Dark

I think 7 to 10 win range feels about right. The key to this season is establishing the running game with Shady and Motor and then play action deep shots will obviate completion percentage and play to Josh's strengths. The defense will be Top 10 and could be elite in the coming years. I think Josh will end up with something like 3,400 pass yards 22 TDs and 13 INTs with ~400 rush yards and 3 TDs, but the ability to establish the run will be the key to wins.

I think I got all my skepticism out tonight. I hope Josh Allen has a Hall of Fame career.

I think trying to analyze what a player is going to do in the NFL by their comments and reaction to the draft is just noise. Completion percentage on the other hand . . .

Are the stats invalid? Or are they more valid than anecdotes like "he played with a lot of bad players at Wyoming, so his completion percentage doesn't matter"? And the pattern of inaccuracy does matter. The basis of the critique of those who didn't want Allen was his low completion percentage. It has been an incredibly consistent predictor of what a QB will do at the next level. I don't think most fans are raging against Allen because they personally dislike him or want him to fail, it's just that a low completion percentage is a BIG RED FLAG.

He also has played in snow, so there is that.

Has he always had a bad supporting cast or is he just inaccurate?

Whoa. "Morally a sleezeball" for calling a football player a bust?

Here is the value of the two trades based on the commonly accepted trade value chart. Yes, the value between 7 and 10 is different. The Bills still got fleeced:

Love this pick. He brings a lot of qualities Preston Brown didn't have.

How is your hypothetical "just a fact"? Aren't you "making things up"?

So if they gave up all of next year's draft for the 5th pick, we couldn't talk about the disparity because the picks are "very different". bull ****. The Bills overpaid.

1. We gave up two second rounders in a deep draft to move up 5 spots. The Cardinals gave up a 3rd and a 5th to move up 5 spots. And we probably didn't even need to trade up. That may not be giving up the farm, but damn, I'd rather have those two second rounders if we didn't need to move. 2. You argument is very compelling. I'm worried that he hasn't completed 60% of his passes in a single season going all the way to middle school, but your "Hahahaha" has changed my mind.

Why trade up for Allen? He's gonna be a bust.

I agree. I think many draft prognosticators underestimate the message sent by a team when taking a QB early. It really defines where the organization is going and many GMs don't want to intentionally cause drama on their teams. I believe this applies to the Giants, Broncos, and Dolphins in this year's draft of teams who are rumored to be looking at QB.

I'm not sure that I think McD is good or bad or whatever. I guess I hope for the best. To me, it seems that a franchise that is willing to clear everyone else out and hand the reigns to a first time head coach lacks a compass. By way of example, the Steelers didn't hire Mike Tomlin and hand him the keys to the franchise. Instead, they have a sense of what they are as an organization and they hire personnel to fit their formula. It smacks as desperation that we are willing to put so much responsibility at the feet of an unproven coach. What does that say about the Bills?

So the gist of your argument is: Good corners are valued and often overpaid after their rookie contract so it is a bad idea to get talented corners in the first round of the draft and pay them less for their most productive years? Cornerbacks are overrated, yet teams commonly overpay for them in a league that has heavily shifted toward a pass heavy philosophy? We have the best quarterback in perhaps the history of the NFL in our division and we should patchwork our secondary with late round picks? Gotcha.

I agree completely with the OP and that isn't even presuming that the Bills will definitely get their franchise quarterback next year. In this draft where there is a depth of talent, trading back makes a ton of sense. We got a top 3 cornerback at the end of the first round and picked up extra assets. Kudos OBD! Let's keep it going.

I was glad Gimore's name did not come up at all during the broadcast. Evidences he had a good game.

I think the question of what to do with Tyrod Taylor is exceedingly difficult, and I'm glad I don't have to make it. I think there are a lot of positives. He's a supreme running threat, which matters for the type of team Rex and Whaley have built and given the late season weather in Buffalo. He doesn't turn the ball over - 11 turnovers in 25 games - which matters for the type of team we have and is probably directly attributable to his winning record as a starter. (Not coincidently, EJ had three turnovers in the two games he started last year, both losses.) He throws one hell of a deep ball, which is important when lining up Goodwin and Watkins on the outside. There are certainly negatives too. Accuracy. Seeing the open man. Getting the ball out quickly. Getting the ball moving for scores when we are trailing late in games. I'm having a hard time thinking of a late comeback authored by TT . . . So, here's my thinking: Is the defense is going to be a top 10 defense for the next several years? With the investment in Lawson, Washington, Hughes, Ragland, Dareus, the Browns, and Darby, I'd say that a top 10 defense is a better than 70% chance. If that is the case, then the window is open now for a contending team and resigning Tyrod to be the starter makes sense. Not sure what the contract would look like against our cap, but I would rather spend the money on Tyrod for the next three years than play the QB carousel that simply hasn't worked since Jim Kelly left. I would resign him even if that means we make the playoffs even once in the next three years. Through the "Tyrod Sucks" clamor, I don't hear what better option is waiting out there, so I'd continue to bring in QBs via the draft until we hit on one.

As soon as I saw the topic the first thought that popped into my head for overrated was Cornelius Bennett. Yes, he was a two-time defensive player of the year (yet isn't in the HoF), but the attention paid to Bruce Smith freed Biscuit in the same way it allowed Bryce Paup to win DPoY in 1995. Underrated, I would have to say John Fina. He was plugged into left tackle as a late first round pick in 1992 and while he never made a Pro Bowl, he was a cornerstone on a team that made the playoffs 5 of the 10 years he was a Bill.

What if the criteria for such a penalty to be enforced is if multiple referees throw their flags? So at least two set of eyes had to see the penalty for it to be enforced. It would avoid the appearance of corruption and prevent egregious penalties like the one we saw in London.

What a horrible thread full of lame dick measuring. TT was good when he needed to be. He won the game for the Bills today with a huge assist from a defense put in the worst of situations today in the first half.

The article vaguely says, "Many of these employees set the prices of players and the algorithms for scoring. In short, they make the market." Edit: Yeah, Coastie nailed it.

Interesting topic. I tend to agree with those who say that it is ideal to allow a young QB to ease his way in, but they have to be talented to succeed. Sitting a young QB isn't some magic bullet to make the Aaron Rogers-level good. I think the better question is: can a truly talented QB be "ruined" by starting too quickly in the NFL? That used to be the thinking even in the late 1990s - Steve McNair and Dante Culpepper were both highly drafted players who sat their entire rookie years, for instance. Is it that being rushed lowers the ceiling while sitting for a couple years maximizes a young QBs ceiling? How much does confidence matter if a young QB has the skills? Will skills win out in the long run?