Shaw66

Gaines is just a guy who performed consistently well, and this defense is about consistency. I was sorry to see him go, because he was a real threat to take the job from Wallace. As for Norman, I'm just not prepared to buy the narrative that he's declined physically to the point that he can't play in the league. I don't buy it for a minute, mostly because his so-called "decline" coincided with his move from one of the acknowledged young defensive geniuses in the league (McDermott) to one of the acknowledge dysfunctional franchises in the league (Washington). Richard Sherman has been playing longer than Norman, and nobody's talking about his physical decline. Sherman was coached in Seattle by Robert Saleh, his current defensive coordinator. I''m guessing that Sherman is still a competitor in the league because of brains and coaching much more so than continuing physical excellence, and I suspect that's what we're going to see with Norman, too. That's fair, and I agree it would be nice to have someone better. But I'd guess that if you look around the league, Wallace is in the top half of #2 corners. Maybe not top half of pure cover corners, but top half in corners playing all aspects of their position. Pretty tough to complain about that.

Okay, I read it. It makes at least a credible point - that Wallace was the weakest link in an excellent defense, and the Bills didn't get better at the position during the off-season. They lost Kevin Johnson, EJ Gaines opted out. They've added "only" Josh Norman and Dane Jackson (7th round pick). Of course, "didn't get better" is premised on the author's conclusion that Josh Norman's skills have eroded to the point where he isn't likely to be able to compete for time. I think the argument is pretty weak. First, Wallace can be expected to continue to improve, and if he's the weakest player on my defense, I'm happy to settle for that. That's particularly true that the front seven has gotten stronger. Second, the author ignores how much the Bills defense is a team defense, not a collection of individual talents. It's all about the team working together, and in the defensive backfield it's about the four or five starters, together with the linebackers, playing as a team led by Hyde and Poyer. Ignoring that point causes the author to overstate Wallace's individual skills and Norman's current physical capabilities. Wallace is now a couple of years into playing the number 2 corner position in a team defense, and he can play it just fine. Norman has had several years of experience playing the number 1 position in this very same defense, and sliding down to the number 2 probably is a step he can make. So, yeah, sure, if your standard is perfection, Wallace may be the weak link, but am I worried about it? No.

Well, my reaction to that question is also "no," but now I'll take a look at the article just to assure myself that I'm not missing something.

I thought Gaines faced a big challenge to make the roster, principally from Norman. But Gaines never disappointed in the past, and he could have been valuable this season. There was probably no one farther down the depth chart with a real shot at being a contributor. Sorry to see him go.

That's absurd. Its foolish to suggest that a man who created a $5 billion natural gas company doesn't understand the natural gas markets.

It's very simple to me. Investing in someone with a good track record in the industry is a sound idea. It doesn't mean the investment will be a success, but it makes a whole lot more sense investing in someone who already has shown that he can make money in the industry. Warren Buffett is the extreme example. He's shown he can succeed investing in a lot of different businesses, so people are willing to give him money to invest. Buy low, sell high is a winning formula. Petrochemicals are low. They aren't going to zero permanently, not for a few hundred years. If I want to buy some petrochemicals low, I don't mind having Terry Pegula make the choices for me. He has a track record.

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment. Nice that he's one of only a few who climbed the ladder last season. I agree that he looks like he's moving to tier two. His play has to demonstrate it.

Bill's are trying to squeeze season ticket holders with three year deals. I bought tickets for 2030, 2021 and 2022. Now they're saying I have to buy tix for 21, 22. 23. That's not right. Not my problem if they can't deliver on the first year of a three year deal. Edit: I raised this with the Bills and they agreed that my three-year commitment still will end after the 2022 season. They were quick to respond and were very accommodating. I was told they're working on multiple socially-distanced seating plans on the assumption that they might be able to have fans sometime this season. However, they're struggling with how they can enforce it. Left to their own devices, most of the fans probably will wander down to the front rows of the lower deck. What are they going to do - have armed police to keep people in their seats?

That is absolutely true, and I think it's one of the most positive and simplest solutions to to racism. Just do the right thing. The limitation of that approach is that if you can't see racism all around you, and you don't, there are a lot of right things to do that you're missing.

You sound like a nice guy. You're living in a false reality. I hope someday you will see the truth.

716 - seriously, maybe you're all you say you are. Just hear this: If you think racism in this country is about a tiny, tiny, tiny minority, you don't understand what racism is about. Hear that, and let that sink in. Maybe you are 100% not part of the problem, but until this country recognizes racism is about most of the white people living here, we're going nowhere. The problem is everywhere.

A message that more people are starting to hear and take seriously. Thankfully.

Sounds good. I hope you're the one in a million. But when black people get together and talk about white people, you know what makes them laugh? They think it's funny when a white person tells them "I don't see color." You know why they laugh? They laugh because "I don't see color" makes the white guy feel good about himself, and the black folks know that is almost never true. As I said, I hope you're the one in a million. But if you think the problem is a tiny, tiny minority of people, you need to open your eyes. None of the people on Cape Cod, or very, very few, are in that tiny minority. The overwhelming majority are well-meaning people who say things like "I don't see color." And you know what? They don't see color because there are no black people there. How convenient.

I don't disagree for a minute, and I'm not suggesting they were misdrafted at all. I don't watch a lot of college football, but when I watched Burrow I saw football maturity and intelligence that I don't think I've even seen in a college QB. He's spectacular. The discussion was about college stats and conference quality. If you compare their college careers and the conferences in which they played, statistically Fromm had a better career. The fact that Burrow is so much better is the proof that college career and conference strength is not the measure of what makes a good NFL QB. By the way, the reaction I had every time I saw Burrow play this year was simply wonder what's wrong with the Ohio State coaches. If I have a talent like Burrow but he doesn't quite fit my offense, I'm changing my offense.

I thought so, and that is exactly the point. A majority of white people in the country have a problem with race. Only a small minority is outwardly racist. Look, all I can tell you is that I've discovered, as have many other white people discovered lately, that the way you're thinking about this is the way I thought about it until a few weeks ago. Then the light went on. So I understand what you think you know, and I understand why you vehemently disagree when I tell you that you're missing the point. All I'm telling you is that the reality that is so obvious to you, the reality you're so sure you're right about, actually isn't the reality at all. I believed in your reality until a few weeks ago. Let me give you an example. I don't know where you live. I live in New England. Cape Cod is a famous, very popular vacation area. It's an hour or so from Boston. Lots of beaches, bars, restaurants, hotels. Jam packed with people every summer, including this summer. There are practically no black vacationers on Cape Cod. There are black people cleaning hotel rooms, cutting lawns, and washing dishes, but there are pretty much no black vacationers. Why not? There are no laws keeping blacks out. It's not cheap to go there, but there are plenty of well-paid black people in New England who could comfortably afford a nice Cape Cod vacation. There's no KKK. Most of the white people who are on the Cape say what you say - that it's a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the people who cause the problem. Well, if that's true, and there essentially none of those people in New England, why are there no blacks on Cape Cod? The answer is that they don't feel welcome. Why don't they feel welcome? Because the white people on Cape Cod don't make them feel welcome, that's why. Now multiply that across the country. There are millions and millions of people who combine, most of them completely unwittingly, to make blacks feel unwelcome. We all do it. We don't do it to Italians, we do it less to Asians than to blacks. We just do it. It's a problem pretty much all of us have, including me. I've gone to Cape Cod for years, and it was only this summer that I noticed for the first time that there are no black people there. It's like there is an invisible "No Blacks" sign before you cross the bridge.

Stank, I had to go out after I wrote that, and I was thinking about it some more. The fact that his college record is irrelevant is best demonstrated this way: I don't know how many non-power five conferences there are. Say there are 8. Ten teams each, that's 80 starting QBs. Of those, say a third are seniors. That's 25 draft eligible QBs from crappy conferences. How many of them have lousy stats or lousy records? Maybe 2/3 of them. So that's 16 guys with lousy stats from lousy conferences available in the draft every year. How many of those get drafted? None. None get drafted. Then Allen comes along, lousy conference, lousy stats, and he's a consensus top-10 pick. He SLIPPED from being the #1 pick. That tells you that Allen is an outlier, that his conference record is irrelevant. You know how else I know the lousy conference-lousy stats argument is useless? Because Jake Fromm had great stats and a great record in a great conference and he went in the fifth round. He has better career stats than Joe Burrow, who couldn't start in the Big 10. Allen is different. That's all. The sample size for great QBs is too small to reach any meaningful conclusions about a guy's future by superficial observations about his college career.

I don't care what color you are. When you say "When it is literally a tiny tiny tiny majority," I know you don't understand. I'm not blaming you, and I'm not calling you out, I'm not doing anything other than noting what's already obvious to everyone who does understand. There is nothing "tiny, tiny, tiny" about the number of people whose behavior adds to the problem. I'm one of them who adds to the problem; I just couldn't see it until a few weeks ago.

I'll tell you that you don't understand. If you want to understand, there are books you can read. People like you, who are well-meaning but don't understand, are a major part of the problem. I was one of those people until a couple months ago. I'll leave it at that.

Wow. I come here almost every day during the off-season, even this off-season. Often, as the window is about to open, I wonder why I'm coming here, because there probably isn't any news, and if there's news, it's probably bad news. Hooray for today!!! We can take Ed off the bad-boy list.

This post is why people don't like talking with you about this stuff. You're a smart guy, you know a lot about football, but your anti-Allen agenda gets in that way of having an intelligent discussion with you. This thread is about the Bills being #14 on a three-year list. Several people, including me, thing the ranking is too low. NOBODY, including me, thinks the Bills should be rated above the Ravens. No one said anything meaningful about the Ravens at all. The thread naturally turned into a discussion about Allen, because he is the single player who most can affect what the next three years looks like. Everyone agrees about that. NOBODY is arguing that Allen is better or will be better than Jackson. How good Jackson is has NEVER been a meaningful part of any discussion in this thread. You are correct that I think Allen will prove to be the better QB by the end of their careers, and I've expressed why, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the discussion going on in this thread. Still, you think it's somehow meaningful to take an interesting discussion about Allen's development and turn it into an Allen vs. Jackson discussion. The reason you do this is because, on the basis of their production so far in their careers, you can win that discussion and thereby establish that Allen isn't good. Whatever happens in Jackson's career is TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion we were having, and yet you bring it up. And then you begin to make your argument, which essentially is that Allen hasn't done what you want yet, so therefore he won't do it in the future. We can have that discussion sometime, too, and I'm sure we already have, but that discussion ALSO has ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to do with what we talking about. We were talking about which teams above the Bills have better or worse three-year prospects in their QB rooms. You can make the case that you don't think Allen will get any better, and I can make the case, that you cannot refute, that Rivers is washed up and Brissett has already, and to a much greater extent than Allen, demonstrated the limits of his abilities. In plainest terms, the simple truth probably is that there are at least 20 GMs in the league who disagree with your assessment that Allen isn't likely to get better. But I don't want to argue with you about any of that.

For a year, sure, but if you're the GM for the Colts or Steelers, you'd trade in a heartbeat. Allen is the ONLY QB on those three rosters who has the potential to be a franchise QB over the next 5-10 years. It's a total no-brainer. You tend to upset me and others because you don't share our optimism about where Allen is going, and I have to keep reminding myself of that. I think you see the same QB I see, which is a guy who wasn't nearly good enough last season and has to be substantially better. And I don't mean he needs better stats, because adding Diggs and Moss is going to give Allen better stats even if he doesn't improve. He has to be a better NFL quarterback than he's been. But I wanted to talk about a couple of others things that have been said here and in other threads that I think need to be de-bunked. I don't think you, Biscuit, said them all, so what follows is a general response. If the shoe fits, etc. First, this notion that Allen may have been one of the longest shot first round QBs in history is baloney. Allen has extraordinary talent, brains, work ethic, etc. That's why he was talked about as a number 1 over all pick, and that's why he was essentially a lock to go in the top 10. He was not more of a long shot than any other QB drafted in the top 10 but not #1 overall. Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks. It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential. And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick. Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing. The bottom line is that Allen's past is totally irrelevant to whether he will succeed in the NFL. The fact that his college career wasn't Heisman-level is irrelevant. Even the fact that he has steadily improved within each of his first two seasons in the NFL is irrelevant. His steady improvement is part of what makes me optimistic, but I get that he can plateau at any time. Allen needs to be better, plain and simple. I'm optimistic, you're less so. I'm fine with that.

And the Colts, with a bigger question at QB and a lesser roster, are ranked higher. I mean, really, who in his right mind would bet on the Colts'QB roommover the Bill's? And the same can be said about the Steelers. Both of those teams would trade QB rooms with the Bill's in a heartbeat.

Oh, yeah. I agree it's a classic. One of the great signature calls. No one else can use it.

And this is true. These guys' jobs depend on being entertaining, not on being right. All their bosses care is that they say things that keep people from turning them off, things that are likely to bring people back. Nobody ever goes back and demonstrates how totally wrong they may have been six months earlier. In theory, an expert gets things right. These guys are billed as experts, but they don't have to get anything right. They just have to sound good. So, what does that mean? It means they have to say things that sound right now, even if with analysis you can see they're wrong. That is, it has to sound right to most of the fans. So that means they have to say Mahomes is the best QB and the Chiefs are the best team, because that sounds right to most fans. And because most fans think the Bills are horrible and always will be horrible, they have to dis the Bills in discussions like this. If someone says the Bills should be #5 on the list, even though he might be right, most fans turn the guy off because, really, as far as they're concerned there's no way the Bills ever will be that good. These guys just give the public what they want.

I don't watch much of that stuff, and I don't even know who Yates is, but I have to say I agree about Riddick. He's level headed and has good reasons for the opinions he expresses. I don't always agree with him, but I never dismiss as a fool.