mjt328

Hmmm. I wonder how much a site like that brings in.... I agree with all of your points. I actually like Pro Football Focus, and love to read their grades - along with multiple other All-22 Reviews. Just like with any "statistic" - a person needs to understand the limitations of what it has the ability to tell you. They can be valuable and fun to discuss. But all the film in the world simply can't tell you what a player was supposed to do, unless you are part of the coaching staff. It's the same way when looking at passing yards, touchdowns, etc. Statistically, Kirk Cousins was a Top 5 quarterback this year. But most Vikings fans feel he was a tremendous disappointment. Statistically, Josh Allen was near the bottom of all starting quarterbacks this year. But most Bills fans are excited and optimistic about his play. Bottom line. Sean McDermott's defense has always been about letting the linebackers be the stars and make the plays. Guys like Star Lotulelei do the grunt work, occupy blockers and keep the LBs clean to make the plays. Not all 1-Tech DTs have the same job. Just the same alignment.

It's too early to get a read on Brandon Beane's drafting style. During his entire time in Carolina, he was playing second-fiddle to Dave Gettleman. Last year, he was dead-set on doing everything possible to land one of his targets at Quarterback. And like you said, 2017 was an anomaly with some combination of Sean McDermott and Doug Whaley making picks. I think you can be confident that Beane isn't afraid of moving around the board. But that doesn't necessarily mean he is going to be a wheeler and dealer type of GM. His top two picks last year where both high-risk/high-upside guys. But that doesn't mean he will shy away from the safer/low risk prospects.

Nobody has time to watch every player in the league. I'm convinced that 99% of websites out there are using the same source (Pro Football Focus) to rank players, which is why everyone seems to have the same negative opinion on Star Lotulelei. As I've said before, PFF grades are fun and interesting. But they have holes in their system, and some positions get a raw deal in their grading. When it comes defensive tackles, they expect everyone to play like a 3-Technique and be like Aaron Donald or Kyle Williams. But for some DTs, their job is not to penetrate into the backfield. Their job is not to push blockers aside, but to keep them from getting to the second level and reaching the linebackers. How does a PFF grader know the difference? The truth is, they don't. So they give high grades to the players who appear to be "beating" the guy in front of them, and give low grades to the players who appear to be in a stalemate and not going anywhere. Our coaching staff has not been shy calling out players who aren't performing. They have had nothing but praise for Star, and how well he's doing the job they signed him to do.

This is the way free agency works. If you stomp your feet and dig your heels in the ground as a GM, refusing to overpay for anyone - then you are going to get the scraps that nobody wants. We've had the GMs in the past who "took a nap" during the first round of free agency, and the complaining from people on this board was insufferable. Of course there needs to be a balance, and you can't just throw stupid money at everyone. You have to pick your spots, build the majority of your roster through the draft, and hope that your big signings don't turn into somebody completely worthless like Albert Haynesworth. The frustration is... some fans want the best of both worlds and criticize every move that our front office makes that doesn't live up to those standards. They complain and whine that our roster has holes and weak spots. They complain and whine that Beane didn't "address" certain positions. But when Beane addresses a position like DT and we see significant improvement in that area, they complain and whine that he wasn't able to sign that player for $2-3 million less.

Lots of great information. Getting tired of the constant uninformed nonsense of ripping on Star though.

Football is similar to any other job. There are a multitude of factors that can influence a player's decision. Ask the average person what it would take to change jobs. Most will probably say that money is a huge factor. It's not just a sports thing. Others may consider: - Comfort with the coaching staff - Scheme Fit - Being part of a winner For every person that wants to live in warm weather, another person may prefer a cooler climate. For every person that wants to live in an exciting place with lots to do, another may prefer somewhere quiet and laid back. Buffalo's weather is usually blown out of proportion. The snow and cold doesn't keep players from signing with New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Philadelphia, New York, etc. Even though people say it every year with Free Agency coming up, I doubt it's truly a major factor. If anything hurts Buffalo when signing Free Agents, it's our perception as being a losing/unstable franchise. If we get back to being a powerhouse, players will be taking pay cuts to play here.

Players need to be in a scheme that amplifies their talents and hides their weaknesses. It's been said that Nickell Robey-Coleman is a better fit in man-coverage than zone (like we play). Our coaching staff also puts a premium on tackling from the slot-corner position, and NRC is a little bit undersized. Don't get me wrong. I wish that more coaches made the effort to build scheme around players, and not vice-versa. But at the same time, no coach (even Bill Belichick) is going to cater his defensive system to fit his nickel cornerback. No doubt that NRC was a good player in Ryan's scheme. But the new staff was clearly skeptical about whether he could be good enough in theirs. At least Beane/McDermott are smart enough to realize what pieces are necessary to make this system work. Unlike Whaley/Ryan who never seemed on the same page, and were always trying to shove square pieces into round holes.

Just because JP Losman wasn't a good NFL quarterback doesn't mean he can't be a good coach. Only a select few on the entire planet are good enough to succeed in the pros.

I agree that it's very unwise to pay Running Backs big money in Free Agency. But not just because of the draft, or how successful teams are finding them in the mid-late rounds. The main reason is that FA running backs are already close to passing - or have already passed - their prime. The average Free Agent running back is 25-26 years old, and already has LOTS of wear and tear. We are usually talking 2 years of heavy college usage, along with 3-4 years of heavy usage in the pros. Numerous studies have been done on this, and have shown RBs peak around 24 years old and start declining around 28 years old. And in most cases, it's not a gradual process. A team doesn't get warning signs, so they can have a younger replacement ready to step in. It's usually a sudden drop-off (like we got with Shady this year), where you are counting on the guy to produce and he just can't anymore. By my count, there are only THREE starting RBs in the NFL who were obtained in Free Agency. Adrian Peterson, Frank Gore and Lamar Miller. You can bump the number to FIVE if you toss in LeSean McCoy and Marshawn Lynch - who were technically obtained through trades. Either way, all of these veteran guys have seen better days. Pretty much every other team is relying on younger guys, still on their rookie contracts.

Not saying I necessarily support that idea. I'm just saying that as long as subjectivity is involved, you can't completely fix the problem. You can't just make Pass Interference reviewable sometimes. If you do it for the Robey-Coleman plays, then you open it up to every single passing play.

Drafting BPA simply means that you are valuing the player over the position. It does not mean that you can't maneuver your way around the board to target a specific player. In terms of Tremaine Edmunds, I know that Beane has stated there was a huge drop-off on his board after him. It wasn't just about getting a linebacker. So even though he traded up, his goal was going after the BPA. If there wasn't such a big drop-off in talent, he may have been willing to stay put. When it comes to the Quarterback, I think most GMs are willing to make an exception to their general philosophy. Most aren't going to spend a high pick on a QB if they are already set. And most will reach a little bit early or trade up to get their guy, if they don't have a franchise QB on the roster. For the 2019 draft, I think what Beane is trying to suggest is pretty clear. The Bills biggest holes are clearly at O-Line and WR. However, the strength of this draft (particularly in the Top 10) is on the Defensive Line. Beane is not going to pass on a ridiculously talented D-Lineman for a much lower ranked offensive player, just so he can say he addressed a particular need.

There are basically two types of penalties. Objective and Subjective. Objective calls (Offside, delay of game, facemask, etc.) are clear, obvious and indisputable. Either a guy is over the line before the snap, or he isn't. Either the facemask is grabbed, or it isn't. These types of plays should always be immediately reviewed by a referee upstairs in the booth, who can rewind and watch the play again within seconds of it happening. He can radio down to the crew if a call is missed and get it changed before the next play. Subjective calls (like taunting) are the ones which are completely up to the refs discretion. One player does a dance or uses a cuss word near the ref and gets a 15-yard penalty. Another player does the same thing and nothing happens. These kinds of calls need to be 100% eliminated from the game. If you want to stop taunting from happening, then issue fines afterwards. Don't let those calls affect the game itself. The tricky ones are the calls/penalties which can sometimes be in either category, like pass interference or holding. These are places where NFL has somewhat vague rules in place, where penalties are sometimes very clear (the Robey-Coleman play) and sometimes dependent on how strict the the game is being officiated (the Gronkowski no-call). The best thing you can do is try taking out the subjectivity of those calls. For instance - allow holding and pass interference. Obviously, this would drastically change how the game is played. But it would also help lower penalties and give officials a smaller impact in the outcome of games.

Probably. Just because it's the Super Bowl. But yesterday took my enthusiasm for this sport down another notch. I've often stated that officiating was the worst part of professional football. And yesterday was a historic screw-up, which will go down as one of the worst blown calls ever. I don't want to hear about how good the rest of the game was, or how the Saints had other chances. If the refs make the call they should, the Saints are in the Super Bowl. The Rams simply don't belong there, and I can't cheer for a team that has no business even being in the game. On the other side, the inability for other AFC teams to knock off the Patriots and their 40-year-old QB is embarrassing. It's been the same script/story for almost 20 years now. I don't even have the emotion to get happy or upset watching these games anymore. I had zero excitement when the Chiefs took the lead, because I knew what was going to happen. And when the Patriots won the game, I just shrugged and turned off the TV.

It's still a little early on the mock draft front. Once the Super Bowl is over, the media will start putting more resources into draft coverage. They will start diving into game film, and begin talking to NFL scouts to see what they really think. That's when some of these QB prospects start sliding in the mock drafts. I'm not sold yet that an NFL franchise will invest a Top-10 pick into Kyler Murray. We all know how GMs shy away from short quarterbacks. Much less one that hasn't 100% committed to playing this sport. With that said - It would be really nice if some trade-down possibilities present themselves.

Would be a great fit.

My initial gut reaction was: "No. He was a really good player. But was never dominant enough to be in the Hall of Fame." But then I tried to think of another Nose Tackle I've seen who was better. (I've been watching the NFL for over 30 years). I honestly couldn't think of one. Not a single one.

Assistant O-Line Coach from the Colts. About 9 days ago, everyone was raving about the Colts blocking and how we needed to build our O-Line just like them.

The current front office has been here for 2 years. So the "last 20 years" is completely irrelevant. Also, I would be curious to see what you would consider a "major contributor" from the guys we traded away: - Sammy Watkins who played 9 games, barely had 500 yards and wasn't missed as the #3 target for the Chiefs - Ronald Darby who has only played 16 games the last two seasons, and was on IR for both playoff games - Reggie Ragland who logged 40 less tackles than either Edmunds or Milano, and was generally invisible all season - Marcel Dareus who... whoops, was not in the playoffs - Cordy Glenn who... oh yeah, same as above I see two (recent) former Bills who I would consider major contributors to playoff teams. Both left via free agency. They were not traded away. Stephon Gilmore, who has been more than adequately replaced by Tre White Robert Woods, who would never be putting up these numbers outside of Sean McVay's offense

I recall that Paul Richardson was a popular FA target by many on this board.

Pretty sure there are ex-Bills on almost every other NFL team - through trades, free agency, cuts, etc. Pointing out that a former player is on a playoff team is a pretty lame way to criticize the front office. If you want to criticize a personnel decision, then state your case why that individual decision was a bad one. Don't just say "that guy is in the playoffs now." Was the Sammy Watkins trade BAD, just because he is in the playoffs? That's a really poor argument. - It doesn't take into account that the 2nd Round Pick we got was vital in the trade-up to get Josh Allen, who could end up being a franchise QB. - It doesn't take into account that we made the playoffs in 2017 even without Watkins on the roster. - It doesn't take into account that Los Angeles got him on a one-year rental, and still got knocked out after one playoff game (just like us). - It doesn't take into account that he signed for a whopping $16 million per year in Free Agency to be the #3 receiving option on the Chiefs. - It doesn't take into account that Watkins still hasn't broken 600 yards in a season since leaving Buffalo, which is statistically less-productive than Zay Jones. - It doesn't take into account that his foot injury kept him off the field AGAIN this season, limiting him to only nine games.

Tom Brady has been a starting QB in the NFL for 18 years. You would think that defensive coordinators have enough film (probably 300 games counting regular season and playoffs) to know the best way to play against Brady. But nope. Every season, you see these brilliant coaches attempt to play a soft zone coverage against New England. "We will give Brady the short stuff," they say. "Just make sure we don't get beat over the top. What could go wrong?" I've gotten to the point that when a New England game is on, I just watch how the defenders play against Julian Edelman (or whoever is playing slot receiver) on the first 1-2 drives. If they give him a free-release at the line of scrimmage and a 4-5 yard cushion, you can guarantee the Patriots will score at least 35-40 points that game.

My thoughts exactly. In the long run, simpler schemes and players with limited talent will probably be much easier for defenses to scheme against. Nick Foles has played very well in the postseason over the last two seasons. But I think his success has been AMPLIFIED because of the stage. The media tends to overly hype a player who WON in a playoff game or a Super Bowl. Even though it's really a team accomplishment. But I have my doubts that Foles can carry a franchise year-in, year-out for the next decade plus. Carson Wentz is clearly the superior player, both from a talent perspective and from a statistical evaluation. He's also younger and still has room to grow. Not to mention, he's going to be cheaper on the salary cap for the next two seasons.

The worst NFL team would destroy the best NCAA team by 30-40 points easily. And that's if they decided to lay-off at halftime. It's a joke that anyone would even think otherwise. Here are the facts: The most players one school has EVER had picked in a single draft is Ohio State in 2004, when they had 14 players selected. (Here is a link to the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ohio_State_Buckeyes_in_the_NFL_Draft) Sounds like a lot. But in 2003, Ohio State only had 5 players drafted and in 2005 they only had 3 players drafted. This works out to an average of 7 players per draft, which is pretty standard for the top schools. In fact, over the last decade, the top colleges (Alabama, Clemson, LSU and USC) are only averaging about 6-7 players drafted per year. (http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23316209/college-programs-most-nfl-draft-picks-last-10-years) Adding those up for three seasons (sophomore, junior, senior), you come to about 18-21 players at the "big schools" who will ultimately get drafted. So that means if you took their best 53 players against an NFL team's best 53 players, a school like Alabama would be fielding at least 30 guys who aren't even good enough to be drafted onto a professional roster. These are guys who are going to be working other jobs after college. Not playing football at all. Then consider how many draft picks are ultimately successful. Sure, guys picked in the 1st-2nd Rounds are usually pretty good bets. But by the time you get to Day 3 picks, those guys are a long-shot to even make a roster. Go back and look at the 2004 Ohio State team I mentioned. How many of those guys were actually long-term starters in the NFL? Maybe 3 or 4 guys (Will Smith, Chris Gamble..). How many were impact players? I don't see any. Players like Reggie Ragland, A'Shawn Robinson and Marlon Humphrey may be studs in college, but then turn into backups when they hit the pros - if they don't flame-out completely. That still doesn't factor into the learning and physical curves even the best NFL rookies experience during their first 1-2 seasons. We are talking about veteran professionals against 18-20 year olds who haven't even undergone an NFL training camp yet. In the NFL, even crappy linemen are bigger and stronger. Even slow players are faster. Even dumb players are more experienced. How many rookies can you honestly say walk into the NFL and totally dominate from Week 1? Since we are talking Alabama, look at Calvin Ridley. He had a pretty good rookie season, and has a very promising future. But right now, he is still the 3rd receiver on the Falcons and finished the season with just over 60 catches and 800 yards. Finally, you must consider that NFL teams are a combination of talents from across hundreds of schools. Alabama may have a reputation for putting out great NFL players overall. But when was the last time they actually fielded a top NFL quarterback? The best QB they have offered the NFL in decades is AJ McCarron. The NFL has the benefit of selecting the best bits and pieces from everywhere.

At this point, both guys are below average (I would personally rank them in the Top 20-25, but not any higher). Both have been in the NFL for four years with very little improvement from their rookie seasons. That's longer than lots of QBs get to prove themselves. So time is running out. If I am Tampa Bay and Tennessee, I give them until mid-season next year. If they don't look like franchise material, then I would be pretty confident it's not going to happen. Bench them for a younger/developmental guy and tank for the 2020 draft.