billsfan89

From what I have heard Newhouse is a good backup swing tackle, nice depth move. Bodine as a starter I wouldn't be enthused about but as a backup I really like the move. Two quality bench offensive lineman. A nice mid free agency period move. Although I think ideally the team should still draft a guard in rounds 4-5 to be the last bench o-lineman and push to get Miller/Ducasse out of the RG spot or be the heir apparent for Incog in 2019.

The hit didn't help but honestly, he wasn't fantastic before the hit. His best game was 279 yards 1 TD 1 INT in that great comeback against an Oakland team that would go 6-10. I think he was a borderline starting caliber QB before the hit but he was never going to have a chance at being anything great in the league. That being said his career never was the same after the hit.

Wither or not it is true (Let's be honest 2 highlights is anecdotal evidence I am could find tons of bombs by Tyrod but Tyrod or almost any QB that got a good amount of starts was considered too conservative) is irrelevant. My point was that fans think any bad QB is either too conservative, doesn't get the ball downfield enough or too reckless. Fans are more than likely going to have the same complaints about McCarron.

I would rather have picks 12, 21, 53, 96, and a 2nd rounder next season than take that Jets package. The Bills still would have had 56 and 65 to work on some other needs and not given up much in next years draft.

The Jets !@#$ed the Bills as even if the Bills trade up to 2, or 4 they will have to either pay a higher price (Giants price has to go up if they are willing to deal) and the Qb at pick 4 isn't going to be as strong as the Bills had hoped.

I could dig into the archives but I was a regular poster around here during the Fitz years and there were consistent complaints that Fitz didn't get the ball down the field consistently enough. A lot of posters would consistently complain about Fitz throwing a 7 yard slant to Stevie on a 3rd and 10. Fitz threw a lot of bad picks because he was too willing to throw in tight windows and force things when the team was down.

I am hoping for the best with McCarron I think he has a chance to be a good QB. But my ire is with a lot of people thinking that because Tyrod is gone all the issues that plagued the offense are magically fixed and we will see McCarron be a 300 yard a game QB because the only thing holding the offense back from greatness was a QB that liked to run too much. The skill positions are lacking and the right side of the offensive line is still a mess. Tyrod was an issue for the offense but he wasn't the only issue for the offense and Tyrod being gone doesn't equate to the offense not having similar issues that have plagued Bills QB play for over 20 years. Tyrod was traded less than 2 weeks ago and is the most recent QB move the team made, let's not act like talking about the former QB of the team in the previous season isn't relevant to talking about how the offense will function differently in 2018 compared to 2017. It's not completely an irrelevant topic.

The Jets gave up a good amount to trade up to pick 3 but in the context of trading up for a QB they didn't give up much. The pick they got from Seattle was found money from the Richardson trade, their 2nd round (a high second rounder) and next years 2nd rounder is a steep cost but one you are more than willing to pay if it means landing your franchise QB. Compare that to the RGIII and Goff trades and it is a bargain.

Pick 3 was always the "Pick in play" Since the Colts said they were not trading Luck they had a top pick and were willing to trade down. The Browns are taking a QB at picks 1 or 4, the Giants are also in need of a QB at pick 2. The Broncos are a thirsty QB team at pick 5. So the only trade up scenario is pick 4 with maybe an outside shot at pick 2.

If the top 3 teams grab a QB then the Browns could be open for business at pick 4, unless they are just completely enamored with Barkley that a package of picks doesn't entice them. There also exists a trade up opportunity at pick 4 if the Giants take Barkley at 2 after the Browns take a QB.

Pick 4 seems like the most likely trade up scenario but that is only if Barkley is taken in the top 3. The Browns take a QB, the Giants take Barkely, and the Jets take a QB. That opens up the Browns (who have just drafted their QB) to take even more picks for a trade up.

This is crushing because unless the Browns are willing to trade down from 1 or the Giants from 2 this team will likely not land a top QB and will have to settle for a QB that falls to 12 or 22. The Colts were always going to be the spot for a trade up and now that spot is going to pick a QB. My hope is that the Browns take Barkley at number 1 and the Giants sell their pick off to build the roster around Eli Manning for the next 2-3 years trying to get one last run out of him. 12, 22, 53, 65, 96, and a pick next year would be a kings ransom that would allow the Giants to more easily rebuild around Eli and set a foundation for years to come. But if the Giants want a QB they simply can't pass up the opportunity to draft one.

Russell Wilson doesn't work that great in the pocket (Although, he is a lot better out of the pocket now) he runs to throw and runs to churn out yards and first downs. He scrambles a lot which affords his WR's the chance to make plays down the field. Granted Wilson is an exception to the rule but I think that saying running is a running backs function ignores the idea of a QB who can pass out of the pocket and run. Give me Cam Newton, prime Eagles Michael Vick, and to a lesser extent Andrew Luck as my QB any day of the week. All three players can do the standard pocket passing but all 3 were able to work effectively with their legs and do great things keeping plays alive and adding yards and first downs with running plays. I would take that additional level of dynamic playmaking any day of the week provided that such a QB also plays out of the pocket well. Tyrod never played out of the pocket well which just crushed his ability to function well in any offense not completely designed around him (Much like Seattle redesigned their offense around Russell Wilson.) McD didn't see a future with Tyrod and they got good value for him in a trade. But my main point in the original post is that going off of McCarron's body of work conservative QB play is likely to continue.

My main point is that some fans are delusional in thinking that McCarron is going to be a gunslinger QB who throws for 300 yards a game. Now could that happen? Yes anything is possible but expecting that to happen isn't logical based off of the evidence of his college and pro career thus far. A lot of the complaints about Tyrod (Doesn't throw the ball downfield enough, too conservative, and checks down on 3rd and long) always existed with every single Bills QB since I have been following this message board and other message boards about football and the Bills. JP Losman throws deep but hardly hits and can't work the intermediate area of the field, Trent Edwards was captain check down, Fitz could only throw short, EJ way too conservative, and Tyrod as we all know. Bledsoe towards the end suffered from can't get the ball downfield and too conservative the last 2 years, I wasn't monitoring the internet during the Flutie and Rob Johnson eras but I bet a lot here were saying a lot of the same about those two QB's. This teams QB issues didn't start with Tyrod. Hell Tyrod was the best Bills QB for a 3 year stretch since Jim Kelley arguably (I think Flutie being the only reasonable QB you could argue.) Now that's not praising Tyrod all that much that's more knocking on the lack of quality QB's that the team has had the past 22 years since Kelly retired. To hammer home the point, I expect AJ to be a game manager and a lot of the checkdowns and turnover averse play to continue. McCarron has played that way since college and I don't expect that to change. Now you can win with that type of QB since low turnovers and a QB That can make a few plays here or there is a winning formula but come September if AJ is starting I would wager that you would hear echos of the same complaints that have plagued Bills QB's for the past 22 years.

Tyrod wasn't functioning well in the pocket, the system that McD wants to implement is one where a QB functions as a pocket pass. I don't think McD viewed Tyrod's mobility as a negative but they weren't going to build a system around his best asset if Tyrod just wasn't able to work effectively in the pocket. But I think that just because McCarron will function better in the pocket doesn't mean that all of these issues at QB are fixed. I think that McD and Beane feel as though McCarron is a better fit for the system they plan to run. But just because a QB might be a better fit to run the offensive scheme you plan to implement doesn't guarantee results. McCarron might work better out of the pocket but he likely isn't going to generate the same plays with his legs and who knows how aggressive the offense will be? McD is a conservative coach, in general, why wouldn't his offense be risk averse?

I think the team can be successful with a game manager QB. Provided the defense fixes a couple of issues (2 new starting linebackers, a nickel CB, and possible issues with the pass rush if Hughes and Lorax get old and Shaq can't hack it.) And if the team doesn't trade up for a QB (If they take a QB at 12 they have 22, 53, 56, 65, and 96) there certainly exists plenty of draft capital to address various defensive and offensive issues. But I think that Tyrod at times was a game manager and people hated him for it. Complaints of general conservative play, checkdowns on 3rd and long, rushing attempts short of 1st downs on third down, and not "getting the ball downfield enough" will continue with McCaron. But this team did win with Tyrod who wasn't the most aggressive QB. Tyrod has a winning record the last three seasons not being the best QB but one that makes a few plays here or there and not turning the ball over. Of course a strong ground game and decent to good defense helps but there is no reason to think that the team can't have a decent defense again and Shady has 1 more good season. But I am more knocking the idea that McCarron will be this gunslinger or that because he isn't Tyrod all the QB issues go away.

My point was that his career in college and so far in the pros has been that of a risk-averse QB. Now there are some fans that think that McCarron is going to be this big time gunslinger which given the profile of McCarron isn't likely. Hell given the nature of McD as a coach (very conservative football turnover averse) I don't know why people's expectations of McCarron being anything different than a conservative game manager exist. I honestly think that a lot of the same complaints people had about Tyrod (never throws downfield checks down on third and long) will exist about McCarron.

Wilson was a smart and shrewd businessman when it came to the AFL, he actually helped run the league more like owners today where year to year losses weren't the biggest deal as long as the league sustained growth and more importantly took market share from the NFL. Ralph pushed the overall health of the league as his goal was more important than making money right away. His goal of establishing a merger with the NFL was very clear in my mind. I don't know why that after he got the merger he pretty much stopped running the team in such a macro manner and pretty much ran it as though if one season where he lost money would ruin him. It was kind of odd with the way he helped run the AFL. But I guess he figured that once he had gotten to the NFL the team needed to be fiscally solvent to remain in the league.

It actually makes sense what OJ is saying about Ralph. Sports owners from the early days of the major professional leagues ran the teams like a business because the team was the major source of income and the teams could rarely lose money and maintain operation. Ralph being in a smaller market and coming from that mentality probably did run the team like a business. It wasn't until bigger TV and radio deals emerged that teams were sold to people who made millions and eventually billions in other businesses and basically those owners basically ran those teams like toys devoid of year to year losses for the most part. Modern ownership groups are 1-2 billionaires and a bunch of millionaire minority investors who run the teams as a long-term investment (Where the value of the team when sold again is where the money is made not the year to year operations) or once again it is a billionaire who cashed out on another business and is now having fun. Older sports owners cared about the bottom line, they had to make money that year, a loss revenue wise meant that the owner's personal finances could be in jeopardy. Ralph seemingly was cut from that grain of sports ownership.

AJ is a notoriously conservative QB, he was known as a game manager in Alabama and is his limited starts in Cincy he played pretty conservative. I don't know why people expect McCarron to be a gunslinger when that isn't his reputation at all? So unless this team drafts a rookie high and he comes in and performs light a stud I would expect conservative QB play to continue.

Good for him to go to his hometown team. But honestly, I don't find this to be a player that isn't replaceable fairly easily.

It is ideal that a QB be a "Big Brother" type to a rookie QB. But these professional athletes are so competitive and ego driven that it is hard to get them to be a mentor type. Unless you have a lower end starting caliber QB at the very back end of his career (and he knows it) odds are that any QB worth his salt is going to see a rookie as a threat more so than as a little brother. The purpose of a "Bridge QB" is multi-folded 1- It allows the team to have a starting caliber option in case a college rookie isn't ready for various reasons, 2- It offers a rookie a high caliber professional to look at and see how it gets done, 3- It sets a standard for a rookie QB to go out and beat.

If there aren't huge rushing holes right in the middle of our defense often in the coming season I think that this signing will have accomplished what it set out to do. This signing is a bit too right for my blood but it is exactly what the doctor ordered in terms of need on defense and it is a player the coaching staff knows and trusts. If you are going to overpay at least do it on the right kind of player that fits one of your biggest defensive needs. Star's job is to clog the middle, eat double teams while holding the line, and to disrupt the interior of the line of scrimmage. If he can do that at a high level the Bills rushing defense will be heavily improved from last season esp after the Dareus trade.

I would like to see the team take a chance on Martavis Bryant via trade, cheap contract on the last year of his deal. If the Steelers would be willing to part with him for a 5th or 6th rounder that would fill a big need affordably. BUT I don't think that the Steelers are currently shopping him so I doubt that happens. I wouldn't mind Jordan Matthews back on a 1 year deal, not sure what actual speedsters are out on the market.

Fill 2 of those holes going into the draft and I think this team has a good chance to trade up for a QB and have enough left over picks wise to fill another need or two. There are going to be holes on almost every NFL roster, every team is also going to have depth issues too, it is the nature of the salary cap era. But minimize a need or two going into the draft and I think you are fine.