2003Contenders

I stop reading/listening when I hear the Boller comparison to Josh Allen. It is just such a lazy analysis over-simplified because both QBs had strong arms but poor completion % coming out of college. These two are/were VERY different prospects. It is way too early to project whether or not Josh Allen will reach his potential in the NFL, but he was genuinely in the discussion to be the #1 overall pick in the draft. That was never the case with Boller.

Yea, I don't see the EJ comparisons that have been thrown around. I get the cautionary tale about EJ being a quality person, intelligent and having all the physical tools. The problem is that the QB position never came natural for him. There were clear signs of this before he came out, and Jimbo Fisher suggested that he would struggle making it to the next level. I think EJ tried his best, but he never seemed to get beyond the "Let's see, my left foot goes here. My right goes..." It always seemed to me that he was over-thinking the small things that should come without thinking at all. I don't see that with Josh Allen. He was born to play QB, and everything does seem much more fluid and natural for him. I also do not see the "Boom or Bust" analysis that so many lazy draft "experts" have predicted about him. It is true that his up-side is boundless, thanks to his off-the-charts natural talent. However, I don't see the bust potential a la JaMarucus Russell. Russell had a cannon for an arm, but he entered the league completely unmotivated. Remember, he was drafted before the rookie wage scale, so he knew he had tens of millions in guaranteed money from day one. I don't see that in Allen. Allen's accuracy issues are well documented and he will need to adjust to the speed of the game. In all honesty, I am more concerned about the attributes of the Bills coaching staff to get him where he needs to be than I am worried about Allen's attributes. Still, I see Josh Allen's floor as more of a Blake Bortles -- talented but inconsistent -- rather than being a true bust.

I think so too. That said, the "plan" may not result in the same thing that happened with Mahomes last year. That is, the Chiefs were able to keep him firmly planted on the bench for his rookie season with the exception of the meaningless regular season finale at least partly for the following reasons: 1. Alex Smith had a career year as the starter, and he remained helathy 2. The Chiefs were in playoff contention all season and wound up winning the division Hence, there was no rush to get the rookie on the field. And, despite the fact that he looked great in a meaningless game, we have no way of knowing whether or not the coaches felt Mahomes was ready to start at any point during the 2018 season given how well Smith played. The fact that they traded Smith and are going into this season with Mahomes as the starter tells us now they feel he is ready. The Bills situation with Allen looks to be different this season: 1. There is uncertainty about the QBs ahead of him on the depth chart 2. I am hopeful that the team will be in playoff contention, but honest evaluation would indicate otherwise heading into the preseason I would love for McCarron (or Peterman) to step up and be a reliable starting QB this season. Then the Bills can take their time with Allen and avoid the temptation to rush him out on the field before he is ready. However, if McCarron/Peterman struggle and the team feels that Allen represents the best change to either win in 2018 or gain valuable playing experience for 2019 and beyond, I think we could see Josh Allen by mid-season. I am at least happy that the current regime appears to not be making the mistakes that prior regimes made with our last 2 first round QBs: Losman handed the job in year 2 after he had done nothing to deserve it. EJ pressed into the starting job as a rookie because there was no viable starting option ahead of him on the roster.

I think it is reasonable to expect a regression in the record based on a variety of factors. The Bills' Front Office probably expects the same, which is why 2019 draft picks were off the table in any trade-up scenarios. That said, I don't see us being in contention for the #1 overall pick. The defense should be decent (especially if Edmunds makes an immediate impact), and we still have Shady and the running game. The key is going to be how well the offensive live gels and what sort of production we get from the QB position.

His dad LOVES Josh Allen, and was very vocal about how he was in his opinion the hands-down best QB in this draft, worthy of going #1 overall. That is high praise considering how harsh he is grading QBs coming out of college.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Jim Kelly and Dan Marino were always the bust of buddies off the field (and remain so to this day) -- but when they were on the field it was a different story.

I always have to laugh about how much misinformation is out there about this Super Bowl. In many cases, cloudy memories make us believe things that never happened/didn't happen. Myth 1: The Bills were by far the superior team. I think we as Bills fans too often dismiss that Giants team unfairly. While the Bills were there representing the AFC thanks largely to their high-power offense (they had scored nearly 100 points in the two playoff games against Miami and the Raiders), the Giants were there thanks to their defense. That defense had just held the mighty 49ers offense to 13 points in the NFC Championship game. In fact, the 1990 Giants boasted one of the greatest defenses in NFL history. Their run defense was so fantastic that Belichick purposely decided to essentially play a prevent-defense for the entire game (allowing short patterns, but punishing defenders when they caught the ball), fearing the Bills' downfield passing offense (which had dominated the other 2 playoff games). He wanted to force the Bills to run the ball -- and even told the Giants players before the game that if Thurman Thomas had a big day running the ball, that would mean that the Giants won the game. Myth 2: The Bills passed the ball too much in that game because of Kelly's ego Given the success that the Bills had had in the post-season passing the ball -- and knowing that the Giants' strength was in stopping the run, it makes sense that the Bills came out throwing the ball. But it is unfair to suggest that Kelly was pass-happy. A careful look at the pass-to-run ration shows that the offense threw the ball 30 times and ran it 25 times. That is a pretty balanced attack. The problem is that the passing game was not effective largely due to the defense employed by the Giants. For example, Andre Reed, who was one of the greatest YAC receivers in NFL history only managed 62 yards on 8 receptions -- or barely 8 yards per reception. Rather, than criticize Kelly for being egotistical and insisting on passing the ball, I always felt he did a great job of taking what a dominant defense was willing to give him. Rather than forcing the ball downfield into heavy coverage, he was content to check-down or scramble for positive yards. Remember, he did not turn the ball over in this game at all. Meanwhile, the Giants' own offense -- not known for passing the ball -- actually put it in the air MORE often (32 attempts) than the Bills did. Myth 3: Scott Norwood is the reason the Bills lost the game Yes, the missed field goal at the end did turn out to be the difference. However, there were plenty of other factors that contributed in such a close and well-played game. The mythical story about this game has always been "Wide Right", but I always felt that the real story of the game was 41-to-19 (40:33 - to - 19:27 to be exact). That would be the Giants' time of possession against the Bills. Now, thanks to the Bills' hurry-up offense, they were often on the losing side of that stat even in games that they dominated. However, in this particular game that time of possession disparity made a huge difference. The Giants had a grind-it-out offense that was capable of milking the clock. Remember, the Bills' defense was built to stop Dan Marino's passing attack in Miami, but the defense was never sufficiently equipped to mussel an opponent's committed run game. Case in point: the Giants converted a strong 9 of 16 3rd down conversions. Meanwhile, the Bills were only 1 of 8. I would suggest that an unfortunate sequence of events that began midway through the 2nd quarter played a significantly larger role in the game's outcome than did Norwood's miss: -- The ability of Hostetler to hang onto that ball when Bruce sacked him and gripped his wrist. I still have no idea how he managed to NOT fumble it! A TD there would have made it 17-3. It is easy to say that the this would have impacted the final score in a game that was decided by 1 point -- but more importantly, the Giants' offense was NOT built to overcome large leads. Essentially, they were able to stick to their game plan. -- The offense's inability to capitalize on the series immediately following the safety. The Bills had the ball in great field position -- and seemingly had the Giants on the ropes leading 12-3. This was the offense's worst series in the game -- and those that criticize Kelly for passing too much in the game can use this series to bolster their point. I suspect that the thought here was that they believed they could put the game away there with a score, so they chose to be aggressive. Kelly DID hit Reed on a bomb that would have set them up inside the redzone, but Reed dropped it. On another attempt on that series, Reed was crushed by a defender on a crossing route. Instead of adding to the score -- or at least gaining field position/milking the clock, the Bills quickly went 3-and-out and took virtually no time off the clock. Even if the Bills did not score here, if they manage to convert a 1st down or run the ball to take some time off the clock, it is possible that the Giants do not score a TD to end the half. -- After the failed 3-and-out, the Giants more or less ate up the remainder of the quarter on a grind-it-out TD-scoring drive to go into the half trailing just 12-10. -- After the extended halftime, the Giants came out with another grind-it-out series that ate up much of the 3rd quarter and ended in another score to take the lead 17-12. -- During that sequence from the mid-2nd quarter to late in the 3rd quarter in which the Giants scored 14 points, the Bills' offense never took the field. With the extended halftime, the offense was off the field for over an hour. They looked rusty when they finally did take the field in the second half -- and, worse, the defense was starting to wear down. There were several missed tackles on that TD drive to start the 2nd half, for example. Myth 4: Kelly and the coaches were guilty of poor clock management at the end of the game We now know that Levy and Kelly approached Norwood and asked him where he would feel comfortable kicking a game-winning field goal. Norwood told them he felt good with anything inside the 30. Hence, the offense's goal on that final drive was to get it inside the 30 and leave as little time on the clock as possible for the Giants to respond. You could tell when Thurman ran that draw up the gut to set them up in such field position, the offense left the field believing that the mission had been accomplished. We all know what happend next. The issue here was not clock management. Rather, the issue was the stupidity on the part of Levy (or whomever) to trust that getting the ball to a spot on the field where his kicker seemed comfortable would be sufficient. As painful as it may be, I encourage everyone to go back and watch the game in its eternity rather than watching edited versions. For example, edited versions imply that the Bills' final drive occurred immediately after the Giants kicked the go-ahead field goal. That is not the case: as the Giants' field goal occurred with almost 8 minutes left in the game. It was a great game (very few penalties, no turnovers, a back-and-forth battle) played by two awesome teams. It is just unfortunate that the Bills came up on the short end. One thing I almost forgot: early in the game, Hostetler was literally knocked out cold. The Giants revived him with smelling salts. In today's NFL with the concussion protocol, etc. he would undoubtedly have been forced to leave the game. That would have left the Giants with their 3rd string QB behind center.

I hear ya. One thing that could be possible is to take a page out of what the Colts did back in 1998 with Peyton Manning (and the Steelers to a lesser extent with Big Ben in 2004). That would be to load up the offense with mass-protect blocking schemes, utilizing mostly a base 2-TE offense with heavy reliance on the running game and play-action. This kept Manning mostly upright and clean in the pocket, even though it limited his options. He struggled as a rookie, tossing nearly 30 INTs, but never lost his confidence or composure.

When I first read your post I thought the "guaranteed to get Allen" reference was another passive-aggressive suggestion that Allen would have definitely been available at #12, which we now know is not true. Instead, you are suggesting that they would have taken Allen at 4 (which is fine, given that we know that Beane and the Browns were in talks, but the Browns wouldn't back off wanting 12, 22 and next year's #1). First, I would be totally opposed to trading a proven (at least after one season) player like White for a roll-of-the-dice like Ward. Second, it is highly unlikely that Ward would have made it to 12. The Broncos would have undoubtedly still taken Chubb, and based on recent reports the Colts were all in on Nelson. However, with no draft partner in Buffalo, I could see Tampa taking Ward at 7. Or the 49ers at 9. Or the Dolphins at 11.Or possibly some other team trading up...

Here were my take-aways: 1. Allen is a natural passer (When it is all said and done, that was EJ's greatest failing; playing the QB position just never came natural to him) 2. He has off-the-charts talent 3. He is very bright and is very coachable 4. He played in a relatively pro style system and had responsibilities that many of the other rookie QBs did not 5. He still has plenty of work to do to prove that he can compete at the next level I am getting more and more excited about Josh Allen as a potential franchise QB. I would be even more excited if I were 100% convinced that the Bills offensive coaches have what it takes to coach him up.

Right after the draft I believe that Allen indicated that he would continue to work with Palmer on the side.

Guess you mean the 1983 draft, rather than the 1986 draft... Marino fell in that draft because allegations had been leaked to the press (reputedly by Miami) that he had a drug problem. The team that was most famously duped was the Pittsburgh Steelers, the team that was originally planning on drafting the local kid.

And you know this how? It may be possible that Darnold was their first choice, but the Bills had been linked to Allen for months. Regardless, let's rejoice that the Broncos bailed on the initial trade agreement when Chubb was still on the board; otherwise, Edmunds would have been unavailable.

It also helps that Favre had Holmgren, Reid, Mooch, and Gruden all coaching him up in those early years in Green Bay. Hopefully Allen is given every opportunity to succeed with the coaching staff at hand.

He clearly has talent, but there are just so many red flags... There is a reason why the dude slipped in the draft. Let's not forget that he made it plain a few months back that he did not want Cleveland to draft him. Then he pouts that he did not go "1, 2 or 3"? He strikes me as a combination of Rob Johnson and Jay Cutler. They were both talented guys too. But RJ never learned the art of self-preservation, and Cutler's surly attitude was a turn-off to the point where he had coaches throwing him under the bus. I couldn't help but notice the visuals of Allen versus Rosen walking to the podium last night. Aside from the difference in their demeanor, the size difference was obvious. Allen looks like a guy that can take a licking and keep on ticking, whereas Rosen looks like one big hit would knock him out. I am feeling more and more like the Bills got this one right.

Also, forget about those antiquated trade charts that Jimmy Johnson popularized. The Jets set the price by giving up THREE 2nd rounders (which were/will be HIGH 2nd rounders, assuming the Jets are the Jets in 2018) to move up 3 spots (from 6 to 3). There was competition from Arizona and other teams for the Bucs' #7 pick, so paying the price of TWO mid-to-late 2nd rounders seems reasonable.

King's source is more or less echoing what Gil Brandt said a few weeks ago. Basically, he sees very little separating the 15th or 16th rated prospect from, say, the 50th. Lots of "value" to be found in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and this is a year where beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

Honestly, I understand why the Browns may want to keep everything close to the vest, but when you are picking #1 overall, there really is no reason to try to play mind games. I remember the "new" Browns inaugural draft back in 1999. They had decided on Tim Couch weeks before the draft but pretended to be interested in Akili Smith too, right up until a couple of days before the draft. At least back then there were $ issues in terms of what the #1 overall pick would command, but with the current rookie cap and slotting, that is no longer really an issue.

Sounds like Rudolph to me...

Exhibit A for why it may not be the end of the world if the Bills are unable to land one of those top QBs in the draft: 1985. Most pundits agree that was the best draft in team history -- and like this year, the Bills had 2 firsts, 2 seconds and 2 thirds. The team was terrible back then; had the #1 overall pick in the draft, and the QB situation was a mess. Ferguson was gone, and the team wound up playing through the season with journeyman Vince Ferragamo at QB. But guess what? Instead of selling the farm to draft a QB, they made great use of their picks to fortify other positions. Bruce and Andre -- both Hall of Famers -- came out of that draft. They waited until the 3rd round to address the QB position, and took a guy that was projected to be (and tuned out to be) a career backup. Youmay remember him, his name was Frank Reich. I guess my point is that there is so much hand-wringing going on about "worst possible scenarios" if, say, 5 QBs get drafted in the top 11. The way I see it, if 5 really do go before the Bills pick at 12, that means that a top-7 overall player at another position will be available at 12. Given the quotes I have read stating that some executives believe that there are 8 non-QB blue chip prospects in this draft, that would mean that at least 2 of them would still be available if indeed 4-5 QBs go before the Bills pick. As much as I would love to land that franchise QB we have all been clamoring for in this draft (and hoping one falls to us), there are so many other needs that could also be addressed. I could live with rolling the dice with McCarron and hoping to catch lightening in a bottle with a Faulk or Lauretta later in the draft if it means enhancing the lineup at 3-4 other positions. I, for one, will not be cursing Beane's name if he is somehow unable to draft one of those top 4-5 QBs, provided that he uses the picks we have wisely. Going back to 1985, that draft laid much of the ground work for the future Super Bowl teams, but the QB position was not truly addressed until the FOLLOWING year when the USFL collapsed, and Jim Kelly came to town.

Albright's "Let's just say there are things that the public is unaware of" (assuming he knows what he is talking about) makes me wonder if Rosen is possibly off the Bills' draft board as well.

I wonder if the comment about all of the QBs having flaws is a way of prepping the fans for not trading up and drafting someone like Jackson, Rudolph or Faulk with a later pick.

True, but all of the guys on that list (other than Leftwich) went on to have successful NFL careers. In a draft like this, I would be willing to listen to his advice in terms of the various QB options.

Still not as good as 12, 53, 56 and 96 that he supposedly has the Bills giving up to get to 6. That is why it is funny (and a cop-out) that King is careful to specify what he has the Bills giving up to get to 6 but makes no mention of what the Cardinals with less ammunition, jumping up a pick higher and having to move up further (10 to 5 as opposed to 12 to 6) would have to give up. In order for the Cardinals to beat the Bills' deal deal, they would have to give up all of their top picks (as you say) from this year's draft PLUS next year's first.

All the smoke about the QBs leading up to the draft turns out to be just that, smoke. Only two QBs go in the first 10 picks, Darnold at #1 and Mayfield at #3. The Bills are on the clock at 12 and Bills nation goes insane because Rosen and Allen are still on the board. Instead, the Bills take... Lamar Jackson.