Shaw66

I've been at 7-9 for months now, and I'm sticking with it. Feeling a little shaky, but sticking with it. Personally, I'd feel better with Allen on the field, but I'm trusting the process.

I'm sure THAT gave Redskins fans a lot of comfort!

I'm bored so I thought I'd read this thread. Great response, John. Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking.

Mario was a good move at the time, because he was symbol. The Bills had done more or less nothing for years. They didn't have good players, they lost some of their best players to free agency, and football fans didn't think it was POSSIBLE for the Bills to compete for good players. When the Bills signed Mario, everything changed. It appeared that the Bills were working at being relevant, at being good. And that effort continued from the signing of Mario through the Nix-Whaley era. They didn't succeed, but they were doing things that hadn't happend since Donahoe. It was exciting. Big-time free agents are rarely worth on the field what they get paid. Mario was worth it because he marked a turning point for the franchise.

Okay. Let's play the games and see what happens.

Thanks for reading it. Now, Castillo IS the possible weak link. Or Daboll. When the Bills get a new guy, player or coach, posters go nuts, either raving about the guy or saying he's horrible. I try not to get too excited about any of them, because I haven't seen any of them before. (I only pay attention to the Bills. Once in a while I may know someone by reputation, but generally I'm a blank slate.) When Castillo arrived, everyone went nuts about how horrible he was. The noise was so loud and so continuous, I thought maybe he was a problem. Still, I thought it's better to wait and see. What I saw last season didn't impress me. My theory is that if you take okay NFL talent. which is what I think the Bills have, you can get good play out of them with coaching. I didn't see what I'd call good play from the O line. In fact, it regressed from the preceding season. So I do worry about Castillo. I also worry when people say he's a long-time buddy of McDermott, and that maybe McDermott's judgment is clouded about him. McD was quick to fire Dennison, but he kept Castillo. Here's what I'm hoping: I think the O line coach's job is to teach technique. Study film and work with the guys to get their footwork right, their center of gravity right, their hand work right. If they're doing that stuff right, the O line can still look lousy if the offensive scheme is bad, the play calling is bad, etc. In other words, what can make the oline look bad is the offensive coordinator. It's the OC who creates the scheme, not the O line coach. The O line coach just teaches the scheme. So I'm hoping that we'll see these guys perform satisfactorily because Daboll knows what he's doing. That's my hope. Now, no one knows if Daboll can do the job. And even if he can, I have to admit that the guards seemed to be getting pushed around a lot in pre-season. AND I'm not saying the oline is good. All I've been saying is that there isn't a lot of difference in talent among most lines. The difference is coaching. We'll see.

I was joking about this the other day. The Billls have a "veteran" starter with about one game worth of experience in the NFL, during which he threw five interceptions, with a rookie backup who has played two years of minor league college football. If it isn't a record, it's darn close. Did the Redskins have a third QB when RGIII and Cousins were rookies? What happened to you in the early 90s? Were you in a coma or something?

I'm always excited when the season starts. Having said that, I'm not expecting a lot. I'm completely in wait and see mode. I don't expect a win Sunday. I'd be excited if Allen were starting, because I'd feel like I was watching the Bills' future, and the future could be soon. With Peterman, I fell like I'm watching an organization that is still just stumbling along.

Thanks, Who. Good comments. I agree that if, for example, the O line is really horrible, coaching can't over come it. The fact is, however, that O line almost certainly is NOT really horrible, because NO offensive line in the league is really horrible compared to most offensive lines in the league. Here's why: First, let's start with a quote from a post in this thread: "You aren't winning games with a bunch of guys on your oline , WR, CB2, and LB who wouldn't make the PS on 50% of the teams in the league and wouldn't start on 95%" Recognize that that is literally false. If there's a better offensive lineman on someone's practice squad than a guy the Bills have, he will be on the Bills this afternoon. What talented o lineman is going to stay on Denver's practice squad, for rock bottom minimum salary, sitting behind other linemen who are better than he is, instead of signing for a million bucks and playing in the NFL? It simply isn't true that other teams have better players on their practice squads than the Bills have on their roster. If you just think about that alone, you can see that the talent differential has to be minimal. Second, let's look at the universe of offensive tackles. There are about 100 offensive tackles in the league - about 3 per team. They're aged 23 to 35. There are probably 20 more on practice squads. There are probably about 500 more offensive tackles in that age bracket who played college ball who were close to making it , maybe got signed as undrafted free agents, and got cut, maybe thought about it but were ready to retire after college. That's the universe of offensive tackles. But that isn't the universe of men aged 23 to 35. That is the very cream of the crop of all men in that age group - it's the very few with the size and athletic ability to do a very demanding job. If you know about bell curves, you'll understand that all of these guys, the 500, are way out there on the right end of the bell curve. The very best one or two or three are out farther than anyone else, and the next seven or ten begin to cluster together. By the time you get to the 50th best, he is not marginally better than the 51st or 52nd guy. By the time you get to the 80th best, he's pretty much the same guy as the 70th or the 90th. He's a ton better than the average 25 year-old, 6'4" 300 pound guy, but he's pretty much the same as the 70th or 90th best. All those guys who just missed making the NFL, 120 to 200 or more, are essentially the same guys. They're interchangeable. Because of the draft and free agency, nobody has an offensive line where everyone is top 10, or even close. Dallas got close a few years ago, when they were starting something like three guys taken in the first round and two taken in the second. But injuries, and free agency already have taken their toll, and even when they were together they may have been the best but they didn't make their team a winner. Look at the 100 offensive tackles in the league. Do you know who the 50th best OT is? How do you know he's better than the 45th? You don't. Is the 10th better than 50th? Sure. Does any team have two in the top 10? No. Why not? Because if you have a great OT, you aren't drafting or signing another one. And if you happen to luck into two great OTs, you can't pay them both, so one leaves in free agency. It's pretty obvious that the talent moves around.. The best players look for the best money or the best situations. Its a virtual certainty that if the Bills have the worst offensive line in the league, in terms of talent it isn't much different from the 25th or even the 20th offensive line. I suppose the Bills MIGHT be different this season, because they lost two of their best three offensive men (I don't count Glenn, because they already had his replacement), and they don't seem to have filled with position with a quality guy. But I doubt it. What those losses mean is the Bills went from average to below average in the league. So good offensive line play in the NFL is about scheme and technique, not overwhelming talent. Why? Because only a few teams have guys with overwhelming talent at one position, and probably none have overwhelming talent at two. Mostly they have talent that's marginally better or marginally worse than the guys on the next team. When there are only marginal differences, coaching becomes critical. If by virtue of scheme I can put my player in a better position to block his man, I don't need better talent - I just need a guy who will execute what I ask him to do, and a lot of guys can do that. That is what Belichick does. He's played musical chairs in his defensive backfield and on his offensive line for nearly two decades. He gets decent athletes, not the best in the league, to execute his schemes. Nobody wants to believe this, because (1) it's not what they hear on television and (2) it's much simpler to think about the game if you believe that talent is what drives performance. I loved hearing Al Horford interviewed after he got a big bucket to seal a win for the Celtics in the playoffs. He got the ball one on one against a small guy in the paint, backed in and scored. Now, Horford is a good player, for sure, but he is not in the top 5 centers or power forwards in the league. What he say? He said "Brad Stevens is a genius." He said every day in practice Stevens teaches them new stuff he's dreamed up, and that's what gives the Celtics an edge. Football is more complicated than basketball, so the value of the coaching is increased. Bringing it back to the Bills, it means that having even the 32nd best talent in the league, which I doubt is true for the Bills, they simply aren't that much different, talent-wise, from 25., are even #15. I'll take Belichick and the 32 best talent over any other coach and the 15th best talent. I don't know how good McDermott is. So far, he's been pretty good, and he should be better in his second season than his first. That's why I still think the Bills are pushing .500 again this season.

Got you. Well said. I just don't agree. The Pats, Saints and Chiefs are competitive year in and year out because they have coaches who know how to win. Nobody can collect and hold onto superior talent long enough to be consistent winners like that. I can't name a team that's been a consistent winner recently because of talent ,talent, that is, outside of QB. (The Packers have Rodgers, for example, and a great QB covers a lot of deficiencies, including coaching.) Maybe Atlanta. Look at the Seahawks. There's a team that made it on talent, and we've seen what's happened to them. They made it by being fortunate enough to have several Pro Bowl players, including a QB, on their rookie contracts. So they had a lot of talent cheap, and they won with a coach who was a good fit for them. But within a couple of years the talent got injured or left in free agency, and they're back in the pack again. But that happened only because they got really lucky in the draft for a few years. If that were an effective model, you'd see other teams doing it. That's why McDermott has the philosophy he does. He knows that he can't have defensive ends who will generate, on their own, 10 sacks a season. But he CAN have decent level talent at defensive end who, if they do their jobs all the time, work hard, etc., will get enough sacks and pressures to make the defense effective. That's why, I'd guess, the Bills weren't willing to dump a lot capital on Mack.

I think your assessment is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, though, I agree Edmunds COULD have a rough rookie season. I was talking more long term. As I said, I think he'll have trouble against the run. But I think he's already going to be a positive in the passing game. The reasons I think you're wrong are (1) the draft and the salary cap and injuries level out the talent across the league pretty effectively and (2) other than a couple of positions, talent just doesn't matter that much. Look at receivers. First, the very best receivers in the league rarely are on championship teams. Why? Because they aren't all that important over the long term. Pats have Gronk, but they won with Brady and Belichick without Gronk. Julio Jones. Larry Fitzgerald. Megatron. Having a great receiver just doesn't make your team that much better. Bills have Benjamin. He's a top 15 receiver - maybe not in the mold you'd like, but he's a top 15 receiver. Health is an issue. Clay is a top 15 tight end. Jones has promise. The Bills are nowhere near the bottom of the league at receiver. They're average. A couple years ago, Colin Cowherd asked a Las Vegas bookmaker how important JJ Watt is to the point spread. The guy said less than a point. Watt was by far the most dominant defensive player in the league, and he wasn't even a one-point difference in the game. QBs have, I'd guess, a three to six point impact, if you lose a good one. So if JJ Watt doesn't have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, how much impact do you think a starting guard has? Practically none. In other words, you can take one guard out of the game and put in another, and the outcome of the game probably doesn't change. Yes, I'd rather have two guards in the top 30 in the league, but few teams, if any, have that. And the difference between the 60th best guard and the 90th best guard is tiny. I've said this before: unless you have the first, second or third best, maybe fourth or fifth best guy in the league, the talent differential in the NFL just isn't very big. The best offensive tackle in the league is NOT on someone's bench. The 10th best offensive tackle in the league is NOT on someone's bench. Probably the 50 best offense tackles in the league are starters. The 90th best offensive tackle in pro football isn't much different from the 50th best. And NO team has five guys starting on the oline all of whom are in the 30 at his position (15 for centers). The talent is spread around. In that kind of environment, coaching and quarterbacking make a huge difference. Belichick wins all the time because he's the greatest coach in the history of the game, and his coaching excellence in a league where there's talent parity gives him an edge that no teams have been able to overcome with talent. Why? Because it's no longer possible to acquire and hold on to a Kelly, Thomas, Reed, Smith, Biscuit, Talley, Tasker and all those other guys. You have to win with no names. Yes, the Bills have a lot of no names. But as we saw last season, coaching can make a guy like Milano useful. Coaching, coaching, coaching. And quarterbacking. Coaching can overcome talent deficiencies. Talent can't overcome coaching deficiencies; if it could, Larry Fitzgerald would have won Super Bowls.

Huh? In 2016 the Bills were 16th in yards per game and 10th in points per game. Defensively they were 19th and 16th. As was always the case with teams Rex coached, they couldn't make key plays when the game was on the line. Coaching clearly was the difference. So are you saying you'd rather have stats and not go to the playoffs, or have a team that has lousy stats but that scratches and claws, gives the opponent nothing in the second half, and goes to the playoffs? 2017 was a masterful coaching job. The team was in transition, the receiving corps was decimated, both the offense and defense were learning new schemes, the team suffered a brutal mid-season letdown, and the team still recovered to go to the playoffs.

John - I like this. We always knew there were two approaches to the draft - trade up for a QB, or use all those picks to build the O line and D line. Bills went for the QB. Now, if Peterman turns out to be a star, the Bills made the wrong choice. With all those picks and a star QB, the Bills would have been contending this year and a potential powerhouse in the next two or three. However, I don't think Peterman has the arm to be a star. Without a strong arm, teams struggle against good defenses, because the defenses can cheat in and gamble more, because they know the QB can't beat them. So we're left with hoping Allen was a good choice. I'm a little worried that he didn't win the starting competition against weak competition, but McDermott said in the Spring that overcoming the experience gap in just training camp and preseason would be very difficult. My view is that the game is all about coaching and the QB. Like you, I think there's reason to believe the coaching is really good. We saw it last season. If the coaching is good, the Bills will be competitive this season, even with the holes we all can see. If the coaching is good and either Peterman and Allen becomes a quality starter this season, Bills will go to the playoffs again. And, I think people have gone to sleep on Edmunds. He's not much of a hitter yet, and that and his gap discipline have caused him to be not very effective in the run game, but I think he's already paying dividends in the passing game. I think teams are learning already that he can take away the short and medium middle of the field. He can run with anyone, so he isn't a gimme matchup, and in middle and deep middle zones he's a real headache. If somehow the Bills have good coaching, a star middle linebacker and a star QB, it's going to be a lot of fun around here. You put Dareus, Glenn, Taylor and Ragland on McBeane. McBeane weren't responsible for those contracts. Those are guys that McBeane didn't want or, in Glenn's case, couldn't use. Guys on your team you don't want are just as much "dead" space as guys you cut. Either way, the team is taking the cap hit, and wither way the guys aren't helping you. Either way, you're looking for other players, in the draft or in free agency. And of course you'd rather not sign guys and then cut them, but every team has some of these.

Perfect question. Both teams have bright young stars. Both teams are going nowhere. Darnold will have experience. I think the Bills need Allen on the field.

Jason Peters didn't turn out too bad.

Hey, Doc - I just added some text to your memo. It works great. The Hammer should go into it and make some revisions, if he wants. By the way, I understood what you wrote about "tight." But he's right about the mud lot - it's amazing when it's wet. But there's plenty of other parking on 20A that hold up better in the rain.

Nice job. City of Buffalo's website could use it. I live out of town but visit often enough to test your comments. I will addnsomenthings, if i can. I'm a life-time Scwabl's fan. Is there still feedback about the owners comments. I thought he apologized, a lot. And he was really unhappy. It was a stupid accident and he was out of business for close ton a year. Sandwiches are still great.

USA Today says he was. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/04/18/fred-jackson-cherishes-chance-to-retire-with-buffalo-bills/33965791/

Jason Peters, too. That's an All Pro and a franchise running back. If I get someone like that every 10-15 years it's worth having a practice squad. Plus occasional serviceable guys, like a George Wilson.

Fred Jackson comes to mind.

I think it's Allen. I look at it this way: Peterman might actually be the better QB right now. If he is, it's because he has a modest, and I do mean modest advantage, in terms of experience. He looks like he sees the field better and makes decisions a little quicker. The Allen-Peterman competition is close because, although Peterman has the experiential edge, an edge that is visible on the field, Allen has the physical edge - he throws MUCH better, he runs better. My personal estimate, based on nothing but how they look, is, which means for the Bills' that if Allen starts four games, he'll make up the experiential difference. That is, after he's started four games, he'll be where Peterman is now in terms of on-field understanding. I think if Allen starts the first four games, he'll be better than Peterman, which means that the Bills will have their best QB playing the final 12 games of the season. Allen already is pretty good on the field, and he will get better quickly. He will close that gap during this season, and there will be no difference between the two in terms of experience. Peterman will never close the gap on physical skills. Risk of injury? It doesn't matter. Injury is always a risk - play the game and take your chances.

I tend to agree, but pass protection remains a concern.

It's interesting that everyone seems to have the same reaction. It's been clear for nearly a month that there was probably only one way the Bills were going to have really good quarterbacking in 2018, and that would be if Allen emerged. That's still possible, whether McCarron is there or not. McCarron promised nothing more than marginally adequate quarterbacking, and once it become clear that Peterman can do that, there was not reason to keep AJ.

Man. C7t to make room for the Bills' third string QB. Talk about adding insult to injury.

Like I said, he's marginal. That means he's useful to some teams, not others. Bills believe either that the two they have are good enough to be starter and backup, or they believe they're just building for next season. In either scenario, AJ was expendable. Gruden has a different view of what he's doing and where his team is, and AJ offered him what he needed in a backup. Not much riskier than going with McCarron. Neither has much experience, and neither has produced.