Shaw66

It's probably true that the Bills are looking for guys who could be useful mid-season if one of the DTs goes down. But I think it's more than that. There have been a lot of DTs coming through over the past couple of months, and not at other positions, even though DT isn't necessarily a high-injury-risk position. Why hasn't there been a similar parade at other positions? I think another explanation is that McDermott has particular roles in mind for his DTss - he needs them to play a particular way. I'm not expert enough at the position to say what those things are, except that it's clear he like versatility in the interior of the line. He likes guys who can play the 3-tech and the 1-tech, which is an unusual combination. Because McDermott is all about disguising his defense pre-snap, I think he wants guys in the D-line who could attack in a variety of ways from where they line up. That sort of versatility makes calling blocking assignments at the line of scrimmage more difficult at the line of scrimmage. So I think the DT parade is in part about finding guys with versatility and quickness (as well as the right character attributes). Also, the emphasis on veterans continues.s McBeane's strategy is clearly to load the roster with guys who know how to play in the league, who know how to practice. They aren't looking for projects. Draft young talent, sign some undrafted talent, then surround the young guys with veterans.

The NFL has gone the route of the NBA in some respects. By limiting the ability of corners to play in contact with receivers, they've reduced the importance of physical strength at cornerback, and emphasized speed and quickness. Just like eliminating handchecking and contact away from the basket in the NBA. The result in both cases is that there is no great advantage in being big and strong playing defense on the edge of the offense - the corners in football and the guards in basketball. Unless you're one of the world's most extraordinary athletes, extra height and weight at corner just tends to make you a little bit slower and a little less quick, so you can't play the position quite as well as the smaller guys. Of course, we see the speed and quickness think all over the defense. Smaller edge rushers, faster safeties. Edmunds is the real anomaly, with cover linebacker speed and enough bulk to play the middle. Milano couldn't have played OLB in some earlier eras, when size was as important as speed. In the earlier eras, when corners could hit the receivers all over the field, it was easier to play man-to-man, so teams needed less zone, so they didn't need cover linebackers so much, so the linebackers could be bigger and play the run more aggressively. Now, with receivers free to roam the defensive backfield without fearing for their lives, defenses need cover linebackers to play the short or even deep zones, so the linebackers have gotten smaller and faster, which opens up the running game. Butch Byrd was 6', 211, and he was a monster in the 60s. He was an outstanding punt returner, even though he carried 20-30 pounds more than the average punt return man. He was a bit of freak at that size.

Tom Janik, 6'3", 190. Long and lean. Played more safety than corner.

Over and over, and I'm surprised by it every time. These guys have no fear. Hauschka's at least a solid NFL kicker; not the star we'd hoped, but more than serviceable. But McBeane want more. Sometimes a rookie comes in at some position and simply blows everyone away, makes a clear case that if he isn't already better than the vet, he will be soon. Those decisions are relatively easy. But at least based on what was being reported out of camp, Bass wasn't clearly better than Hausch. What Bass did have was better upside. We knew what the best was we'd see from Hauschka, and it is clear that Bass could be better. The risk, of course, is that Bass turns out to be inconsistent or can't take the pressure. There's no way to know that until they see him in games for a season. In other words, Hausch wasn't likely to make the big kick and win a game; Bass is. On the other hand, Hausch wasn't likely to miss the routine kick and lose a game; Bass could be. It takes courage to make that call and go with the unproven guy with bigger upside. McBeane have shown over and over that they aren't afraid of those moments. They make the bold decision and live with the consequences.

Oh, man, if Allen is down for a few games, you wouldn't want to have Winston, Mariota, Flacco, Dalton or Keenum instead of Barkley? Frankly, I'm hoping Fromm fights his way to the backup spot. Fromm could be a Keenum. I do agree, however, that there are plenty of names above Barkley that I'd lump with Barkley and several names below him. Unproven or worse is a good description.

Well, people can argue that point all day long. That's what's good about putting them in categories rather than simple rankings. There's a large group of guys in Barkley's category - a group of guys who you definitely do not consider long-term starter material, who probably can manage the game for you okay and may even make a play for you once and a while, but is probably not going to carry your team to any big wins. Put another way, the guys in Barkley's group will make you count the days until your starter returns - their time on the field is not going to start a QB controversy when the starter gets healthy.

Schaub stuck out for me, too. He was a great backup before he became a starter, and then as his starting career faded, it seemed like he just lost whatever it was that made him effective in his early days. I didn't study their methodology, but I think there isn't a simple, or maybe even a complicated, way to determine the best backups. One way is to ask a simple question: If you're starter is down for a game or two, who do you want to bring off the bench. That is the most important question. I think this list is pretty good if that is the frame of reference. But if the question is "you're the GM and it's February, who do you want as your #2 QB?" That question is a little different, because that question is also about who is the best guy to be the #2 guy in your QB room during all those weeks when your starter is not down. Winston is the obvious best choice when you're answering the first question but probably isn't the best choice when you're answering the second. Keenum may be the best if you want the quality in response to both questions. And the third question is who is the guy I want to be my backup for two or three seasons? That question is about the QB room, but it's also about continuity. And the answer to that question depends on whether you feel like you need a guy who will challenge for the starting job (like in Chicago) or not challenge (like in Green Bay) or not challenge but be training to replace the incumbent (like in New Orleans). It also begins to disqualify some guys, like Winston, Flacco and Dalton, all of whom probably want to be starters again and aren't that interested in making a career out of being an advisor to the young starter and getting an occasional spot start. So any given team's answer to the question "who is the best backup" depends on how the team is thinking about issues like that, and different teams will take different approaches. As I said, Winston to New Orleans is perfect, because he's the best backup if you need him for a game or two, and he's also the guy you want to train to replace Brees.

I agree. I doubt Newton will know the system and have the discipline to run it. The unknown is how much Belichick will modify the system to get Newton's talent on the field.

Learning the position is cumulative. Reps, reps, more reps, film study, games, more reps, etc. So yes, Josh is missing something with reduced work. But he is still learning. I'm not too worried. If Josh jas what it takes, 2020 wont keep him from succeeding over his career.

Good question. I'm planning on driving two or three hours into the broadcast area and renting a motel room. Gotta be a better way than that.

All the medical data will be shared, including testing data. Even with delays, teams will go after the talent they need.

I don't think you can assume teams will be less active poaching. They also will have plenty of practice squad space and therefore flexibility. Any veteran on the PS will be a target.

Threads get better when you use the ignore feature.

Lynch and Sherman had ego problems real early.

Excellent. This captures what is about.

Well, some phrases are necessary to the culture. McDermott has a system, a process, and he needs everyone to learn the system and follow it. His formula for success is to have everyone follow the process all the time. He has to communicate the system to 100 people and get them to buy into it. In the process, he, like any leader, finds words that work to convey the message, and other words that don't work so well. He repeats the words that work. They become sort of a mantra. Your point is, I think, that no particular words that are necessary. I agree with that. But the only way to teach what he wants to teach is to have some mantras of one sort or another that connect with the team. Do your job, where would you rather be, etc. They're all intended to create a particular frame of mind, to get everyone on the same page. Just win, baby, is a losing mantra in modern football. It says "just go out there and play your game." No professional sport team (except baseball, which doesn't depend on teamwork) succeeds with that approach in this era.

I think Pete Carroll's true genius as coach was that he could maintain a winning culture with egos like Richard Sherman and Beast-Mode. I didn't realiize Thomas was one, too, but it just emphasizes the point.

You're right. Some people ignore how important "team" is to success, and increasingly the best organizations in the world (not just football teams) are building team cultures. Team cultures keep everyone on the team better focused on goals and more willing to cooperate to achieve the goal. I was in an amazing McDonald's yesterday. It was lunch time, and they were busy. There were eight or ten people working, a couple at the drive-through window, several in the back making sandwiches, a couple in front manning the registers, getting drinks, etc. What was amazing was the speed at which they were working, and what was obvious was that they all were focused on the same goal - serving the customers, serving them quickly and accurately. And they were working together, calling to each other about what they needed, with others responding that they had them covered. I could see the satisfaction in their faces. They knew they were killing it. I watched them maybe ten minutes, and they never stopped. As I watched, I wondered how they got that way, and the answer was obvious - they had leadership who had sold them on the importance of service and on the fact that by working together they could deliver service better than by doing it separately. While they worked, each was trying to be the best version of themselves as part of the team. McDermott's objective is to have an entire organization, and not just the players, humming like that McDonald's was humming. So far, he seems to be succeeding. A

I've never done that before. It's an interesting way to look at the team.

Maybe I just haven't any coffee yet, but this post is a wakeup call. At first I thought it was an absurd response to someone's rose-colored-glasses view. Then I read it again. I suppose you could argue about it, but you're probably right. Examine the Bills by position groups, and QB may be the weakest. Actually, I'd say second weakest, behind the tight ends. Without spending a whole lot of time on it, here's a ranking of position groups and a wild-ass, off-the-top-of-my-head league ranking. I won't defend it, because it's pretty hard to know for sure and it's open to a lot of debate: Defensive backs - top 5 Wideouts - top 5 Defensive line -top 10 Offensive line - top 15 Linebackers - top 15 Running backs - top 20 Quarterbacks - top 20 Tight ends - top 25 That's why we keep saying the season hangs on Allen's progress.

Now this is one creative idea. That would be an all-time great memory of games at the Stadium.

Hadn't thought of those ideas. In that case, sign me up!

That's what I think. How do you keep people in their assigned seats. Are they going to have a cop at every section?

That's a good list. Thanks. I don't know, but I bet McBeane would rank Barkley Tier 3 or Tier 4. My only evidence is that if Beane thinks Barkley is Tier 5, he would have gotten someone else. Everything else is just quibbles. Mariota might be Tier 1. Flacco is unique - I wouldn't call him a game manager and he isn't young with promise, but he's probably in the right group. McCarron is, I think, no better than Barkley. RG III is unique, maybe useless on the wrong team, a great spark on another. Thanks.

Thanks for responding. I agree. I'd love to have Hoyer, who started out as one of his young guys, too. Actually, I think Fromm is similar to what you call "high ceiling" guys, although I wouldn't argue, either then or now, that his ceiling is as high. Still, I'm guessing Fromm will have a long career in the NFL. He'll be a Hoyer. Also, when Brady was young and they were winning Super Bowls, Belichick went three or four years with Rohan Davey and then took Matt Cassell in the 7th round. He hasn't always gone the high ceiling route. I don't say any of that to argue with you. I don't disagree that the Bills would be better off with a true high ceiling guy rather than Fromm, or with a Flacco or Fitz if you could get them.