Last Guy on the Bench
-
Posts
799 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Last Guy on the Bench
-
-
6 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:
Very nice post and I agree with the majority of it. I realize that it is a gray area, but I’d put Flacco on Dalton’s level or vice-versa. Both give a team a chance at success, but neither(nor the tier above) can single-handedly carry a weak team to playoff success.
i think that many herethink that getting a QB high in this draft somehow guarantees that the team will magically compete for the Super Bowl every year even if the supporting group is poor. I think that there is a very low probability of that happening.
Yeah, QBs like Flacco and Dalton are tricky. My knee-jerk was to differentiate them on playoff wins, but that's crude. They may not be that different. I think they are both definitely franchise guys. I'd probably put them both at level 2 rather than level 1. The Bengals have been in the playoffs regularly with Dalton, I think. Just haven't won one. But again, that's not necessarily mainly on Dalton. Plus I love him for last year, so from the Bills' point of view he should actually be at Level 4!
-
Great question, since we all throw the term around so much, and we mean different things.
For me, I don't think you can look at absolutes like winning the Super Bowl - too many other factors go into that. We all want to win the Super Bowl, but first and foremost I want to consistently enjoy my team, I want it to be relevant, and I want it to feel like it has a regular chance to win the big one. So I would combine some of the different definitions in this thread into three levels of franchise. Each level would include the criteria of the lower levels.
Level 1) Long-term starter. As a few people have said, that's probably a basic definition of "franchise." This guy is associated with your team in a sustained way. You continue to give him the keys. He may not be a world beater, but starting for 5 years for one team is a MAJOR accomplishment, if we think about all of the thousands of gifted high school QBs, whittled down to NCAA QBs, whittled down to pro contracts, whittled down to starting even one game, whittled down to journeyman, whittled down to this. These Andy Daltons are nothing to be sneezed at. There ain't that many of them.
Level 2) Is a major contributor to a team being regularly in the hunt. This is probably THE key level for me. I'd be super happy to have this again after 25 years without it. Makes the playoffs more often than not. Wins some playoff games. Might have a down year here and there, but bounces back the next year. Teams can ride this QB to relevance and January football enjoyment for 7-12 years. This is gold. This is Phillip Rivers, Donovan McNabb, Joe Flacco, etc. to me.
Level 3) Can put the team on his back at difficult times. Fourth quarters, comebacks, major injuries to other key players, etc. These guys suck to play against. Even when you seem to be controlling the game, outplaying their team, etc., they just make it really hard for you to beat them. They often (not always) just seem to have one more play in them than you do. It isn't always pretty, but it works. You know these guys because even when you are beating them you don't feel good and you are waiting for the other shoe to drop. Conversely, if they are on your team, you always kind of expect to pull the game out at the end. You won't every time, but you still except to. It's very relaxing. These guys don't have to be perfect or win the SB necessarily to me. I would include QBs like Kelly here along with the obvious ones like Brady, Rodgers, Montana, etc. I'd put Wilson here. Roethlisberger. Elway. This is nirvana.
Obviously you can still argue about where guys should be. Where's Eli. for example? -Clearly meets level 1, I think clearly meets level 2, level 3? Sometimes.
Anyway that's my two cents, based purely on what I value and enjoy in a QB for my team. I want one.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:
Well. There was a thread on the owners meetings and topics from it.
Not my fault someone refuses to post in them because he’s prickly.
This definitely deserved its own thread.
Although I appreciate the work to keep the board from getting too cluttered, I am getting weary of having to wade through omnibus threads to find news, fresh topics, and interesting takes. Why should something as general as the owner's meeting have its own thread and be the only place to post on all of the many kinds of topics that might come out during that meeting?
That being said, I acknowledge that this is the best discussion board on the internet. Love it, and I appreciate all the work people do to keep it that way. But maybe we could be a little less intense about jumping on people posting new topics?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Mark80 said:
Jackson is criminally underrated. I'd love to have him. More so than Rosen and Allen. But I prefer Mayfield and Darnold first. Then Lamar.
That's exactly where I am. I'd be thrilled to land him. But my overall ranking is 1)Darnold 2)Mayfield 3)Jackson . . . . .moderate gap in my enthusiasm level to 4)Rosen 5) Allen 6)Rudolph.
And I could probably be talked into Rudolph before Rosen or Allen, though I know I'll get flamed for that.
Frankly, if any of those six land here, I'm happy and intrigued - at least until the first preseason game ;-).
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the read. Enjoyed it, as I do all of your long ones.
Keep it up, and don't let the idiots with the attention span of a chicken get you down. Somehow they still find the time to post in a thread that they don't want to read.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Teddy KGB said:
His whole body of work is no good because he hasn’t faced the jags ?
Lot of haters, he’s clearly better than all the QBs on last year’s roster.
I really hate the way he throws over the middle and red zone with ease, that will never work in a passing league like the nfl. ??
Right? The more I watch him (and I'm starting to watch whole game cutups - not just highlights) the harder it is for me to see why so many people are down on him. He's not a super impressive athlete, to be sure. But he makes quick decisions, seems really accurate, has a nice way of stepping up and shuffling around in the pocket, and has a really good feel for the deep ball, despite not having a super strong arm. Most importantly, I think he often throws effectively into pretty small windows, from what I've seen, including over the middle and in the red zone, as you mention.
I do see that often he is throwing to his first read, as that's the design of the offense. But he does it quickly and accurately. And there are plenty of times where he doesn't like what he sees so he scans the field and finds someone else. He keeps his head up.
I'd be very happy to have him on the team to see what he can do. I don't see him escaping the first round. Maybe he won't be successful, but I can't figure out why so many people are so sure about that. There's a lot to like with him.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, No Place To Hyde said:
RE: Allen sucking.
If he is the way he is now IMO he will bust out pretty quick. But man oh man, if the light comes on for him he really could be the best out of this draft. He has room to grow, just a matter of his development.
Exactly. His best throws are so much better than anyone else's best throws. They are jaw dropping. Obviously not consistent enough, and maybe he never will be. But I can see why people can get enamored of his potential. If the Bills ended up with him, I'd hold my breath and pray, but he surely would be interesting for a while.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, kdiggz said:
This is the QB anxiety thread...I thought I was in a safe space
Ha ha. Fair point. Have at it.
I would hate to admit the number of crazy dreams I've had about the Bills over the last 50 years.
-
39 minutes ago, kdiggz said:
I posted this in another thread but I had a dream the other night that we moved all the way up to 2 and Cleveland picked Barkley so we had our choice of whatever QB we wanted. What an amazing position to be in, picking the top QB in the top QB draft of the decade. We picked Darnold. He ended up being horrible and the QB's selected after were all amazing. I woke up in a panic and I've been watching tape on Darnold ever since trying to figure out what people see in him. He looks bad. I'm very worried now. I said if they traded up I would be happy with whoever they selected but now that this is a real possibility I'm scared they are going to screw it up. Rosen is the best QB in the draft. Don't over think it. Just do it Beane
Dude, you've posted something negative about Darnold not just in that one thread but in EVERY thread lately. We get it. You don't like him. Others disagree. Relax. You don't have to work out your anxieties in every thread. Everyone who reads this board knows how you feel.
-
13 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Smokescreen?
I think so too. My guess is the early rumors about the Bills loving Darnold are legit. They came from way back last summer from scouts scuttlebut IIRC. I think the Rosen and Allen rumors later on were deliberate on their part. I bet they still love Darnold
Darnold is also my first choice at this point - I know he's sloppy, but I just love the way he plays. He looks comfortable and born to play QB. He's got a spark and a command that are rare for a 20 year old. But I'm also intrigued by Mayfield. I kind of buy the Bills' focus on big guys, though, so I don't see them going that way. There was some video in the last day or two where the commentator was talking about that big guy preference on their part. He thought it pointed to Allen, which it could. But either way he was basing it on more than just Beane's prototype comment. He said that Dabol might share the Pats' bias for big guys - apparently the Pats wouldn't even scout QBs that didn't meet their height/weight/hands minimums.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:
Good points, but I just don't understand where Trappaso is coming from.
I have to trust the opinions of the Mayocks, Jeremiahs, Kipers, and McShays of the world over Trappaso. Especially a guy like DJ who is a former scout who is still plugged in. Those draft gurus study a ton of film and have been doing it forever. They are plugged into what NFL personnel people believe. I'm saying that no one else at all is saying what Trappaso is saying, except for people on this board. I think if NFL personnel people felt good about Rudolph, it would be reflected in what these guys are saying and their big boards. And even though I am nobody, the things I see reflect what the expert consensus seems to be...that's it's Rosen, Darnold, Allen in whatever order....Mayfield and Jackson....then a huge drop off. Part of the draft is projection and potential, and those guys all have that. Rudolph does not.
And I disagree that the draft is full of surprises. Yeah some guys are over drafted and some guys slip, but for the most part guys tend to go where they are supposed to. Do guys like Russell Wilson and Tom Brady surprise people? Sure...but the draft usually goes the way it is projected. Sometimes guys slip a round when teams start drafting for need, but the top fifty guys are usually the top fifty guys. The mocks are always wrong, but the round guys go in is usually on point.
Fair enough. You're right that while there are always surprises, for the most part guys do go roughly where the "consensus" in the draft media had them, give or take a round. Although that tends to be truer for the late predictions in April than for the earlier ones (at least that's my vague impression). I'm just arguing against the practice of immediately writing off all outlier opinions. Just look at the commentary after any mock draft. "There's NO way that guy will go there" etc. There's always a way. I'm not saying you're doing that.
Anyway, I have no dog in the Rudolph fight. He certainly put up impressive numbers. But we've seen that before. Seems pretty sharp in the few interview clips I've seen. If the Bills do grab the guy somehow, we'll all be praying that Trapasso is right - though it sounds like some of us will be jumping out a window before training camp even gets here!
-
1 hour ago, MrEpsYtown said:
Agreed 100%. How could every NFL personnel person be wrong? Even guys like Jeremiah who was an actual front office guy. Maybe Trapasso and Rudolph share an agent?
I have no idea whether Rudolph will be good or not, but, "How could every NFL personnel person be wrong?" Happens all the time. Especially with QBs.
Not to mention, we have no way of knowing where "NFL personnel" actually have Rudolph ranked. Who knows? Some might have him #1 on their boards.
It kills me that people are so sure about things pre-draft, when every single year their are NUMEROUS prospects who end up defying what was perceived as the consensus before the draft (or even during the draft - when great players are passed over again and agin).
I love all the opinions and analyses and predictions, as much as the next guy. And I waste WAY too much of my time on the draft from Feb-April. Love it. But I just don't get how anyone can claim to be sure about their (or others') opinions or act like someone with a different opinion is "obviously" crazy. Rinse, lather, repeat.
-
It's a great question (despite the fact that no one is answering it).
I'm in the trade up at all costs if there's a QB we like camp. But as you say that might not be possible.
There are 5 QBs I would take a flyer on at 21 and maybe even 6 (Rudolph would be the 6th). So with your original 4 QB premise, I'd still probably use one of the picks on a QB and pray.
If all 5 or 6 QBs were gone, then I'm with you. Trade down if possible. Accumulate picks. Add solid players. Maybe take a mid-round flyer on one of the second tier QBs. And then try to get up high enough in the draft next year again to pick a blue chip QB.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, HardyBoy said:
It's a fair point, and you can dislike her voice and not be sexist, but what is interesting to me is why is that the go to initial response for so many people here. Would that be the same response if that was a male announcer with essentially the same voice, or would you focus on more concrete and quantitative aspects to use as an example for the issues you have with that announcer?
For what it's worth, I initially didn't like Mowins' voice when I heard her to Cuse games, but after a couple games it stopped being an issue/never was an issurle in the first place. I didn't throw a fit saying I would mute the game, like many here. I listened, got used to her, and acknowledged I had a bias which is out of my control, while not allowing myself to be a slave to those biases. I am a human being with the ability to control, supress and understand my body and mind's initial responses. I did so, and realized it was an issue of me adapting to change and once my mind and ears got used to it, I stopped noticing her voice having features that were jarring.
So, no you are not sexist for having that initial response, you are fair in saying that people need to chill out and listen to people's opinions that they might now agree with without summoning an angry twitter mob.
That said, you are sexist if you do not acknowledge that you might have some preconditioned societal biases that have been ingrained in you, and you shut yourself off from the concept that approaching it with an open mind and fighting past your initial reaction you realize you have a filter over your ears that was placed there by society...it's all about personal growth, and realizing that our intial responses are not who we truly are.
Thank you for being the voice of reason here. Your posts are refreshing. I doubt that many people will take in your point that our first reactions are conditioned (not just "reality" or "my opinion"). Well, they'll admit it's true for other people, just not for them. But it's nice that you are taking the time to write thoughtfully about the fact that the "it's her voice" argument is nowhere near as simple as it appears.
Personally, I found her decent. Easy to listen to. Some unfortunate stumbles, but what else is new? Most announcers make them regularly. It is too bad that she kept calling Taylor McCoy, since it's easy ammunition for anyone who doesn't want to reflect on this issue with more nuance.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Dkollidas said:
I would put the over/under at 4 or 4.5, and I’d take the over, especially if Darnold comes out.
Rosen
Darnold
Mayfield
Jackson
Allen
Rudolph
I think at least the first 5 will go in the top 32 for sure. With Rudolph it just depends how many go ahead of him and who comes out for the draft.
I'd take the over too. I know some of the sheen has come off of this class, but I still really like it. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up almost comparable to 1983 with 5 or 6 QBs taken in Round 1 and maybe 3 of them turning into franchise players, if not HOFers. If I had to guess, I'd say Allen doesn't actually get taken in R1, but gets snapped up in R2. I think the other five you list have a good chance of going in R1 or at least early R2. I would be pretty happy with any of them except for Allen.
-
On 12/4/2017 at 8:11 PM, dave mcbride said:
I think Darnold is going to be great. I'd also be shocked if he goes back to school. I've said it before, but I really suspect he goes #1 overall if he comes out. He's got it all, and his team wins with him in there. They were not winning prior to his taking the starter's job last year.
I agree, though I admit I'm much less knowledgeable than you guys who follow college ball closely during the season.
I watched a bunch of his games last year. Haven't seen much this year, though I will try to catch up, but I do understand people's concerns about the drop off.
But Darnold is super young still, and I think he just has "it" - the stud QB version of "it". So a rocky-ish year doesn't bother me, and as you said, he wins.
He may have a rough first couple of years in the NFL, but I feel like he'll end up as one of the top QBs in the league.
I know it's highly unlikely the Bills could get their hands on him. Best scenario would be Browns take Rosen and the Bills pull off a mega trade with the Colts or Bears, if they are in position. Some people may hope he drops down farther based on an off year, but I doubt NFL GMs are that stupid. I don't see how he gets past the Giants.
I'd be pretty excited about Jackson, Rosen, Mayfield, or even Rudolph. But I'd be over the moon with Darnold.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, KD in CA said:
Yup. Personally I'd rank them Moss, Coryell and Lewis but those are the top 3. TO is #4.
Moss might be the best football player I've ever seen.
I agree. I might put Lewis ahead of Coryell, but your four as a whole seem just right to me. I can't understand any argument against them.
Moss was a total freak and an absolute joy to watch play. Lewis was an all timer - a dominant player who changed games. TO was in the top few receivers in the league for many years and has the numbers to prove it. Coryell paved the way for 21st century football. Don't know how anyone can not vote for any of those guys.
-
Good stuff. Thanks for taking the time to post.
-
I too get nervous thinking about the Bills' recently historical fast starts.
But - correct me if I'm wrong - it seems to me that those teams started quickly while primarily relying on offense. And none of those offenses was loaded with particularly special players. I love Fitz and Freddie as much as the next guy, but they ain't exactly in the HOF discussion. Never mind Trent Edwards.
I think in general that good offense is less stable/reproducible than good defense - unless you have several superstars (QB, WR, OT, and either TE or RB or more WR etc.). So it doesn't surprise me to see a team flash on offense for a while and then fall off the cliff.
Good team defense on the other hand can be pretty consistent due to player cohesion, smart play, intelligent coaching, and guts. Doesn't hurt to have a defensive superstar or two, of course, but I think good team defense is more reliable than good team offense. So I think the 2017 Bills are likely to be a little more consistent over the rest of the season. Doesn't mean they will go 5-2 over the next seven, but I have a hard time imagining them completely imploding now.
The reliance on turnovers is worrisome, though, as others have pointed out. Yes, they are causing many of the turnovers with their technique and gang tackling, and yes, on the other side, Tyrod has proven to be consistently safe with the football. So it's not a total fluke. Nonetheless, their current margin is too wide to be sustainable over the long term. Hopefully the D and the O will keep improving (still a new system for them) so as the turnover differential comes back to earth they will still be able to win.
-
Im expecting a loss. Two tough wins in a row has to have drained these guys to some degree plus were banged up a bit. Add Cincy essentially playing for their season and the fact that they have the third ranked defense and are playing at home makes this an unlikely place to get a win. If we do pull it off it will certainly say something about how good we might really be. Im not expecting it however. Bottom line is it wont change my opinion on this team. Three very winnable games after the bye could put us at 6-2 at the mid point even if we lose sunday.
That's where I am. I was pretty optimistic (though not especially confident) about the last two games. I really think we drop this one. Cincy is good, hungry, and home.
My opinion is that we are a decent team - bordering on good. We should be in most games and will win our share. A loss to Cincy on the road won't change that.
However, a WIN will definitely change my opinion. It would really surprise me, and I think it would be a signal that this team is more than decent. A win this week will make think they are potentially special.
-
A weekly (or more frequent) long-form piece that doesn't just regurgitate coach-speak or player sound bites--along the lines of MMQB / SI content--would go a long way toward justifying the paywall fee. This would involve national outreach and tapping into perspectives beyond the walls of One Bills Drive, but that's exactly what would elevate Bills Blitz beyond the standard daily coverage already being done.
This to me is the biggest issue. Way too many BN columns and articles just refer to the things we all know and use quotes from the press conferences we've all seen (or read the direct transcripts of).
I would definitely pony up the $3 if I felt like people were reaching out to unusual sources or getting perspectives from different people around the league. Tyler Dunne did this really well when he was here - no matter what he was writing about, he would take the time to talk to players/coaches from different cities, retired players, scouts, etc.
I think this is important not just for reporting but also for opinion pieces. Everyone beats up on certain columnists (especially one) for being negative. But it's not just negativity - it's lazy, ill-informed negativity - the kind of stuff I can hear from any radio show caller or the guy sitting next to me at the bar. Someone like Peter King - who can basically spout anything he wants to as a columnist (and does) still takes lots of time to talk to different people around the league and to offer multiple perspectives and insights on any given issue. That is what makes a column more than just some dude's opinion. A little reporting, a little dialogue, a little synthesis. I would happily pay for the site if there was more of that kind of stuff.
Thanks for taking the time to engage.
-
Yes. I say there's good reason to have him up there.
* Name another Bills QB who had us on the brink of the playoffs in the last 12 years.
* 12 games played for 3018 yards (extrapolate those numbers to a full 16 games and we're talking 4000 yards in a full season)
* QBR of 87.8
* 15 rushes, 14 yards with a long of 10 yards in 12 games (extrapolate that to a full season and he would have easily had over 100)
* 18 TD's and 10 INT's is a ratio of 2 to 1...extrapolate that over a full season and he would have had 24 TD's
* Mental toughness and team leader
* If we had him as a rookie in 2005 he probably would have surpassed Kelly (or come close) if you extrapolate his stats from 2014 over the course of nine NFL seasons.
I'm not saying he is a lock to get a place on the stadium Wall of Fame, but the team should give full consideration to his credentials both as a player and team leader considering how he came in a led our team to its best record in a very long time.
Great post, BBF. Made my afternoon.
I've enjoyed watching you shoot the fish in the barrel and will no doubt continue to enjoy it as more swim by (though I'm a little terrified of what appears to be the average intelligence of posters - good God!).
-
True he is going to get knocked a bit for the Air Raid. I do see him going in the First when it all plays out though actually. But right now i see more places have a 2-3rd round grade on him.
And i only watched one game of his so far so i dont have a good feel of him
I've never been a big QB footwork guy - probably because I don't know enough about it to get too worked up either way. But to my untrained eye, Falk has amazing feet. He always looked balanced and light and he makes small shifts in the pocket really easily. Love his poise and accuracy too. I think he would be a great fit here.
I hope people hold the Air Raid against him, because if they don't, I think he could end up going too high for us (you know, given that the Bills and the Chiefs will have playoff byes in the AFC).
-
Poyer is from a small town here in Oregon (Astoria) and was one of the best HS athletes in recent memory. IIRC, he led Astoria to state championships in baseball and football (QB and DB) and was POY in both sports. He had a good career at Oregon State, but the team was bad during his time there so he did not get much attention.
Thanks. You got me intrigued, so I checked out his Wikipedia page. His high school career was ridiculous:
"Poyer played baseball, basketball, and football at Astoria High School. As a freshman, he helped the baseball team win the state championship. As a senior, he was named Oregon's player of the year and was drafted by the Florida Marlins.[1] In 2009, Poyer was named the basketball Cowapa League Player of the Year. He was a quarterback and safety on the football team and had 123 touchdowns in three years. In his senior season, he was the state's player of the year on offense and defense.[1][2]"
Peter Schrager: somehow, some way, Sam Darnold is a Buffalo Bill
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I can't even let myself contemplate this possibility. It is too exciting.
I understand that Darnold is a little sloppy and not as developed in some areas as some of the other guys.
But he is the one guy who screams franchise to me. I actually think he is the safest pick, not just the one with the highest ceiling. When I watch him play, I just have confidence in him. He sees things that other QBs tend not to - little windows and angles. He finds a way to make plays at the right moments. He's got that confidence and that kind of idiot savant geometry that all the best QBs have. And pressure doesn't seem to bother him - on or off the field. Can't believe he is so young.
If the Bills somehow manage to get him, it will be the happiest I've been as a Bills fan since the USFL closed up shop and Jim Kelly came to town. Seems too good to be true, though. I don't see how the Browns/Giants/Jets let this guy get past them (or trade down instead of taking him). Guess we'll see.