Shaw66

I try not to fret too much about opportunities the Bills missed, so long as it isn't happening all the time. Sometimes it's just a numbers game, and there's no room for a guy the Bills like. Same with the draft. Sure, you can always look at the draft and thing "too bad the Bills didn't take Ngata or Mahomes or Watt," but so long as the Bills are drafting good football players, the fact that they missed on someone doesn't trouble me too much. Of course, for many years, the Bills WEREN'T drafting good football players but fortunately, those days seem to be behind us. There are a lot of fans of other teams asking why THEIR team didn't draft Milano or White. And as I said, fans of five teams seriously asking why their team didn't draft Allen.

Thanks. I didn't know that. Here's a list of unsigned picks from about a month ago. Most of them are third rounders. https://nfltraderumors.co/unsigned-2021-nfl-draft-picks/

The most amazing part of the 2017 draft was not that we took the right Josh. The most amazing part, with 20-20 hindsight is that Cleveland took Mayfield. Giants, needing a QB, took a running back. Jets took Darnold. Broncos, needing a QB, took a defensive end. Colts, needing a QB but didn't no it, took a guard. Leaving Allen for the Bills. Six picks before the Bills selected, five teams could have taken Allen and didn't.

Why isnt he signed?

High praise for Poyer.

To you and Gunner - I'd guess that top-20 is a little low, but the whole point is that where they rank in some sort of poll where the participants are evaluating individual play isn't really relevant so far as McDermott and the Bills are concerned. If there were a way to do it, I'd like to see a ranking of NFL safeties in these categories: Tackling efficiency (or, to put it another way, missed tackles), assignment execution (percentage of plays where the guy executed his assignment), post-snap decision making (percentage of plays where, faced with an instantaneous decision, the guy adjusted to respond to what the offense is doing and what the other defenders are doing). Those are the categories where Poyer and Hyde shine, and on top of that, they play off each other well, in that each one trusts the other one to react in the right ways. They're called safeties for a reason, and the reason is that they are the last line of defense, their job is to keep the team safe. In that role, those two together are easily top 10, probably top 5. I've had the same feeling about him, but sometimes I wonder if I get swayed by the percentage of big plays a guy makes. Poyer was much more visible in that department last season for sure. But I don't see Hyde missing tackles or out of position or blowing assignments. All those years of watching Jim Leonard convinced me that speed and spectacular plays are not what playing safety is about, and I think that even if Hyde is a bit past his prime physically, his brain power may carry him for a few more seasons. There was a game late last season, late in the game, when the Bills had him back returning a punt. He's a valuable guy. And I don't think you're saying anything else. Happy to have him.

Yes. This. And yes, I'll take them anytime.

Both good examples. Don't know what Donald is like in practice, but he raises the team.

His standards of practice and play and his overall talent lifted the entire offense. That's huge praise for Diggs. Think about that. How many players, other than quarterbacks, can you say that about? JJ Watt, maybe. Who else? They're saying he combines talent and work ethic at the highest levels, and he makes everyone else better. Some have said, and it's probably true, that some, maybe a big piece, of Allen's success last season was attributable to Diggs. Allen had a receiver he always could count on, who always ran the route and always caught the ball. That's a great luxury for a young QB.

Still, no bail is ridiculous. He has a constitutional right to reasonable bail, and unless there are some really unusual circumstances, he isn't likely to flee the country or go on some rampage killing people. Personally, I've never liked the guy. The media made him their darling because he was articulate and funny, but the truth is that what he a loud mouth with an inflated sense of his own importance. There's a reason he didn't stay in Seattle, and the reason is that he's difficult to deal with. I mean, if you were running a football team, and you were evaluating just on-field football skill, why wouldn't you want to keep a Richard Sherman? Still, he shouldn't be in jail.

Well, sure, that's the list of possibilities. But as I suggested, I think the question has to be answered in terms of who you would take if you could have anyone, and the question is three parts: for one game, for the 2021 season, and if you're building a team for the future. As I said, it's a stretch to take several of these guys over Allen. Dak is a stretch, but at least I can see the resume argument, and at his best, Dak has been superb. However, over their last 20-30 games, Dak's best hasn't md Allen's. Baker, you just have to make up arguments; the only way one can prefer Baker is if you compare his 10 best games to Allen's 10 worst. Cousins, too. It would be pure fiction to argue Cousins is better for a game, a season, or a career. Ryan? What Ryan looked like he was 6 or 7 years ago? Okay. But Ryan for the past five years? No. As for Jackson, everyone knows that we're at the end of the Lamar Jackson era.

Well, I agree that's true about the press. But when we're talking about the opinions of coaches and GMs, I disagree. They study more film in a month than any of us watches in years. I say "study" and "watches" deliberately; they not only look at a lot more film, they actually understand what they're looking at. Do some of them still have biases? Of course, but even many of those biases are based on legitimate opinions they've developed watching these guys play. So, I agree with others when I see someone ranked Allen 9th. That's a coach or scout or GM saying he would take eight guys over Allen. I'm hard pressed to see how that could be, whether it's a guy you, want for one game, one season, or one career. Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes, okay. Herbert is a stretch. Watson is a stretch. Every other guy is a stretch. You have to stretch on FIVE guys to conclude Allen is ninth. I don't get that.

I see in Edmunds all the shortcomings others here see in him - doesn't fill gaps, isn't a big hitter, plays the ball poorly on pass defense, etc., etc., but then I ask myself why he is playing every down. There is only one answer, and that is that McDermott and Frazier see him making a big contribution. So, I get it when some coach says that he's a nightmare to plan for. I think there are things going on on the field that most fans, including me, don't see or understand. In Edmunds' case, I've speculated before that it's the combination of his size and speed, that he simply covers more territory on pass defense because he is a step faster and an arm-length longer that other guys playing the middle of a complicated zone-based defense. He gets deep faster, he gets to the sideline faster, he closes on running backs faster than most linebackers. Am I saying he's a great run stopper? No. He still misreads running plays sometimes, and he isn't a great tackler. But I think what coaches see and we don't is that he gets into the vicinity of the play better and more often than most linebackers. He clogs the middle passing lanes better than most linebackers, because he's faster, taller, and longer. He's not a standout, highlight-reel star. I think what he is is a nearly perfect guy to put in the middle of a complex team defense.

Here it is. https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/mcdermott-spoke-with-beasley-following-twitter-rant-confident-players-will-make-good-decisions/

Yes, they do talk about the Bills' safeties, but it usually sounds like in their heads they're prefacing what they say with, "(For guys who aren't elite,) the Bills' safeties are very good." "(These guys aren't stars, but) Poyer and Hyde get the job done."

Of course, but consider the competition. McKenzie's been in the league for four seasons. His best season, he caught 30 passes. He wasn't good enough to win starting time from Beasley with a fractured leg. Davis needed about half of a training camp to move ahead of McKenzie on the depth chart. McKenzie simply isn't much of a receiving threat. Hodgins doesn't have to show a lot be better. He's clearly a gamble. At some point he's just not going to be able to do it any longer, and that point could be any day now. But he's savvy and tough, and even with some diminishing physical skills, he may be able to do more for Allen than Brown did. He is one smart receiver.

Yes, it is kind of amazing that someone ranked Allen 9th. What 8 QBs are you taking ahead of him, either for one game, for one season, or for the next ten seasons. Stanky, I have a theory about the safeties. I don't know whether either of them are top 10 - there are 64 starting safeties in the league, so top 10 is pretty elite. And Poyer and Hyde aren't glamour guys. The announcers rarely yack about them, because they aren't flashy like the honey badger or Buddha Baker or guys like that. They don't have a high quotient of sensation plays. They also aren't big hitters. So, it makes some sense to me that others got named ahead of them. The value of Poyer and Hyde is how they understand the system and how they play together. They are very valuable to the Bills, because they are so solid as a deep tandem, always where they need to be to be. They blitz well and they attack the run well, but that too is evidence of solid play, not highlight reel play. They're quietly excellent.

That's where I disagree. Hodgins already showed promise, and it's easy to see him as a better downfield receiver than McKenzie. All that has to happen is Stevenson has to win the punt return job. If he does, he certainly can run the jet sweep. What McKenzie has going for him is experience. He knows how to make all the necessary reads, he knows the audibles, he knows the blocking assignments - all better than I'd expect Stevenson can this season. Still, I wouldn't call it a longshot. Veterans get cut every year.

As I said above, I wouldn't be so sure. It's all about competition. He fought his way onto the roster a few years ago, and he could lose his spot the same way. If Beasley plays, with Sanders, Davis, and Diggs, there are only two or three wideout spots left. If Stevenson wins the punt return job and can run jet sweeps, McKenzie could be in trouble - not because he isn't good enough, but because someone else looks better.

I'm not the most up to date, but I don't recall seeing anything about Cole. My eyes glaze over with the press trying to make news of the COVID stuff. I found it hard to understand what Beasley was saying with his tweets that caused the uproar in the first place. Still, I expect he'll be on the roster and playing in September, either vaccinated or living with whatever COVID restrictions there are.

That's a good way to look at him. Every season, people are counting him out, and every season he's there in September.

I think of McKenzie as on the bubble every season. He has stuck, year after year, with his versatility - punt returner, slot receiver, jet sweep guy. That's made him valuable. But at receiver and punt returner, he has never been able to become the starter. I look at Stevenson as a serious threat to McKenzie. He has speed, punt returning experience. His downside is that he has to show a lot of ability right out of the box for McDermott to trust him as a rookie. But McDermott showed that confidence in Bass last season. Now, maybe Beasley will be gone, for a collection of reasons, and McKenzie's experience may say him. But if Stevenson can return punts and run jet sweeps, Sanders can play the slot and Davis (and maybe Hodgins) can cover the #2 wideout spot, McKenzie's utility is less valuable. No one's spot on the roster is guaranteed. It's all about competition. McKenzie likely will find himself in a battle.

38,000 isn't 70,000, but we never had trouble getting out after games at the Rockpile. All the way downtown would be a little more congested, but with thoughtful game-day traffic planning, and probably a new highway ramp or two, downtown could handle the traffic. Plus, downtown would offer bars and restaurants that would attract some fans after the game, keeping them off the road for a few hours. Especially after a 1 o'clock game - walk out of the part into a sports bar and watch the late game. But just because it would work downtown doesn't mean it's a good idea to put it there. People love the water; waterfront property is really valuable. If it were cleaned up today, people would be climbing over each other to build on Buffalo's lakefront. Putting thousands of tons of steel and concrete into a stadium that gets used 10 or 15 days a year wastes a valuable asset.

Not all corners are equal. A stadium, parking, and highway access would permanently occupy some of the most valuable property in Western New York. Buffalo doesn't need a stadium downtown, and there's plenty of land elsewhere. I agree about southern Ontario. I always thought that was the place to build. Bring Niagara Falls, NY to life with hotels, restaurants, the stadium. It would be an easier drive for fans from the east, easier for fans from Ontario. If New York State were willing to pay for the whole thing, then I would have thought the state would have insisted on Niagara Falls. But the state won't write the big check, and the Pegulas or other private money will have to step up, and once that happens, the Pegulas become the important player at the table. It's their team, and if it's their money, too, well, it's their call. OP makes the most sense from their point of view.

I agree. OP is certainly the simplest way to go. Plus, it's the least disruptive for the Bills, which I would think the Pegulas find attractive. I suspect that there will be some infrastructure upgrades that will improve pre- and post-game traffic to some extent. I've always been opposed to downtown. The key to growth in any city is economic development, and a stadium and parking lots is not good for economic development. That land eventually will be more valuable if used for commercial or residential development. Doubly true if you're taking waterfront property. Lots of cities are planning to remove the interstate highways from downtown. I think there's at least talk, if not plans, to get rid of the Kensington Expressway. Why would cities do this? Because it's become apparent infrastructure is not the best used for urban land surface land. Ditto a stadium. Some of the land at a downtown stadium site might look cheap and unused today, but times change. Ten years from now, that land could be much more valuable for development, and the acres occupied by a stadium and parking will look like a foolish investment. Buffalo's made a good start at a comeback. Growth and economic recovery are underway. Major league sports is an important part of making a city attractive, but where those teams play is less important. OP is fine.