Shaw66

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.

It sounds like he already has it together. He turned over a new leaf after Auburn incident, and he's been a model citizen since then. There's a great interview somewhere with his coach in Canada. I can't quote it, but he said something like he's the hardest working, toughest, most dedicated player on the team. Coach raved about him. All I could think is that this guy is perfect for McDermott. He and McD will have frank conversations about his past and what he's doing to become the kind of player he wants to be. McD will be an ideal mentor for him. Frankly, I'll be surprised if he isn't the Bills' best receiver next season, and if the Bills also find a starting receiver in the draft or free agency, the receiving corps should be fine. If, for example, Williams starts with Zay and the Bills find a tight end in the draft, they have a receiving corps that won't be a liability.

Figgy - Very interesting you should say that about the Super Bowl. I think it's the kind of D McD fully intends to bring. My view of the Pats defense, every season and especially in the Super Bowl this year, is that they are always in position, they always are very physical, and they always tackle soundly. My view of the Bills defense now is they are almost always in position (they know what they're supposed to do and they do it), and McDermott has said more than once that they intend to be known around the league as as physical as any team. He's also said he expects better tackling. So, yeah, I think we're looking at an elite defense, year after year, in the making. Imagine a defense as fundamentally sound as the Pats with Edmunds roaming the middle of the field! I agree about Allen, too, except it's going to take him a few years to get there. We could see the inexperience hurting Goff, and it will hurt Allen over the next few years, too. He's going to see things where he just doesn't know what to do. Only experience can solve that problem. On the other hand, I think he's already ahead of Goff in a different sense. Watching Gilmore's INT in the fourth quarter, I thought immediately that Allen throws a touchdown or an incompletion on that play, because Allen has the arm to deliver that ball where it needed to be. We've already seen it. Not to mention the TD Goff missed because he was so late delivering the ball to the end zone. I think Allen is already better than that - Allen could have been just as late throwing, but because of his arm strength the ball would have arrived before the defender. Good enough to beat Belichick and Brady in the playoffs next season? Almost certainly not, but time will tell. I think if things go well, we're looking ahead to a solid to spectacular defense every season and outstanding quarterbacking. The Bills should be a real handful.

I don't think this is correct. I'd guess that half the starters in the NFL came from outside the top 3 picks. 84 of the guys drafted in the top 3 rounds five years ago are still in the league. 77 of the guys drafted the year before that. Only 13 of the guys drafted ten years ago are still in the league. So that suggests that in the last 10 years of drafts, something like 600 of the guys drafted in the first three rounds are still in the league. More than 100 of them aren't starters, maybe as many as 200, because a lot of the high-round draftees don't start in their rookie seasons. So that means that only 400-500 of the guys drafted in the first three rounds are starting, and there are 700 starting jobs in the NFL. That means 200-300 starters come from outside the first three rounds. On top of that, everyone platoons, and there are injuries, so you need more than just your 22 starters, and most of those guys behind your starting 22 come from outside the first three rounds. Those people are very important to your team. It isn't so much about "decent NFL careers." It's about having the talent on your team to win, and that talent runs through all 60-70 players on your team and practice squad. Finding a guy like Robey-Coleman in May is very important to how your team plays in the fall.

That's correct. 7-9 to 9-7 are all the same, all mediocre. 10-6 and 6-10 barely above and below. 11-5 and 5-11 are when you can say a team is actually good or actually bad. My point is that when you play the Pats twice in the season, 10-6 is difficult to achieve. 10-6 for the Jets, phins and Bills is like 11-5 in any other division, because you start every season with two more or less automatic losses. It's as though those teams are looking at going 10-4 just to get to barely above mediocre, and 11-3 to be actually good. Going 11-3 against any NFL schedule is pretty difficult. That's 7-0 at home and 4-3 on the road. You gotta be good to do that.

Thanks Vladi - Good thoughts. Here's what I think: McBeane are on the hot seat this season. They sold the Pegulas on the process, and 2019 is when the process has to show some results. Don't have to win the Super Bowl, but there has to be serious improvement in the team. In terms of record, 8-8 may be enough to show progress (if there are some extenuating circumstances, like injuries to key players). I think progress translates to 9-7, minimum. At the end of the season, McBeane will have a sit down with the owners and make their case for the progress they've made, and it's going to require some fast talking if they're 7-9 or worse. Why this season? Because they've cleaned out just about all the dead wood, and they've brought in players they want. They have their QB and their MLB, and 2019 is when those guys should improve and show they're for real. 2018 got them acquainted to the league; now they have to show they can be players in it. McBeane have a decent number of draft picks and all that cap room. So going into the 2019 season they should have a roster full of their kind of players, and a lot of them have now spent two years in the process. 2019 is the time to begin to deliver. Having said that, they won't get all the players they want this season. They'll be upgrading the roster for another couple of seasons, at least. In terms of what they need, minimum, for 2019. Two offensive linemen, minimum, one of whom pretty much has to be a free agent veteran. They need an anchor, and they don't have him. The other is either a free agent of a high pick who can be expected to start day one. I think they need only two because (1) they want some continuity and (2) if they upgrade two positions, people around them will play better. They need a pass receiving threat somewhere. Logic's theory makes sense to me - draft a couple of good tight ends, and you can make do the receivers you have on board. I'd be surprised if the Bills go three rounds into the draft without taking either a wideout or a TE. Actually, that's all I think the Bills ABSOLUTELY need. Of course, upgrades all around the roster would be great. They need a running back, they need a linebacker, they always need defensive linemen. They need DBs. But if they add a serious receiving threat and two starting offensive linemen, with some other new starters sprinkled in, they should have enough talent for McDermott to show he can win in the league.

Here's my thought: You can talk about this kind of free agent activity all you want. I don't expect to see anything like it. This is what I expect: 1. The only reason the Bills will sign anyone older than a guy coming off his rookie contract is because they want veteran leadership at the position. In other words, the only reason they would sign Kyle Rudolph would be if they thought he was a top-notch character guy who is 100% believer in "the process" and is willing to play out the rest of his career building a winner in Buffalo, even if the team doesn't win until after he retires. If Rudolph is that kind of guy, Beane will go after him. If he's just a really talented tight end, which is what I think he is, Beane won't bother with him. I'd love to see him with the Bills, but I doubt it's happening. 2. The players the Bills will go after are high character guys coming off their rookie contracts. They don't want older guys, because they're trying to build a particular kind of culture, and the Bills don't want to try to teach the culture to old guys. By the time the old guys get it, they retire. 3. Believe it when Beane says they high character guys who are great competitors. That's what they want. That's what the Patriots win with, and the Bills are trying to do the same thing. They look all over for those guys, and they find some of them in the later rounds, some in undrafted free agents, and some off the practice squads of other teams. As someone said in another thread, they're looking for Milanos. So I'm guessing that anyone who hopes the Bills sign this or that big-name free agent is going to be disappointed. What we're all going to be saying as they sign free agents is the Bills signed "WHO?" And in November, when WHO is making plays on the field, we're all going to be saying "where did WHO come from?"

Huh? How could Beane have sent the letter to you figuratively? You asked "Why not send this letter to all fans?" How were we supposed to read that question other than literally? You asked a literal question. Several people, including me, responded to your literal question, pointing how stupid it your question was. Then you get all upset and defensive and tells us you didn't mean it literally. Please tell us what you DID mean, because we all seem to have missed the point.