Ronin

Re: Jauron vs. McD, those that don't want to see it won't. Both haled from the defensive secondary in terms of experience and "growth" in coaching. Both built teams from the secondary on inward when the conventional wisdom clearly says build from the lines, on both sides out. I definitely don't see McD doing that. Our DL is all but a shambles Oliver pending. None of the players that he's brought in have helped it significantly. Offensively he's done next to nothing in two years for the OL and we're going to be seeing very soon that these "new and improved' OL-men brought on, as well as Morse with his injury risks, really aren't much better than last year's OL, at least in terms of pass-protection. Same thing there, none of the players that he's brought in have offered any significant help much less upgrades. If anything both lines have gotten worse on McD's watch. There are a few other similarities but at this point it's just pissing into the wind. Allen was a risky pick because the known issues with him are also known to be very difficult to coach into a player. Of course our smarter-by-half methods know better. On that note, so whom does McD get to coach those things into Allen? Dorsey, from Carolina of course. Heck, we're almost like Carolina's triple-A team. But what's Dorsey's track record? Newton's not a good passer. His stats are slightly below average. But here's the thing, Newton has hardly overachieved from college as a former 1st overall pick, in fact it could be argued that he's underachieved. His Jr. and last season at Auburn was world's better than Allen's was, he lit up Saban's Alabama and played a very good game vs. Oregon's very tough defense in his bowl game. Allen has never had anything close to that in a game like that. In fact, against similar caliber teams Allen actually played worse than undrafted QBs if not worse than any in his entire draft class outright. That should be significant and anyone drafting Allen should have looked at and considered it. We can assume that they did, which raises questions as to their smarter-by-half methods even more. If anything I'd say that Newton and therefore Dorsey have underachieved. The fact that we pulled him from Carolina doesn't really suggest that we scoured the planet looking for the best option for Allen. Looks more like a "former connection" than anything else. And believe me, as a Canes fan I love Dorsey who was the best Canes QB ever. He couldn't play in the NFL tho and I simply dont' see much evidence that he's anything better than a run-of-the-mill QB coach. I mean the guy failed, miserably, in the NFL, so what's he got to impart to Allen. What, "here's how I did it, you should do the same." LOL

OK, goodbye. If I don't respond to you in the future it's because I've put you on ignore. I don't see much that you argue that has merit. Seems all personally charged to me.

No, so take it up with 4merper4mer. I am and have been very bullish on Edmunds. My opinions on him were also very well stated PRIOR TO the Draft. We have similar views on Edmunds. My opinions on Allen were also well and unmistakably stated well PRIOR TO the Draft. I would be insincere/dishonest if they had changed after we drafted him. I'm just curious tho, and I don't expect an honest answer to this question, but if another team like the Jets or Fins had drafted Allen instead, would everyone here be just as bullish on him. It's rhetorical at this point, but given the opinions on both Darnold and Jackson, who both had better passing metrics in similar situations, that's at least one data point there. Otherwise, Edmunds was not the same risk because Allen essentially cost us four day 1 & 2 picks with which we could have revamped our O. Edmunds could easily have been had with our 12th overall, which was my option. That necessarily presents a much bigger risk when you trade away all those picks for one player. And yes, 1st-round QBs are riskier than other positions, which IMO as an analyst, means that it's not a good idea to assume more than the inherent risks as such like we did. Well, you could start by comparing his production to other players. I'm usually the one that does that here so I may as well do it again. Off the cuff and even before knowing how it will shake out I'll use Kuechly, my favorite current MLB, in comparison. Edmunds ranked 21 in solo tackles, 13 behind LK who ranked 6th. Edmunds ranked tied for 13th in combined tackles, 9 behind 8th-ranked LK. Edmunds ranked poorly in TFLs. LK ranked well. Edmunds ranked tied for 20th in PDs, LK ranked poorly like Edmunds did in TFLs. Edmunds had 2 INTs to LK's 1. If you did your homework on Edmunds as a rookie you'd have known that his pass defense skills were very good, particularly for a MLB. Edmunds ranked 11th for assisted tackles, LK ranked tied for 18th. Edmunds had 12 PDs to LK's 6. Edmunds had 7 QB Hits to LK's 5. Granted, rushing the passer isn't the primary role of a MLB. Both had 2 FFs. I don't care how you slice it, that's competitive. We cannot say the same thing for Allen re: his passing. It was only better than Rosen's. Strangely, Allen's passing metrics blow chunks. While they seem to have mattered for Taylor, Manuel, and Fitzpatrick, now all of a sudden here they're a cut above irrelevant. At least I can state unwaveringly that I'm consistent in my analytical methodologies. I don't think it's that hard. It's hard if people don't run comparisons and look up data, like most don't. Most simply allow unchallenged narratives to form and then flock like sheep to line up behind those narratives. Works for politics, sports, and many other things in life. I analyze professionally. I'd also put my past analyses re: our players up against anyone in the business. My record stands for itself. You didn't here ANYONE anywhere else telling you that Spiller's (as one mere example) skills from Clemson didn't line up well in the NFL, and the same for Watkins and his bubble screens. EVERYONE contradicted me. So what, I got lucky? I don't think so. Again, to name a mere two examples. Same for Zay Jones if we want to get more recent. Even you just implied that there's no way of analyzing Edmunds, for which I took about five minutes, ... OK, maybe 7 or 8, did a quick lookup and sort and came up with the above. Why can't anyone else do that? Short answer: they can, the vast majority of people simply don't and won't. It's much easier to simply latch onto popular narratives and be optimistic. Ignorance is bliss, eh. As I said, my takes on Allen and Edmunds were both there WELL BEFORE that Draft. I would be insincere/dishonest if I had changed them following the draft, meaning that there's obviously no agenda as many seem to want to believe.

Not sure I see the relevance, but OK. I simply don't think we should have picked Allen. Too risky, and those risks are currently playing out. So anyone arguing to the contrary ignores that. Once again, this is a clinic on team-building. This offense is the worst it's been in over a decade since Jauron under McD, another defensive-minded coach similar to Jauron, who also BTW had a specialization in the secondary. The comps are uncanny.

It is what I'm doing, I'm sorry that you see it otherwise. I'm also sorry that it seems to affect you so personally. That's unfortunate. I'm huge on Edmunds. And yes, I could. Unfortunately for your argument I'm not running around talking about him as if he's headed for all-pro status this or next season while slamming anyone that says something to the contrary, am I now. Edmunds didn't come into the league with anywhere near the risks that Allen did. He was also the youngest player in the league last season and still played admirably. He also wasn't one of the worst few LBs in the league last season now, was he? The bottom line is quite simple. McD inherited a team that ranked 10th and 12th in scoring under Ryan, who sucked, and 15th and 16th in scoring D in the two seasons prior to his arrival. Under him the offense has ranked 22nd and 30th, having descended as such, and the D has ranked 18th in scoring D. If that offense doesn't get well into the teens this season I don't see how he can possibly remain on. If that doesn't happen it'll be all but entirely because Allen doesn't turn into the QB that so many here are talking about, not because Edmunds didn't step up. BTW, see the post above. And to add some additional perspective here, the offense ranked both 30th in yards as well as scoring. The last time that we had such low offensive rankings was under Jauron over a decade ago. In the six seasons prior to McD's arrival, the team averaged 16th in scoring O, with no QBs worthy of note. Taylor, Orton, Manuel, and Fitz. Even this season, if Allen can't outdo them as a 7th overall pick, well, that'll spell it out pretty well.

Not so sure about that. Uncertainty helps young coaches, QBs, and teams win games, it's common in the NFL. Defenses can't plan for what is unknown. Besides, last season we split with the Jets. Barkley led us in our win with our best game of the season by both a QB as well as team. Under Allen we stunk the joint up with 3 Allen TOs and no passing TDs. He had a 44.4 passer rating. That was in week 15 where everyone claims that he improved after returning from injury. If he plays anything close to like that again we'll be lucky to not get thoroughly beaten. I suspect a split again between the two teams.

Believe me, I hope I'm wrong too. Discussing what one sees and believes isn't necessarily what one wishes, contrary to the opinions of some here that seem to know more about posters than the posters themselves. Kind of like God.

Something akin to a pass-rush in a league where passing and stopping the pass, by players actually brought on by the current staff would be refreshing to see. Of the front-7 players brought on by McBeane, only three logged sacks last season. Edmunds had 2, Murphy, their second most expensive free agent after Lotulolei (who had 0) had 4, and Milano had 1. 7 total. But I heard that Lotulolei was actually busy taking up blockers so that the others would be freed up to log sacks en route to our 26th sack ranking. So we're told. His first season ever w/o a sack. If Oliver isn't what they're expecting, with Kyle gone and Lorax in his last season and at 36 otherwise, the team won't have much of a pass-rush going forward as Hughes is into his back-9. Unlike many others, I remain wholly unimpressed with McBeane's team-building and their Process.

I think that neither were good draft picks, Allen at 7th or Oliver at 9th. I'd have made different picks. In fact, I'd have had Wynn, Hilliard, and Risner on our OL right now and Drew Lock at QB, instead of those two for the same picks and I'd have gotten a couple of others too. Not sure how to answer your loaded question otherwise. But thanks for playing.

To your points: A whole lot of people here have opined something akin to the notion that now we finally have a significantly upgraded OL and some real WRs. Seems to me that was the primary if not sole issue on the team last season, that and the RBs, but we signed a 37-year old and drafted a Zay Jones-like small school prospect, so all's well now don't ya know. It doesn't appear that way to me. Did you miss the facts that I've laid out about our OL? Did you not do your own research and besides missing my detailed posts on the individual OL-men, not note that PFF has our new OL-men really not rated that much better than our old ones, particularly in pass-pro? I mean if your research is limited to simple articles by journalists then perhaps that's an enormous difference between our takes. Most of our new OL-men were backups or marginal starters on HORRID offensive teams. Jets, Skins, Raiders. The ONLY exception is Morse, who has barely made it through half of his games the past two seasons and of the games he has played some being less than 100%. Yet another major gamble by McBeane. Even if he manages to stay healthy, IMO that OL is only marginally if at all improved, and that with the typical half-season of work to even build ultimate chemistry. If he gets hurt again, and he already is w/o contact, then I don't see much of an improvement whatsoever. My approach to rebuilding that OL would have been altogether different, but backups from other teams and starters that weren't even impact players, again, besides Morse when he was actdually on the field, simply doesn't add up to a better OL, at least not significantly better and there's still the risk that it's not better at all. Why is that notion so far-fetched? It shouldn't be. You couldn't be more wrong about that. If you think that the fans and media are going to sit still if Allen busts I don't even know how to respond to that other than to say that that's ridiculous, there will be no second chances on a QB if Allen fails. What, six or seven years to finally prove that they have it together? Unlike so many here "The Process" rings completely hollow for me at this point. This is a do-or-die year and if Allen does not ascend to at minimum average status this season, as a passer that is, then it's curtains for those guys. No one's going to believe anything, particularly in lieu of aging key players w/o any notable replacements on offense or on the DL or Front-7 besides Edmunds. The one thing that might give them another season is if Oliver really becomes the next Aaron Donald like so many here have preordained. If Olive isn't a force out of the gate or at least by midseason the cries of incompetence, here in fact, LOL, are going to become deafening. LMAO, you've been here when things don't go as planned. LOL, that's the most entertaining time here. With all of McBeane's risky small-school draft picks, if one or two, namely Allen and Oliver, don't step up bigtime, there'll be no defending that. There's not even any real & concrete evidence that this team is moving in the right direction, and if Allen doesn't work out it won't be. If Oliver doesn't live up to expectations then what's the proof on D, there is none except for an upgraded secondary which is all that McD seems to know. I could give a crap about being right. Nothing, absolutely nothing, would make me more happy than to be 100% incorrect on Allen. ... and Oliver. I've simply been watching and analyzing football for far too long to see things for something other than what they actually are. The fact that so many people truly believe that a couple of new WRs that have rarely posted 100-yard games or been anything close to prolific, with good QB talent I might add, or that OL-men that were backups or starters that simply weren't very good on crappy offenses doesn't effectively counter reality, certainly not enough for me to heave reason in the dumpster. Why the majority think that is beyond me. I can see why the national media does, they can all just talk and say whatever they want to, be entirely wrong, and have jobs the next day, month, year(s). There are absolutely no consequences for being wrong in the media. They all live on to blather on another day. Otherwise, ask those same football "analysts" and journalists why most of them don't have the Bills posting a winning season or see Allen stepping up to the aforementioned (by you) level. Seems to me that the only ones sold on the "optimism" in any sort of majority reside here and in other Bills forums. LOL Really? Yeah, and by all reports this time last year Peterman was a good bet to hold down the fort while Allen learned. Watkins was going to be a stud. Spiller was special. Lawson was a great pick, so was Ragland, remember, he was really a 1st-rounder, ... by all reports. Zay Jones was a phenom, again, by all reports. LOL BTW, I didn't think it was Allen's "throwing mechanics" that were an issue. How does that help with reading Ds? Or footwork? Film study perhaps, to a degree, but watching and doing are entirely different things. Perhaps you disagree there too. Seems too me that after OTAs the feedback wasn't nearly as optimistic as everyone had hoped. That was not in pads, w/o no particular real pressure, no contact, etc. I guess I'd ask you why a QB that was essentially ranked worse than every QB in the league besides Rosen last season as a passer, we should be optimistic about making the kind of leap in play that QBs with his background simply have never made. And no, Trubisky and Mahomes did not have the same background contrary to popular narratives. It's absurd for anyone to assert that they did. I understand why, because our WRs and OL sucked, yeah, I get it, everything but primarily Allen. I get it. I do. Either way, I'm far from being alone on not expecting that kind of improvement from Allen, most people that aren't Bills fans are far from convinced. If I listened to "all reports" from the team I'd have been buying SB tickets somewhere along the line in anticipation. BTW, you did make valid points about Allen taking 1st-team reps and re: Daboll to some extent. IMO Daboll was at least partially responsible for the offensive debacle last season as well, but more importantly, to what extent was he in on the decision-making re: Peterson? I'm not sure we know that. Even so, it's going to take more than 1st-team reps in camps for Allen to improve, that alone is hardly cause for optimism, particularly given his shortcomings.

And either way, by my understanding the OL is now very good as are the WRs. So, if this season Allen doesn't step up his play to the requisite level and beginning to meet expectations, then McBeane absolutely need to be held accountable. If he doesn't, it's either his fault or it isn't. If it's his fault, it's McBeane's fault. If it's not his fault, as I'm sure will be the outcry if in fact it doesn't happen, then it's still McBeane's fault for not being able to either A, get it out of him, or B, not doing everything else that they could what was necessary to do so So we'll likely be looking for a new coach and GM if he doesn't step up. I'm excited, as I'm told that everything's now in place and corrected from last season so there's no need for any concern.

OK, very fair. Where I bend off is in how to make the appropriate corrections. As I've oft stated, the issues are more mental than "talent around him" etc. And look, that's not to say that our WR caste was good last season, it was easily below-average. BUT, this notion that no one was ever open is riduculous. Just watch that Detroit video, and that's just one game, that I posted. IMO the answer was to, again, build the equivalent of the Atlantic Wall around Allen to give him as much time as we possibly could. Marginally improving the OL while bringing in one-dimensional WRs like Brown or slot guys like Beasley that we agree, and in my words, were invisible to Allen last season, well, I'm not sure that approach will work. We'll see. By my understanding here, our OL is finally above-average and according to what the going narrative here is our WRs are finally a good set I beg to differ as I see only a marginal improvement and one that hinges all but entirely on Morse remaining healthy (on odds-on wager?) and WRs that are average NFL WRs on a good day. But hey, what do I know. Of course you don't. I could have told you that before I posted it. As I said, average NFL QBs make most of those throws all day and good NFL QBs don't constantly overlook the short stuff hoping for the homerun ball. Right now that's among Allen's biggest issues. It worked for him in college because he was a man amongst boys there. Won't work in the NFL so he'd better learn how to pass like a successful NFL QB right quickly. ' No, hardly. There's absolutely no shortage of threads and posts talking about how both the OL and WR talent sucked elephant orbs last year which was the primary reason for Allen's poor play. Nice try tho.

Good post. At some point however Daboll needs to be worked into the analysis too. Things are not always bottom-dwelling because of one thing, in this case the false narrative that our receivers never or even rarely got open short. Whether Allen "showed growth" or not, and let's assume that he did, whatever growth he showed was still miserable by NFL standards. If he did "show growth" then the growth was dubious because it went from absolutely horrific to poor, or perhaps fair given some lattitude. And FWIW, Allen ranked 35 of 35 in uncatchable throws debunking one of the going narratives here that his accuracy wasn't really an issue. PFF did a fantastic in-depth analysis of all QBS, it's well worth the one-time monthly fee to download it if you're a stats guy. Either way, as I've said before, if you look at Beasley's career and where he's buttered his bread so-to-speak, then look at Allen's splits in the same categories, you'll notice that what is Beasley's strength is Allen's weakness, or was last season anyway since Allen was a rookie. Whether or not that corrects Allen's issues remains to be seen, but again, IMO the issues run deeper and I'd have focused a whole helluva lot more on bettering our OL way more than we did. It's all about fixing Allen and IMO they could have done a much better job. Time, soon to see, will tell.

Maybe everyone's making excuses for Allen and blaming everything on everyone but Allen.

His draft status won't matter at all, they never do for second contracts which are always of the "what have you done for me lately" variety. I won't disagree with you on Murphy/Lawson, but my point is who brought in Murphy as their answer? Lawson was here, but Murphy was, prior to this offseason, McBeane's second most expensive contract. I've said it often, McBeane have merely brought in a bunch of injury risk players hoping that they'll for some unbeknownst reason otherwise ascede to the level of their best seasons prior. That to me is not a good team-building strategy. We'll find out this year I suppose. I'm not sure they're going to have next year's draft if Allen doesn't make monumental strides and play like he never has this season. Their futures, both short-term and long are premised upon Allen working out.

BTW, here's 9 plays in the Detroit game whereby primarily slot receivers (whomever they were) were more than open enough, sometimes wide-open, and Allen either didn't see them or was simply ignoring them looking for the homerun ball. This notion that our receivers, slot or otherwise, could never or rarely get open is utter nonsense. Also notice, if you watch the entire video, that Allen really isn't under any particular pressure, certainly nothing that the average NFL QB doesn't face every Sunday. Likewise, average NFL QBs make most of those throws resulting in completions. 1:00 - Allen has McKenzie wide-open on the right but for whatever inexplicable reason doesn't see him. OL/blocking was fantastic. 1:10 - He misses (doesn't see apparently) Foster who's wide open down a seam if he hits him in stride. 1:26 - He's got Thompson (from the slot) open if he leads him. 1:57 - He's got the RB open for an easy 5+ on 1-n-10 but doesn't see or hit him. 3:05 - He's got Croom open on the release 3:15 - He's got McCloud open on the break on the right and Croom is a good yard-plus ahead of his coverage on the left. Good QBs make those throws. 4:15 - Not slot, but he's got Ford wide-open on his break for an easy 5+ on 1-n-10, instead looks downfield incomplete. Again, you've gotta take what the D gives you, Allen's always looking for a home-run. 4:30 - Take your choice, right (Clay) or left (Ford), slot receivers open on either side on 2-n-10, either one for an easy 5+ w/ no coverage setting up no worse than a 3rd-n-short. Instead Allen once again, looking for the homerun, goes deep/incomplete setting up a 3rd-n-long. 4:49 - Here again, Allen waits and waves off Clay on the right who's wide-open for a decent gain on 1-n-15 or DiMarco on the left for a lesser gain. Granted, he completed downfield to Foster, but again, instead of taking what the D gives him, Allen waits, that time it worked out, above it did not. It' simply not true that no one was ever open underneath or in the flats. It's an excuse that fans have levied which has become a false narrative giving Allen an out. Look, I get it, everyone wants Allen to work out, so do I, but reality is reality. Look at the video above and tell me with a straight face that none of those receivers were open, it's ridiculous. We'll see how much Beasley "being open" in areas where Allen simply didn't look to last year makes the kind of difference being talked about here.

I realize that was the only play like that all season.

Well, IMO "separtion" wasn't the issue. We'll see soon enough, eh. Shhh! You went straight to the triple-dog-dare after skipping the double-dog-dare. That's taboo to say that around here. ?

I hear ya, but based on what I saw last year he had guys open where Beasley will be this year, he simply didn't make anything even approaching efficient use of them. Once again, this is one of those runaway narrative type of things. He didn't have WRs that could get open, which was hogwash. Granted, they weren't Andre Johnson, but still, the issues were more Allen than the receivers which few if any care to admit. Which aligns with your point above, but where you missed my point was that in essence, had Beasley been on the team last season, if Allen had played the way he did, then Beasley would have had one of his worst seasons. Again, we'll see what happens this year, but as you say, if it doesn't work out, it's more than Allen's not the guy as you said, but it would also indicate exactly what I said above, that the receiving situation wasn't really as bad as that runaway narrative states. Besides, and we've been over this, with a far better QB(s), Beasley's only posted two 100-yard games and has a TD in only about 1 in every 6 games. He's averaged not even 500 yards a season and about only 3 TDs/season. Even in his last three seasons he's averaged about 600 yards, 4 TDs, and just over 10 ypr. I think that everyone's overrating him quite a bit. And if that's the "big improvement" alongside Brown then I question it, particularly since Foster and Jones, who were both with the team last season, are in the discussion for starting, which really wouldn' t be much different at all. We'll see. I do think that Bills fans are vastly overrating Beasley however. Look at my post above. Everyone's talking about him as if he's Welker or Edelman. He's not. Clearly.

Well, as I've oft said, if Allen even wants to be an average QB in this league that's what'll have to happen.

Yeah, but everything else is questionable.

Well, as they say, you create your own luck/chances. Point being, and as you imply, Beasley is and always has been a short-route slot-receiver. That's not Allen's forte, actually it's his biggest weakness. Other aspects of our passing game may be better this season but if I had to lay money it wouldn't be on that aspect of it. That would be the last area that I would bet on. On the other hand, if Allen does it, his accuracy and completion% issues will likely be solved. Let's just hope that Beasley isn't eating his words this season. Be a nice change of pace to see some offensive competence for once.

Indeed. The secondary is tight. Would love to see the team getting that quality of play from their day-1 & 2 picks and their higher paid free-agents however. Their two most expensive prior to this year's batch are Lotulolei and Trent Murphy. If both of them were playing at Hyde/Poyer levels it'd be a good thing, but they're not. Poyer was a relatively cheap one; 4 years $13M Foster's issues, like so many of Beane's signings, have been injuries more than anything.

Well, unless Allen makes a monster leap in his play, Prescott last season was worlds better than Allen. Here's my big concern, Allen's passing strengths don't lie where Beasley typically caught the ball in Dallas, in fact the opposite, those areas were Allen's biggest weakness last year. So whether that changes remains to be seen, but talking in the offseason much less the preseason I'm not sure accomplishes much, particularly in Buffalo where we've been offseason and preseason champs for years. We'll see how Beasley works out, but they don't need him deep. As it is, he only caught four deep passes last season and the gains were only 18, 19, 21, 21, and 32.

Well, OK, but 57.4% still isn't something that matches up with being drafted 19th overall, eh. Also, given those increased reps, one would then also expect increased results. I those last 8 games he posted three sacks, 1 against McCown halfway thru the 3rd Q in that rout of the Jets. The other two were on Tannehill in that last game vs. Miami. Still not seeing any kind of commensurate production much less anything impressive. I'd guess that McD was sizing him up in case he needed to make a "tough decision" this year as well as how to proceed in the Draft. Murphy was the one taking the rest of his reps. He was another of McD & Beane's blase signings that didn't work out as they'd hoped. Again, I'm guessing that McD was saying to himself "I can't go into next season with both of these guys again" and was trying to figure out which one to keep. Also, wasn't Lawson only starting, and only getting more reps, because Murphy was banged up again? Either way, Murphy also wasn't impressive when he played. They're both very average players at best. Either way, as I pointed out, you can draft guys in rounds 3-5 that'll give you that kind of production. No need to pay a player like Lawson more than a low-end contract, if in fact you even want him back. As to McD's comments on players improving, I wouldn't put a whole lot of credence into that. Improvement breeds results. Look at what McD said, for months while pissing into the wind, about Peterman. That shot quite a bit of McD's credibility. Murphy's was a whole lot more expensive, so in that way he was the bigger financial bust, but at least the team didn't waste a 1st-round draft pick on him. I dont' know what we save in cap space if we cut Murphy, but between the two I'd probably keep Lawson. I don't think that the Murphy signing was a good one at all, one of the most expenive of Beane's along with Lotulolei. Their team-building strategy is showcased this season. I'm not particularly optimistic, especially on the offensive side of the ball.