ctk232

See, that would imply he has deep ball accuracy though. Which he has yet to prove. He definitely has the arm strength, but he's bombs usually end up out of bounds on the sideline flankers, and about 5 yards too deep or shorted (when he tries to adjust) for the receiver to make a play. And yes, I'm weighing in the state of our receiver corps when I say this.

I wouldn't worry too much about how quickly he can run 40 yards in a straight line. Never felt the 40 was truly all that demonstrative of a players speed, not useless, but not something to be concerned over. I'd be more concerned with how quickly he can accelerate AND change direction AND sustain it for more than/less than 40 yards, and how well he can read routes and anticipate. McD's defense is primarily zone based anyway, but plenty of "slower" DBs in the league make it work. He did go undrafted so it's not like we'll be seeing top metrics from him anyway - it's just about how he develops now.

Not like we haven't done that before...in all honesty, I'm coming around to the idea of drafting Little with our 1st and getting a WR in the 2nd as that pick will likely be around the 37th ish area. I'm high on Harry for now, but wouldn't mind us landing a top WR talent in the 2nd at all.

I def need to look more into Brown and the other WRs - admittedly I've only really focused on Harry and AJ from early rumors they would be the top of the draft. I also focused on them as they seemed to fit our offenses needs more so at WR, in my mind. Clearly I was of the impression that adding size and receivers with a large catch radius would be best to combat Allen's accuracy issues, but targeting the speed guys like we have is something I didn't initially consider. Part of me is creating this idyllic narrative in my head of us drafting Harry and watching him and Allen become Kelly Reed 2.0 and becoming one of the best duos in the league. Pipe dream...I know

No doubt. Love the move and the fact that they are actually identifying issues and following through given limited resources to do so right now. I just thought they would target sizeable receivers with catch radii to counter Allen's accuracy issues, but pleasantly surprised by this approach as well.

Love the moves - and especially love that they are just doing something given what little resources they have right now. I'm trying to gauge my expectations for the rest of the season and not get too caught up in the excitement that we're so bad that any move is a good move and worth celebrating. But it's amazing what a win will do.

Not sure how much of Sunday is attributable to Barkley, but we should try to not let our QB starvation cloud judgment once we finally see competency. I'm really curious as to what your definition is of a "good veteran" as Barkley was drafted in 2013 and has been very hot garbage, outside of sunday. The reality is we are 3-7. Are you really still trying to win out or go 5-1 the rest of the way to make the playoffs? How much of what you saw Sunday was actually Barkley and do you think he'll continue to play that way once defenses have time to prepare and scheme for him? In my mind, the season is all but over and the only benefit to the team now is to develop Allen and prepare for the future. Will Allen really develop more by being on the bench as opposed to taking real game reps? You can prove to a locker room you aren't tanking regardless of the outcome of the last six games. You just need to compete and/or believe in the QB leading the offense. It seems to be the case that the players believe in Allen and will support him, so starting him wouldn't lose the locker room in my mind.

Signed McKenzie, released and brought Foster back up, cut Pryor, brought back DT (yay!)...pattern? Opinionated speculation: so is it safe to say our coaching staff thinks the issue with the corps was lack of speed? Certainly makes sense in terms of getting separation - but is this the [best] approach to helping Allen develop? I know a few points were made, and I've agreed with, that we should be getting receivers with large catch radii (a KB who can complete a catch, N'Keal Harry, etc.) to help with Allen's inaccuracy issues. No reason we can't have both, but seems like the priority here is being given to speed over physical receivers with high completion probability in a contested catch.

I wholly agree with that position in relation to the future beyond the remainder of the season, and it certainly wouldn't hurt Allen to have a more talented roster around him. But the article's correlated arguments point specifically to improvement for these last 7 weeks as a result of an improved offense. I suppose my skepticism lies with the idea that the offense has now progressed, at all, and it's especially difficult to argue that after only one game of improved performance. There was much in that Jets game that makes little sense compared to what we've seen so far, and only leaves more questions - was it just the QB play all year long? Did Daboll change his playbook for the jets game? How did the complexity of the playbook change? Is what we saw Sunday the result of a simplified scheme? How much of it is Daboll potentially just running a very simple book and the offense responded as a whole? If it is the QB, will Allen ever fully understand and fit the scheme in place? And lastly, how much of it was a fluke, if at all? A lot will happen in the offseason that makes the case for a better environment producing better results from Allen, or at least a hopeful one. But in relation to where we are now, I find it difficult to say that our offense has "progressed" at all, especially after only one solid offensive game, and expecting anything more from Allen for the rest of the season in terms of marked performance might be too much to ask for at this point. It's my core issue with the article's premise is that it favors more to the clickbait realm of all but promising we could see a very different Allen these last seven weeks as a result of what? An offense that has supposedly and entirely found itself and it's identity in one week with a journeyman backup who hasn't started in two years finally being cleared to play? I'm running on a bit here, but as awesome as Sunday's game was to watch, I'm honestly more confused than ever by what the current state of our offense is, and where the problems lie.

I'm not typically one to reply out of selfish emotion, but I want Allen to start this game and throw for over 300 yards on Ramsey. Then he should give Ramsey the game ball signed by himself and say, "give this to your kids so they learn what a real athlete looks like." So tired of this guy running his mouth while his team sitting below .500...too much? After all that irrationality, logic dictates, and for the sake of the team's future, start Allen. The season is all but over, and you need to get Allen in game reps and starting solidifying chemistry with the guys he will be developing with through the next offseason and beyond.

I hope that is certainly the case for what we have seen pre-Jets, but even with a roster devoid of talent, OC's more than often scheme to simplify the playbook to maximize what skill is present. We also can't think of "complexity" in terms of quantity of lineups - you can achieve complexity in an offense while running very few lineups (i.e. Rams and Chiefs, looking at the chart from the article this seems to hold true). It's an analogous example, but one of the biggest criticisms of Rex's defensive scheme was that it was too complex for the defense and personnel we had, and once he began to simplify his scheme we saw players making plays. While I'm glad to see Daboll isn't lacking offensive knowledge, it's easy to argue that over-complicating an offense to curtail it's mostly young roster with little to no talent is not an effective strategy given the first 9 games of the season. I'm all for changing up the book year to year given the right team, and of course adjustments take time. But the Pats also had a set franchise HOF QB that could handle the constantly changing scheme each year, and lead his players through the offseason changes and over the early season hump. All with the support and guidance of a HOF coach. We had a QB controversy and ultimately a rookie project not intended to start this year, with an offense that never really got to learn the book as a result, and all with an OC in his first year with the team. I think the section of the article referencing Daboll even pointed more to the fact that he should be looking to dial in his offense and start picking which packages/formations/lineups work and fit the talent level of the roster. That being said, I'm of the opinion that you first need to establish continuity and chemistry within a roster before increasing the levels of complexity in the schemes for either offense or defense, and that complexity is not effective as a workaround for a hapless offensive roster - many of whom are young rookies and some undrafted at that. In reference to the article - I'm not sure I exactly agree with the premise. While the topic at hand was to provide seven reasons why Allen could have a great end to the season, the author's argument, as I've understood it, is that because the environment around Allen has gotten progressively "better" since his injury, he could in turn progress equally so. To me that seems circumstantial correlation at best, and while having a better cast around him can certainly help Allen, there's no tangible argument to determine causality. Might be an unpopular analogy, but it's like saying that Trump might become an actual President given the appropriate advisors around him. While we showed flashes of competency for one week against a division rival with the same record, I've yet to see true progression in an offense where half/most of the roster will not still be on the team in the next year or two.

As awesome as it is to have, I'd still prefer to not have him in man coverage as much as we can help it - especially not 1v1 on the outside. But maybe we can finally start covering the Pats wheel routes and TE seams.

Lord - I remember watching this live time and yelling, "WHY IS MILANO IN 1v1 COVERAGE ON THE OUTSIDE?!?" Especially in cover 1, I was ready for this to be a TD and pretty sure McCown thought the same thing if it weren't for the pass rush. We hide the coverage fairly well but the safety (Hyde?) is drifting to the middle pre-snap. I wonder what happens on this play if the pass rush doesn't force a bad throw. Before this sounds like me being super negative on Milano or the D, my overall impression was that we actually have a LB who can cover...for once. I get the kid played safety and has coverage experience, and I know it's the Jets with arguably the next worst receiving corps in the league next to us right now, but Milano played that coverage better than any other LB I've seen. Knew he had safety help to the middle so he could play the boundary route, broke early and knew he had, what looks like match coverage underneath, and was able to focus on the play. Either that or this was an incredibly well-schemed defensive coverage and he knew he only had the one job to do...

Fret not, it's quite the illogical claim to say the bills are statistically the best defense in the league - even with our YPG allowed. Here's another - the Bills have allowed opponents the best starting field position ever in the NFL since 2010...that can't contribute to our YPG allowed ranking at all.... I think much of the responses to logic here come with the implied connotation that we're being negative about the only positive part of the team, when in fact I think we all agree our defense is very good to great? With some degree of error in defining what is "great" v. "very good" of course. Some of us just choose to look at it this through different lenses and gauge our opinions and expectations accordingly, and not hang on to the only grain of positivity in an otherwise dismal season. I don't care if we have the best defense in the league as long as the whole team plays the way it did Sunday on every Sunday - firing on all cylinders.

I'm not trying to be a negative nancy here but this is a really illogical statement...based on what statistics? What stats weigh more than others? What do those stats actually mean? Do they translate into in game performance? How can we have the best Defense statistically yet be 23rd in red zone and 19th in points against? How can we allow teams the best starting field position ever seen in the NFL since 2010 and not have our yards per game allowed be affected? Conversely, how does our piss poor offense affect those red zone and points against stats as well? The reality is this, the only statistic that really matters in real-time application for how good a team is is their record; W's and L's. While this is in reference to the defense, statistics can certainly help to recognize trends and disprove myths, but examining through a lens lacking context and causality will produce misleading results. Don't get me wrong, we have a very good defense, but they are not the best in the league.

fake news?

Thought there would be a poll, but playoffs hadn't even crossed my mind this year. I'd prefer the higher draft pick. That being said, I'd really prefer watching them win on Sunday, but if all I can watch is Allen develop and get a high draft pick in a year I wasn't expecting anywhere near a playoff run? That's just fine for now.

Couldn't agree more - I do wonder though, how many of those points came off of drives where our offense turned the ball over, or where the opposing team's drives started in our own territory. It's likely the yards allowed v. points allowed ratio gets skewed by that as a result of the starting field position of opposing offenses and offensive turnovers (of which we have plenty). Update per *sigh* Rodak (ew): "and opponents are starting with the best average field position seen in the NFL since 2010, which limits how many yards Buffalo's defense can give up."

I've always liked the kid - tough to come into the league needing surgery and have to prove your worth as a round 1 pick. Guy has really committed to the defense and team he came back to after the surgery as well in switching his 3-4 familiarity and dominance to a 4-3 and new front-7 scheme. I give this guy a ton of credit and would like to see him become a longterm Bill and contribute, but you're right, it's not the immediate priority and anything can happen next year.

It is tough, but didn't they switch his role more to the three-technique? Granted, before Murphy got hurt...again and they switched him back to end. I thought it was him committing to the three-tech switch and buying in that turned it around for him in McD's defense, and that's where he's shown his ability as a pass rusher - since the three tech is a brute force/power DT to handle double teams and act as the primary interior pass rusher. While I too feel like Shaq's biggest contribution so far has been against the run, but I have seen him in the backfield being disruptive as of late. I wonder, if given more time in that role, if we'll see him continue to be disruptive. To me personally, I feel like JPhillips provides more of that three tech role now, and Lawson should be moved to the edge with Murphy. I'd honestly dump Murphy as the guy can't seem to stay healthy and doesn't contribute enough when he is to justify his contract. Our line is going to need help this offseason, believe it or not, but in a draft with supposedly great dline depth I'm okay with either situation.

While the option makes sense in terms of the perspective of evaluation - I still think you could extend him for cheaper or even for a two/three year deal though without committing too much long term. He's only just started to come around, and was drafted for an intended role in a 3-4 defense AND had a shoulder injury. We can certainly pick up the option as it is the safest route albeit tres costly, but if he does continue to develop along this thread now is the cheapest we'll ever be able to negotiate here.

No doubt it's attractive in terms of destination, but you'd have to scratch your head as to why they aren't doing so well. Eli isn't great, but it's the OL there that really has problems. Combined with a bit of a coaching/FO nightmare, plus a toxic locker room and team chemistry, it doesn't sound like the most idyllic of destinations for a QB looking for a winning job. Granted, they have more resources to argue than we do at present.

I just see the makings of Bills 2018 2.0 - no guarantee they bring in Carr or Winston, though either > Peterman. Would just be fun to watch happen to them if I'm being selfishly petty, but I bet they navigate it better than we did.

Forget the boys, why would the Giants release Eli ever unless they've all but committed to the tank? Do they really think Tanney and Lauletta are QBs to keep and carry them through the rest of the season and beyond? Did they not learn anything from the Bills? If you go into the season with your newly drafted franchise qb and two unknown back ups, you're going to have a bad time. Then again, literally could not care less about the Giants being okay...so hell, they should sign Peterman when they release Eli...

The better answer than simply saying Ducasse has regressed would be a combination of things. To put this in perspective, he wasn't this known stud waiting to be given a chance - he was a 5th round pick that showed flashes of physical power, especially in the preseason. Even among first and second round OL picks - while most contribute immediately, they don't start to really understand the game until their second and some even third years. For a 5th round OL pick to be starting this early in his career indicates a couple things: 1) the season is all but over at this point and we're testing depth, 2) our OL is just that bad that we're willing to give a 5th round rookie some reps to see what we have. But it likely took our staff until now as he needed to learn the position, and while I would like to see Ducasse retire five years ago, it's still hard to justify starting a 5th round rookie over every other guard on your team. That being said, it could also have something to do with Ducasse not doing well in the run game, and Teller would be more effective in getting Shady the holes he needs to run and develop a run game we haven't seen all season long. The other reason I think you're seeing it now, specifically, was when Ducasse went down against the Bears, Teller and Sirles came in to fill out holes. I imagine they liked what they saw and decided to give him the go against the Jets, supported by the fact that the season was all but over at that point. Simple matter of played well when given the chance and is now getting rewarded. There are also speculative rumors that Castillo sets the starting OL - which to me seems ridiculous if I'm Daboll or McD, even with the personal connections. Guy needs to be the first of our OL department to be shown the door. Ducasse shortly thereafter. I always liked Teller and I'm glad he was given the chance to show what he has right now. He still has much to learn, especially in pass pro but to have him perform at that level as a 5th round pick in his first year? Ridiculous.