Shaw66

Fine with me. Heaven knows, they need help. BUt they need DBs, LBs, WR and TE too. Only ten picks, and they'll use one or two to trade up, I'm guessing.

Maybe. I'm just saying what I understand is McBeane's philosophy based on what they've said. I think they want to grow their offensive line, like every other position, internally.

I don't disagree. The 2017 oline is not the long-term objective. But it is something like the short-term objective. Wood-Incognito-Glenn IS the kind of core they should be building toward. But I don't expect the Bills to acquire anyone with 6 or 7 or 10 years, like Glenn or Incognito. MAYBE the Bills will sign one more 2019 starting olineman in free agency, but if they do, I doubt they'll also draft one. That is, I think Spencer and one more guy are likely to be the starters added to the team. McBeane want to build through the draft, and although you can occasionally get a good rookie starter in the draft, it's tough to find one after the first round. Offensive linemen come out of college ill-prepared for the pros, and it takes time for them to develop. So McBeane's approach will be, I think, to be patient, to recognize that the starting offensive line in 2019 will NOT be the starting line in 2021, but that the most or all of the 2012 line will be on the team in 2019. At least, that's what I think they're doing. I'd be surprised if they sign more than one more free agent lineman, and if they do, I think it's someone coming off a rookie contract or similar age, like Spain. I doubt they sign a more seasoned veteran.

This. The Bill's unload polarizing stars. They don't sign them.

Thanks for your comments and the other positive feedback. If we just listen to McBeane, they tell us what they're doing. But even on the offensive line, I think we may see less change than people want. I think it's important to remember that more than any other position group, the offensive line succeeds or fails AS A GROUP. It's more about teamwork than it is about talent. (I'm not saying they don't need talent, just that it's less important than a lot of people think.) I think the offensive line needs a couple of anchor players and three decent players, all of whom have mastered the teamwork necessary. McBeane have told us it's about teamwork. And a tell-tale sign is that one of the first off-season moves they made was to change the offensive line coach. They decided they didn't have the right guy in the job. Two years ago the Bills had their two anchor players and a collection of young guys who weren't great talents. They lost Wood and Incognito, none of the returning guys stepped up, and the Bills' principal move, Bodine, wasn't good enough, at least not alone, to pull everyone up. I never thought Wood was a star, but he was an anchor. Spencer might be that, too. I think the Bills will go after one or two more quality offensive linemen with some combination of free agent signing and high draft pick. If they can find two quality starters (like, for example, Spencer and a first-round pick), and if the new coach is better than the old one, I think the o line can improve significantly. Two quality starters and some combination of Dawkins, Mills, Groy, MIller, Ducasse and Bodine can get the job done. If somehow the Bills get three new starter, the talent upgrade is great, but the teamwork suffers, because you have three players learning the system, instead of just two. Still, McBeane will take the third new starter if they can find him.

I'm responding to a lot of people and picked your post. I think you're correct about bringing in guys to fill needs, not trying to hit home runs. I think you get it, but a lot of people don't. McBeane have been completely clear about their philosophy, and it seems people aren't listening. They intend to get their good players in the draft and undrafted free agents, and they intend to use their cap money to keep good players they already have. No one should expect that the Bills will sign stars in free agency. Maybe one here or there, but that is NOT how the Bills intend to upgrade talent. McBeane have said that over and over again. The FIRST consideration in looking at their cap room is "how much money are we going to need to keep Allen and Edmunds." Really. White. Maybe Poyer and Hyde. Then they recognize that in this draft and the next one they're going to find a couple of keepers, and they'll need to reserve cap money for them. Then they work back from there. In free agency the Bills are going to sign guys they believe will be quality role players. They even will spend more than fans think their worth, like on Star and Murphy. They won't sign, I don't think, Pro Bowl players, at least not until the Bills get good and see a particular need to be a champion. When they're good, yes maybe a Pro Bowl player at an important position of need. I know I'm a broken record, but they're doing what the Pats have done and do. The Pats got good by (1) finding their QB and (2) getting a whole bunch of small-name role players in free agency. The season they won their first Super Bowl, they signed 8 or 9 guys in free agency that year, all guys who appeared to be journeymen or failures somewhere else. Vrabel was one of them. These were 8 or 9 guys who were significant contributors. Everyone wondered what they were doing. Look at the guys the Pats have signed from the Bills. Overpaid (in most people's minds) for Hogan. Overpaid (in most people's mind's) for Gillislee. Some of those players become useful contributors, some don't. Paid top dollar for Gilmore, but only when they had a championship and wanted a key piece. When the Pats were getting good, around 2000, they didn't buy any big-name players. That's the forumla McBeane are using. Spencer is one one of those guys for the Bills. The Bills signed him, I'm sure, first because he's a competitor, he works his but off, and he'll commit to the process. Second, because he has talent that appears to be an upgrade over what the Bills have. We all scratch our heads because he isn't a star, because he's a cast-off from the Jets, but McBeane knew what they were doing. Two years from now, if they Spencer has developed into a quality starter or been replaced by a younger player, they'll sign another free agent like him, looking to upgrade. People need to remember that MOST of the players on any team, including the good teams, are average or below average players. There are 32 teams in the league, and there are fewer than 100 stars. On average, each team has three. A few teams might have 5 or 6 and a few only 0 or 1. But that means that even the best teams are starting 15 or more players who are good or average or below average or prospects who are developing. If Spencer is an average NFL center or guard, the Bills will have made a good move, because they will have upgraded.

I'm interested in what happens to players after they leave the Bills, so I thought the post was interesting.

Mills was the only one who had been a regular starter somewhere. And they were signed when the Bills were in cap hell. I really think this year is the first year where we get to see completely what kind of players McBeane want. Last year was the first draft; this is the first year of free agency.

Serious question: Would you want Landry on the Bills? He's a terrific receiver. And his nastiest plays are usually legal. Still, I think I would pass. There's something about him that says he's just a bad guy.

I think you must have a limited imagination. Murphy's on the team because of his heart. He's a role model of how to practice and play. When they have other similar role models on the dline, then Murphy is expendable. I don't think Hughes is that role model. Star is, and Murphy. Not Lawson, not the Phillips. I fully expect to see Murphy in a Bills uniform for another season.

If you don't have that attitude, you don't stick with the Bills. That's at the core of what McBeane are building. I heard JJ Redick talking about his career in the NBA. When he was in high school, even in college, he never thought about playing in the NBA. He didn't think it was possible. Then in his junior year someone told him he might get drafted. He was kind of surprised he didn't get cut as a rookie. Some time late in his rookie season he asked a veteran what he should do in the off-season. The answer was work hard and learn how to do something in the game that you can't do now. He was told that unless he gets better every year, he will be out of the league. That's the reality of competition for roster spots in professional sports. If that isn't your attitude, you're going to be gone. McBeane want a roster full of that attitude.

I think this is true, as well as the comments by me and others that he's started his whole career and he's getting starter money. I'd guess the Bills figure he's better than what they have but not necessarily the answer. And as I've been saying since I heard McD say it, they want a veteran leader in every position room, and there isn't a veteran leader on the offensive line. I'd guess Spencer is their first shot (this year) at filling that veteran leadership role.

I know nothing about the guy. However, after his rookie year, every game where he was in the lineup, he started. That says something to me - that he isn't marginal talent. The coaches wanted him on the field. That, at least, is a good sign. We'll see.

I think you're wrong. Mahomes completed 66% of his passes this season. Smith was better than that only once in his career. By going with Mahomes, Reed got the same or better completion percentage than he had with Smith, plus he got the rest that Mahomes brought to the table. And that's what I'm saying about Allen. Get him to throw all the short stuff the team wants him to throw, and you can have high completion percentage, the same or better scrambling than Mahomes offers PLUS great downfield throwing.

Hey Thurm, thanks for posting this. I think Gaughn does consistently good work, and this piece (I've only read the excerpts you posted) is another example. I have an inherent distrust of PFF, because it's amateurs analyzing the game. I think they generate "data" that isn't necessarily relevant to anything. But I have to admit, the more they do it and think about what they're doing, and the more they talk to actual coaches to validate their thinking, the better they'll get. And when their data agrees with what coaches (in this case Daboll) say, I trust it more. When it's also consistent with what I understand to be good football, I trust it even more. I've been saying some of the same things in the thread about Allen's real or imagined accuracy issues. I'm coming to understand why the passer rating is actually a better stat than a lot of people think. I've noticed and written for years about the fact that the passer rating corresponds well with winning - the people we understand to be the best and the winningest QBs tend to have the highest passer rating. Some people complain and say the passer rating overrates completion percentage and INTs compared to yards and TDs, but it's becoming clearer to me that it doesn't. Here's why: In a sense, football never changes. The reason Belichick is so successful is that he's never lost sight of the fundamentals of the game. Physical toughness and teamwork wins games. In terms of strategy, ball control wins games. If you possess the ball for 60 minutes, you can't lose. The more you have the ball compared to your opponent, the better your chances of winning. Yes, the explosive offense can beat you with explosive plays, but if you control the ball you can FORCE your opponent to go for the explosive plays, and if you know they're coming you can prepare for them. That's exactly what Belichick does. The great coaches do not lose sight of these fundamentals. In particular, Bill Walsh didn't. He understood before everyone else that passing was important to the modern game, not because it produce big plays but because it could be a more important of a ball control offense than running. In the 50s it was tough to complete 50% of your passes, so the dominant offenses pounded the ball with Jim Brown, Jim Taylor and others. But by the 80s, rules had changed and strategies had evolved so that completing over 50% was a lot easier. Don Coryell took those changes as an opportunity to bomb away, and he created an explosive offense. But that approach runs against ball control principles that are fundamental to the game, and Walsh had the better idea: use the evolution of the passing game and the rule changes to enhance ball control. Walsh started a trend that continues today. Now completion percentages are up over 65% - 19 QBs were over 65% in 2018. In 2000, Kurt Warner was the only passer over 65%. Why is that trend so dramatic? Because the coaches have figured out that being successful on a high percentage of plays is more important than having big successes on some plays. In other words, the coaches have figured out that high completion percentage wins. All the best modern QBs have high passer ratings and high completion percentages. The only QBs from earlier eras that rate high in both completion percentage and passer rating are Chad Pennington (under appreciated and crippled by injuries) and Joe Montana and Steve Young, the two QBs who played for the coach (Walsh) who figured this out before everyone else. So bring it back to Allen. I think you're foolish to buck history. Sure, it sounds like fun to have Allen bomb away like Dan Fouts, and if you're really good at it like Fouts was, you'll do some damage. What history and the present day tell us is that your chances of WINNING are better if you complete a high percentage of passes and take the down-field ball when the defense gives it to you. Why, because holding onto the football correlates well with winning. Bills fans of all people should understand this, because the Giants beat the Bills in Super Bowl XXV by holding onto the football. That approach tends to neutralize big-play offenses, and that's what won in Tampa. So, I'm glad that the message to Allen is that he's got to complete more balls, a lot more balls, to his underneath receivers. When he learns to do that and do it effectively, he's going to be a spectacular weapon. I said this the other day and no one really came back and challenged me about it: can you imagine Allen getting good at taking the easy throw when it's there? Just ask yourself this: if Josh Allen gets as good at taking the easy underneath throw as Tom Brady, when the time comes to take the deep shot, would you rather have Tom Brady or Josh Allen taking it? Imagine that - that's why I think Allen can be a spectacular weapon. I'm guessing this off-season, OTAs and training camp for Allen are going to be all about completing the short ball. That's well said. What people need to understand is that the best decision, from a strategic point of view, is throwing the short ball more often than some fans might like. The coaches are trying to teach Allen that the best decisions are the ones that lead to the most completions, not the most yards.

I'd guess that if you talk to the best football minds in the country, the Belichicks and Reeds and others, they'll tell you completion percentage is more important. I don't know that, but watching and listening to the coaches talking, I think winning depends on consistent offense.. I think they'd tell you that if the QB keeps getting completions, they'll get the TD anyway. Maybe not a TD pass, maybe a two-yard run. In other words, over the long run, the incompletion you throw trying for the 40-yard TD pass hurts more than the benefit of the occasional 40-yard TD you get. Except when the game is on the line, when it's fourth and 17 and you're on your last possession, except when the game is on the line in those situations, the coach wants the higher probability throw.

Well, sure he has a future. But is he winning? What I said, and I'm convinced it's true, is that what wins in ball control, and the way you get ball control is by making every play a positive play. I mentioned somewhere that i'm reading the biography of Belichick. Billy said that the difference between Bledsoe and Brady was that BLedsoe wanted (and got) the big play, but Brady understood from day one that a lot of completions are better than fewer completions for more yards. Belichick loved that Brady's typical play went like this: Look at first option, look at second option, check it down. Belichick WANTED that, always has. He wins by holding onto the football - positive plays and no turnovers. And I think that's true all over the league - the winning teams have high completion percentage. So, no, I don't want more yards from Allen. I want more completions. Sure, hit the deeper ball when it's there, but NEVER force it. Check down, take 3 to 7 yards, move on the next play. We all saw it - if Allen has an accuracy problem, it's on his short balls, and if he can't complete the short balls he won't have a high completion percentage. As I said, I think his problem on short ball is not some permanent physical problem - I think it's concentration, doing the things he knows how to do to deliver that pass well.

I think that's an excellent summary. I think he's an enormous talent with tremendous upside. I also think it takes time to be really good in the NFL. We saw Goff in the Super Bowl confused and unable to raise his game when he ran into some really good defense. We can expect that from Allen next season, too. There's no substitute for experience, and there's no way to get it except to be thrown into it. I head one NFL QB who had a a good career as a starter say it took him four or five years before he really understood what was going on in the defensive backfield. Allen's got a lot to learn. But I don't see accuracy as the problem. I see being comfortable and focused on what he's doing, and that will come with experience. There's a thread here that I haven't looked at, something about Allen will compete for MVP in 2019. I believe that is possible. I'm reading the biography of Belichick. It ways Brady spent five years in college fighting and clawing to get into the starting lineup. When he was a freshman he was pummeled over and over again by the linemen, and a lot of people thought he'd quit. By the time he graduated, everyone knew he was incredibly tough, that he worked harder than everyone on the team, studied all the time, and he mastered their offense. And he hated to lose. Then he came to the pros and did the same thing. Pennington said after Brady almost brought the Pats back to beat the Jets the day Bledsoe got injured, he looked at Brady's face, and it wasn't the face of a kid who has happy to have gotten some playing time. He said you could see in his eyes that he was pissed off that they lost and that he didn't like it. Well, McBeane wanted Allen because he has all the same traits. Hates to lose. Studies all the time. Works harder than anyone. And, by the way, he's bigger, faster, stronger and has a better arm than Brady. I'm already excited about next season.

I think what wins, and what the good coaches are trying to achieve, is something positive on EVERY play. That's why the coaches told Allen last season to forgo the possibly downfield completion for the certain short throw. They want something positive on every play. Based on that, I'd say that his legs DON't make up for incompletions. I haven't participated a lot in this discussion for a couple of reasons. I will say, however, that I agree with your conclusion. I saw what you're talking about. I thought he threw the ball reasonably well; I didn't see a lot of plays where I thought he just threw a bad ball. He had some bad throws, of course, but no more than most QBs. And I think some of his "bad throws" really went exactly where he wanted, but he and his receiver miscommunicated. I don't think he has an accuracy problem, although I think his accuracy needs to improve. Especially on the short balls. He hasn't figured out completely how to dial back his arm speed and to deliver the ball where it needs to be. Sometimes he does it fine, sometimes not. Whether it's footwork, arm motion, hip turn, I don't know, but I think it's an occasional problem, not a chronic problem. That is, I think he fixes that problem simply with practice and better concentration at the time of delivery.

I undersaid and what you're doing and I applaud it. And although you and others are correct that accuracy and completion percentage are different things, I'm almost not interested in knowing about his accuracy. If his completion perception doesn't go up, he doesn't have a future.

Beane's certainly shown a willingness to deal. And McDermott, too, when he and his inherited GM traded back from 10. I think it depends on how excited they are about the guy who falls to them at 9. If the guy they really want is there, they'll stay. If they guys they really wanted are gone, they might very well be willing to move out of 9 to get TWO quality young guys rather than one. McBeane aren't, in my opinion, interested in getting stars. They have the two guys they're betting will be stars - Allen and Edmunds. Now they're trying to stockpile good football players, and getting two good players instead of one potential star would be attractive to them.

I watched some video when he signed, and that's what I saw, too. When the ball arrives, he seems always to be in better position than the defender, and he always makes a solid play on the ball. It's only the CFL, but he fights for the ball like Anquan Boldin. If he succeeds, it will be because he's one tough cookie. That's why I think he could be Hines Ward II. And I think that's why McBeane wanted him.

Well, if you're limiting the discussion as a comparison of rounds 1-3 to 4-7, I agree completely. Many more starters come from the first three rounds than the last four. But I don't think that's the point. The point is that ALL teams have to get a lot of players from 4-7 and the undrafteds. They can't fill their rosters with players from the first to third rounds. There's a league-wide free-for-all after the draft, trying to sign the undrafteds. If you have seven picks in the last four rounds, instead of four, you have a serious advantage over most other teams, because you can draft extra players that you would otherwise not get. Yes, the yield, on a percentage basis, is lower in the later rounds, but if you double your picks in those rounds, you should double your yield on an absolute numbers basis. Just took a quick look - looks like 10 of 22 starters on the Patriots were drafted 4-7 or undrafteds. 10 of 22. Those three extra picks are important. THAT's the point.

We won't know until we see him, but this guy has always been a big time receiver. He was highly rated recruit out of high school, he ate up the SEC. He just screwed up big time, more than once. My guess is that he can play in the NFL. I'm hoping he's Hines Ward II.

I think you're right on the money here. Williams, Foster and Jones, assuming Williams can play and assuming Foster wasn't a flash in the pan, are enough to give Allen receivers he can make plays with.