexperienced QB (No matter who starts) I think pass blocking at that position is at a premium. I think Mills is the epitome of a player you want coming off the bench a bubble starter type. I think him and Newhouse are both backup caliber players while having one of those guys on the roster is nice depth one of them will end up starting.

The Bills will, in my opinion, make one significant move either signing a player like Bowman after an injury hits them, or they will bring in a veteran cut from another team. The Bills have too many areas of concern for them not to at least kick the tires on a player either when injury hits or when rosters start to get trimmed down. I think Guard, RT and WR are the three spots on offense where you could see a significant veteran signing (Maybe even RB if Shady is suspended or out) and Linebacker seems to be the spot on defense. Overall I think the Bills must like what they have in camp enough to see how the roster is panning out. Then as you see what you have and you see what is out there on the market you can make a move if needed. I think it is just going to stay quiet until training camp is in full swing. July before training camp is a time when coaches, front office, and players usually take their families on vacation to get some leisure time in before the long grueling season starts. That's why it is usually a pretty dead time around the league. All the rosters are set, the draft and OTA's are in the books, the veteran free agent market has been static for well over a month and the scouting for the next draft has been blueprinted. By the end of June the coaches have their training camp programs locked in and there really isn't a whole lot for them to do, players are always in shape so getting some mental rest is always worthwhile and executives have their teams set and know what free agents are out there. So it just ends up being that dead time in the league where pundits just talk about "Season Predictions" and "Camp Battles" for the billionth time while everyone actually involved in the game is getting that last vacation in. It's also the last few weeks where these players, coaches and executives can really spend time with their families for months. Toss in the fact that it is summer and you have just a general downtime in the league.

The Ravens defense is very legit and although their offense isn't anything to write home about I think it is slightly better than what the Bills are throwing out there. It could seriously be a very ugly 10-7 type game.

Mario's 2012 season wasn't that good, he got hot for a few games inflating his sack total but his impact on the defense was limited that season. That being said Mario's 2013 and 2014 seasons were legit great.

I think the focus should be more on growing the middle class so that you have a larger tax base and fewer people not making enough money to pay income tax. Even if you had a 15% base tax that was flat and had no deductions (for sake of simplicity) you would still find it very easy to push a populist agenda promising free stuff. If I make 20k a year, 15% of that is 3k. If you promise those workers more than 3k worth of benefits then they will still vote for the populist. Whereas if you invested money in infrastructure programs everyone wins. Working class people get jobs, that helps the need for consumer demand, infrastructure is heavily improved which makes transporting people and good easier that helps the economy grow overall and there becomes a positive effect overall in quality of life as commutes are shortened and overall places become better. If you cut out the massive amounts of spending needed to do a flat tax the damage to the economy is insane and the needs of the economy for infrastructure, research, education, jobs training and economic development will not be met. Massive tax cuts failed to stimulate the Kansas economy as rich people can only consume so much and the idea of putting money back into the hands of the investor class so that they can invest more sounds good but it fails on two accounts. 1- A lot of investments are overseas, giving rich people a lot of money to invest is no doubt going to flush a good chuck of that overseas due to technology and investment opportunities in emerging markets any investor is going to properly be investing a chunk of their money outside of the US. 2- The biggest issue with the economy is consumer demand. Corporations are flushed with capital, investors are flushed with capital and profits are at all-time highs even adjusted for inflation. There just isn't the consumer demand from the middle class as there was in past decades. That lack of demand results in there being less for companies to invest in. Flushing the rich and corporations with cash does nothing to solve this. That's my take on it if philosophically you think there should be a flat tax rate for the sake of ethics. I can't argue with you, but I just don't see that working out in a pragmatic sense.

Consumption taxes replacing income taxes would mean much more of the tax burden would fall on the working class and middle class. In general, the highest earners spend a much lower percentage of their income on consumption. I honestly do favor a progressive tax system, the draconian cuts to vital programs needed to have a flat tax or less progressive system would not be worth the "Fairness" that is sought out by people who advocate for a flatter tax system. Are we really trying to get more taxes out of the working poor and middle class in order to give the wealthy more money? I would much rather see money spent on education, infrastructure, and job training than on tax cuts for high earners. Are there things the government spends money on that is terrible that could be cut? Of course, I think the military is bloated, I think there are a lot of subsidies and crony capitalist things going on and as with any large entity, there is waste and inefficiency. But just because there are things that could be cut doesn't mean that the money used for tax cuts couldn't be put to better use securing the future of the American workforce through infrastructure and jobs training programs.