Midwest1981

Baker’s shorter but he doesn’t have a smaller frame- he’s more more compact and stronger and carries about the same weight Rosen does at 4” shorter. I still like both.

I shouldn’t be dignifying your flippant response, especially after you tacitly or explicitly called me a “clown.” But if you had really understood or read all that I wrote my entire take was not critical of Allen- he’s a great kid with phenomenal work ethic and drive, he has a very intriguing skill set which if harnessed could pay big dividends, and he’s had no missteps during this draft process and has impressed at every turn. Stull, the idea that his accuracy woes are mostly attributable to “lower percentage throws” has been debunked- ask for a source and I will share it. And to imply accuracy concerns are or have been manufactured... even ardent Allen supporters- even Jordan Palmer and Allen- have admitted it’s been an issue at times. It’s not a death knell but it isn’t conjured up out of thin air.

I've seen him play. And honestly, I was more impressed than I expected to be, especially purely looking at raw stats. I still don't believe he belongs as the consensus #2 QB.

I just came across this. It's not a shock to see a pundit mention this but it could be confirmation of what's mostly my intuition, as well as putting a few things together in a not unnatural way. I guess we'll see. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-draft-rumors-news-2018-josh-rosen-baker-mayfield-seahawks-patriots/we39wjkoszkh1865uxzb1c7fp — Mitchell Trubisky last year was a target of the Bills in a possible trade. Buffalo instead opted not to mortgage its future to move up and get him; it traded down and kicked the can down the road. This year, the Bills’ intention of drafting a quarterback has been clear since the middle of the regular season. They have evaluated Josh Rosen and Josh Allen, and I believe both have been considered throughout the process. Almost everyone I’ve spoken with believes the Bills will find a way to draft Allen. Assuming he doesn't go first overall, they could do it with a trade up to No. 2, No. 4, No. 5 or No. 6.

I buy into Daniel Jeremiah's "opposite theory" as it concerns the Jets and Allen. Two years in between just isn't enough time to get the fanbase to forget about drafting Christian Hackenberg, another QB with notorious accuracy issues (his are so bad that he hasn't even played a snap, not even when the Jets stopped caring about winning last year- he would've been that much of a disaster). Allen would draw too many allusions to Hackenberg, especially since- at least at the moment- he's still on the Jets' roster. Mayfield or Rosen aren't perfect prospects but accuracy and mental processing aren't concerns. I know we all briefly had that hope last week... but I think that ship has sailed. Cleveland's not saving us from ourselves.

I think- for all intents and purposes- the Bills will have two choices, most likely: Darnold won't figure into the equation since he'll go #1 and since the Giants are unyielding in terms of moving out of #2 one of Mayfield/Rosen isn't an option, either, since the Jets will take one. If it comes down to the Josh's... 90% of the board won't like the surname uttered by Goodell in 45 hours, I fear. I read your comprehensive post compiling all of the numbers-based (i.e. analytically driven and not subject to subjectivity/bias) reasons for avoiding Allen. And I've come across all of those at one point this draft season. And I don't disagree. I'm not saying I WANT this to happen- I just feel this is where this is headed. I don't know if having a couple of days to reconcile ourselves to it will lessen the blow. Maybe, maybe not. But please don't be caught off-guard. I hope I'm wrong.

Credit to 26CornerBlitz for finding this and posting it in another thread presently on this first page, but this also confirms that Allen is the consensus #2 QB on teams' boards: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000928334/article/2018-nfl-draft-qb-rankings-execs-like-sam-darnold-over-allen

This is no endorsement; my greatest draft-related fear this spring has been trading a massive amount of assets to move up for the QB who actually NEEDS us to hold onto most of those assets because he (Allen) needs the most help (at least the Giants' refusal to trade out of 2 means it'll cost less than the Bills moving up to #5). But my intuitive sense has been building for a while that Allen is who we'll have in our possession two nights from now. Why do I feel that way? The physical characteristics that would appeal to McBeane are obvious but include prototypical size (and then some), especially for the region of the country in which Buffalo plays, the fact that Allen is mildly reminiscent to Cam between his arm, escapability, and mobility (less mobile, clearly, but an even bigger arm- according to Trent Dilfer it isn't hyperbolic to say THE biggest arm the NFL has ever seen), AND more importantly Allen's humble and hard-working nature seems to embody the culture McBeane wants. I personally really like Baker Mayfield but I feel the Bills feel he doesn't (he'll likely be gone by three, anyway). Allen's play on the field- not just isolating last year, when Wyoming's offense saw many key defections- doesn't warrant being second on the Bills' board.... or any team's board. But according to Charlie Casserly, who spoke to 24 different teams, Allen is the consensus #2 QB. And superficially most of us would agree that's the building consensus, if we're being honest. To Allen’s credit, he’s had a “clean” draft process and has impressed at every turn. Mind you, we’re taking about against a defense that isn’t allowed to blitz (Senior Bowl) and in a t-shirt and shorts (Combine and Pro Day). But some teams still see (what they believe to be) real progress. And though it's dumbfounding (the durability concerns are valid; character concerns are overblown at best)... Josh Rosen just hasn't been able to shake matters related to likability and get teams to buy in. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2770325-love-and-football-nfl-insiders-on-the-josh-rosen-question-and-why-it-matters?share=twitter Since it seems Darnold is still going 1st overall (if Benjamin Allright is vindicated), Baker's going 3 and has an incompatible personality anyway, and teams are generally lukewarm on Rosen... it leads to Allen. Don't shoot the messenger. But don't be surprised. And brace yourselves for it.

If the sweet spot of this draft (once the top-tier, blue-chip guys are gone) is truly the 2nd and 3rd rounds... and maybe even if it’s not because I’d argue 53, 56, & 96 are collectively more valuable than just 22... I’d rather give up 22 than all three of those picks. Some pundits had posited than the difference between 25 and 45 in a draft like this will be minimal. So I’d rather part with 22 (just 22) to move up to 6.

2004 produced 3 (Eli, Rivers, and Big Ben) and 2012 somewhat anonymously produced 3 (Luck- when healthy, Wilson, and Cousins). And then 2004’s Schaub was similar to 2012’s Tannehill in that both haven’t/didn’t become franchise QB’s but still experienced some success. So there’s a precedent for 3 franchise guys and one other still reasonably success QB. Shoot, by that standard 1983 produced 3 franchise QB’s (Elway, Kelly, and Marino) with Ken O’Brien as that class’ Schaub/Tannehill. I’ll say that’s what this class produces, too, with placement still critical in determining who emerges and who underwhelms/disappoints.

I am very glad our postseason drought is off our backs because right now I think we’re too talent deficient at quite a few spots to not expect to experience a drop-off in our record, coupled with a seemingly treacherous schedule. I would just rather trade 12, 22, and one of our 3rd’s for #5 than include a potential top-10 2019 1st.

This schedule, especially the start, highlights the need to hold onto our 2019 1st. Fortunately, if our draft day move involves trading up to the 5-6 range versus #2 and its exorbitant cost we probably don’t have to include it in our QB pursuit.

Daniel Jeremiah just did confirm on the "Rich Eisen Show" that the "crazy" rumor Bucky Brooks cited and tweeted out about ccentered around the "Bills efforts to move up for a quarterback." Like we already knew but it has been confirmed... or at least the rumor has been (not necessarily the validity of it). Jeremiah also stated that the people he's spoken to connected to the Bills have told him that any move- if there IS a move- wouldn't likely happen until teams are on the clock.

Allen had a significantly superior supporting cast in 2016 (including a couple of 2017 draft picks in Brian Hill and Chase Roullier) and his completion percentage was actually lower that year at 56.0% (compared to 56.3% this past fall). Allen also was 58th out of 59 qualifying QB’s in completion percentage at the JUCO level in 2014 and completed just 49.0% at Reeding. His accuracy issues aren’t hopeless but they’re not manufactured, either, and need vast improvement.

This article by Bill Barnwell from earlier in the week at least answers your question as it affects these QB's 2017 season: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects

I'm actually not opposed to the Bills moving up for a QB, even as high as #2 and sacrificing both of our 1st's this year as well as next year's 1st, in addition to a 2nd (likely this year), as long as it's for the right QB. Ideally, IMO, that isn't Allen because he represents a dicier proposition at a position that already doesn't yield a success rate tantamount to any sort of guarantee. Even more ideally, the Bills can move up #4-6 for Rosen/Mayfield and sacrifice considerably less assets, perhaps as "few" as 12 & 22. Still, whoever the QB is IF we trade up for one, the idea that Buffalo can just spend its way out of its talent deficit and pervasive roster holes next spring ignores many facts, including that MANY teams will be equipped with considerable cap space (a result of the cap rising $10 million each of the last 5 years with no end in sight, plus the ability to carry over cap from year to year). AND in the NFL it's rare to spend your way into contention. It can be done; the Jaguars have demonstrated that. But with the existence and prevalence of the franchise tag it's generally rare that truly high-quality "unblemished" FA's, guys with no question marks or concerns like age, injury, or character issues, hit the market. As I heard someone describe NFL free agency this offseason: "You have to not only buy into the player; you also have to buy into the reason they're a free agent." Eschewing cheap labor in draft picks and trusting the Bills to spend their way to an offense- to a total TEAM- in FA (where players are almost invariably overpaid) seems like an unlikely hope.

Thanks for pointing that out to Dawk. Yeah, it was never going to take #13, our early 2nd, and a 2005 1st to move up to 10 in 2004. And if the Texans would’ve turned that down... wow.

Clearly we need a QB- clearly we’re going to draft a QB. I’d rather attempt a move up at #4 or #6 for Rosen/Mayfield because at least the astronomical cost is reduced. But the best decisions are rarely made out of desperation and a team like the Giants can smell blood in the water. We “need” a QB but let’s not pigeonhole ourselves and say that- no matter what- we’re moving up for a QB. The last time we earmarked our first pick for a QB, no matter what, was in 2013. At least we moved down but we still predetermined our move. This QB crop is better, absolutely. But if I’m Buffalo I’m still mindful and cognizant of the cost- I’m not making this move no matter what and expecting to just be able to build around this QB with a slashed draft class this year and following years and through FA where good deals- even good players aren’t frequently found.

I guess I just don’t find those guys you mentioned to be a different caliber of guys than the type we were bringing in before Nix became GM in 2010: Dockery and Langston Walker in 2007, Kawika Mitchell in 2008, Owens in 2009, etc.

I disagree with the premise that Nix “fixed our FA draw.” Other than Mark Anderson, who was a sizable bust, you’re just talking about Mario Williams. And our offer was 6 years, $96 million (over half guaranteed)... six years ago. And even Williams took two whole days to decide to accept. My point wasn’t so much as self-defeating as it was the unvarnished truth. It’s not that Buffalo can’t appeal to anyone, though generally we have to demonstrably overpay. It’s that Buffalo doesn’t have the natural appeal of Los Angeles and most other markets.

I thought that the Rams might be mentioned. I would argue are situation isn’t entirely the same because Los Angeles had in place more existing talent, including a couple of top-10 talents in Aaron Donald (THE best defensive player in the NFL) and Todd Gurley. Secondly, the draw and appeal of playing in L.A. greatly trumps the draw and appeal of playing in Buffalo. Even excluding FA’s and talking about guys we could trade for, a Marcus Peters or Talib come to Los Angeles with excitement- they’d come to Buffalo with reluctance.

Let me be clear: I'm actually NOT opposed to moving up for a QB- I'm still just very leery of the cost to go from 12 to 2, given the draft chart which already places a very disproportionate value of top-5 picks and given the premium the Jets paid to go from 6 to 3 which set the precedent/price. And especially leery of doing so for a QB like Josh Allen, given the time he needs to sit/wait (up to two whole years) before even being ABLE to competently to play the position. But that's not the material point. ALL of these QB's need better help than we've surrounded them with to this point. And the idea that we can spend our way out of the problem next offseason when A) FA prices are always inflated, B) we're competing with most of the league because of the league has significant cap space (or projects to/will in a year), and C) when it's rare that high-quality players with no baggage even make it to the market... that just doesn't seem like a highly plausible answer. Your resort to sarcasm (and what biting sarcasm it was) to make your point doesn't speak too well for your character. But I don't know you so maybe I'm wrong. To indulge you despite your dismissive sarcasm, we don't know what picks we'd have left in 2019 if we traded up to #2, for one. At minimum, the rising expectation is that we'd have to trade our 2019 1st, meaning our first pick won't come until the 40's to begin with. Second of all, there are two sides of the football- it's unreasonable to think that other teams won't prop up on defense that will need addressing and that we'll need to allocate resources for.

Let me preface my post with the recognition that Buffalo has a whopping $30 million in dead cap this year, which leads the league by nearly double. So our cap space this offseason has been finite. Still, Buffalo DID spend some $$$ this offseason (5 years, $50 million for Star; up to $27 million for 3 years for Trent Murphy) and very little of it was used in any way that would meaningfully assist or complement a rookie QB, particularly one that we would trade up to #2 for and potentially sacrifice all of our 1st-3rd round 2018 picks (12, 22, 53, 57, 65, & 96) OR both 1st's, our 2019 1st, and a little more. None of that is to say that the Bills won't still do that, but it seems like an odd course of action if they did. Buffalo still has virtually no speed at WR. Kaelin Clay- our only move at wideout- may offer some, but he's a marginal player to begin with. At RB, Chris Ivory is an improvement over Mike Tolbert, but that isn't saying much. At TE, we've been static but Charles Clay's knee condition is chronic. And finally along the OL, we're still poor on the right side and our only move was signing Russell Bodine, a player Bengals' fans couldn't were ecstatic to rid themselves of, to compete with Ryan Groy, to replace a better and established player in Eric Wood. Two last notes: 1) I like McDermott but he still hails from the defensive side of the ball. And our new OC- Brian Daboll- has a little experience with the innovative FBS offenses being integrated in the NFL. But even granting him little talent to work with in previous stops, he doesn't have a track record of success. Anyway, this just seems like an odd tack to take if you plan to trade all/most of the meaningful draft assets you've amassed for a rookie QB, who needs help even in the BEST situation and with the MOST innate talent. Which brings me to point #2... 2) The fallacy for believing Buffalo can just spend their way out of this problem in 2019 with our cap space ignores many facts, including that many teams will be equipped with considerable cap space (a result of the cap rising $10 million each of the last 5 years with no end in sight, plus the ability to carry over cap from year to year). AND in the NFL it's rare to spend your way into contention. It can be done; the Jaguars have demonstrated that. But with the existence and prevalence of the franchise tag it's generally rare that truly high-quality "unblemished" FA's, guys with no question marks or concerns like age, injury, or character issues, hit the market. As I heard someone describe NFL free agency this offseason: "You have to not only buy into the player; you also have to buy into the reason they're a free agent." Eschewing cheap labor in draft picks and trusting the Bills to spend their way to an offense in FA (where players are almost invariably overpaid) seems like a dicey proposition.

Yeah, I don't know- I'm perplexed by Greenberg's decision to be marginalized like he has been (when I thought the idea was for him to be featured, like you). I know he wanted to work in Manhatten instead of Bristol, so that was part of it. Honestly, I used to DVR "Mike & Mike" but don't think "Wingo & Golic" is consistently good enough to justify it; sometimes in the afternoons here at work I'll check out their podcasts from that morning and just listen if they had an Adam Schefter, Louis Riddick, Jeff Darlington, etc. on it. "Mike & Mike" was great. Since it's gone and "Get Up" is questionably watchable I'm glad I can at least listen to "The Rich Eisen Show" from 11a-2p CST while I'm working.

I agree- I was excited for "Get Up" because I was an avid view of "Mike & Mike" and always found Greenberg to be more insightful. But it's been a big disappointment so far. They're debating topics like, "Who has the best handle in the NBA?" Just dumb. I don't like it as much but at least "Golic & Wingo" have kept the same format as "Mike & Mike": talk about the events of the day/week and get quality and knowledgeable guests.