Shaw66

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.

Exactly. Or the picks you throw in to move up to get an Edmunds. To your point, people lose track of the numbers. 53 players on the roster, average player career is five years. That means every year you have to add 10 players to your roster. Include practice squad and guys you pick up during the season, it means you need a dozen or more players every season. Even if you hit on 100% of your picks, most of your players would be coming from later round picks and undrafted free agents. To be successful in the draft and undrafted free agency, you need to (1) not miss on picks in the first three rounds and (2) find some good players in the later rounds. Having extra picks in the later rounds increases your chances of getting guys who contribute to your team.

Buddy - In the first place, how are the Bills going to have a mailing list for the entire fan base? The only addresses they have, residence, business or email, are only for the season ticket holders and a few other people who bought tickets or wrote them a letter. In the second place, the Bills, like any business, are going to try to treat their customers specially. You want special treatment, be a season ticket holder. In the third place, there's nothing in this letter that hasn't been said before or that isn't completely obvious. If you send me your address, I'll pull my copy of Beane's letter out of the trash and mail it to you. Having said that, I do want to thank you for having provided an excellent example of the 21st Century American it's-all-about-me attitude.

I don't know why it is that everyone misperceives the AFC East. The Jets and Dolphins were .500 teams against the rest of the league over the past 15 seasons, putting aside their games against the Pats. All three teams have been regularly in the middle of the pack in the league. So the Bills didn't fatten their record against the Jets and phins.

Pure speculation, but as good as any other wild-ass guess. I think your take on he Bills has a good chance of being right on the money. I think their defense is going to terrorize the league for years.

I'm not going to sit here and argue that the Bills Jets and Dolphins were good competition for the Patriots - those three teams haven't put many competitive teams on the field. But you have to understand that what you just said sounds great, but it isn't. When you have the Pats in you division, it means you effectively start the season 0-2, because almost ANY TEAM in the league will go 0-2 against the Pats if they have to play them twice. I don't think any of the three has beaten the Pats twice in a season, and all three usually get swept. Since you start 0-2, it means to get 10 wins you have to go 10-4 against the rest of the league, and that's really hard to do. So it isn't surprising that the AFCE hasn't had many teams other than the Pats winning 10 games. It's true, as someone said, that the Bills Dolphins and Jets haven't acquired good QBs for a decade. But it's also true they haven't had good continuity in the front office and the HC position. Why? A lot of reasons, but one of them is that it's hard to win 10 games if you're in the Pats' division, and if you can't win 10 games, you don't keep your GM or HC job very long. It's very much a chicken or the egg thing. Only one McVay has come along in the last 10 years, and he happened not to take a job in the AFCE. Almost every other new coach in the league over the last 10 years wouldn't have done any better playing the Pats twice a season. The Pats beat EVERYBODY, and it's a huge disadvantage to play them twice a year.

It's not so much that the three teams have been crummy - it's that they've been pretty consistently mediocre. Over the Pats' reign, and excluding their games against the Pats, all three teams are just under .500, and they haven't had prolonged stretches of really, really inept play like the Browns did. Over the past 20 years it's reasonable to assume that one of those teams would have had a stretch where they were good. Jets have been the best, winning 10 or 11 five times in the new centuries. But they didn't put together a prolonged run. 2008-2011 wasn't bad, 9, 9 , 11 and 8 wins. That's pretty good, given that they had to play the Pats twice each season. 2000 to 2003 Dolphins won 11, 11, 9 and 10, but that was just at the beginning of the Pats' run. Since then they've been regularly mediocre. It's true the AFCE east didn't put together another premier team over the period of Pats dominance, but the Steelers only had the Ravens occasionally and the Bengals to worry about. The Colts had more or less no one. The fact is that the Pats, Colts and Steelers are the only AFC teams who were more or less consistent winners. Chiefs and Chargers rarely were horrible, but they generally haven't been scaring anyone. So, yeah, although it's true the three AFCE teams didn't mount much of a threat to the Pats, that's not very surprising. I'll say it again - the Pats' success is about the Pats.

I understand that. That means that of ten games outside the division, two are against playoff teams from the season before that the Jets, phins and Bill's don't have to play. So 20% of their schedule is tougher, and they win more against that schedule than they win against the AFCE.

Here are some facts for you to consider: Since about 2002, the Patriots have a BETTER record against the rest of the league than against the AFC east teams. Put another way, the Bills, Jets and Dolphins beat the Pats MORE than the rest of the league. And because the Pats win the AFCE every year, it means they play some of the best teams in the league in the regular season. What the Pats have done is about the Pats, not about the AFCE.

Thurm, thanks for the kind words. The feeling is mutual. I'll give you three pieces of evidence as to why I think I'm correct about this. And, of course, we can't ever know, because we won't ever see Brady play for other teams. 1. We've seen through the Pats' run of excellence that ordinary players play better for the Pats. Bruschi and Vrabel to name a couple, just weren't all that good, but they made big plays consistently for the Pats. It's true about their DBs year after year. And players who look like stars never look so good when they leave New England. Players play better in New England, and that's coaching. It makes sense that his QBs play better, too. And, in fact, Cassel did. 2. I heard a guy a year or two ago on the radio. He was a retired player, had played for several teams, including the Pats. I missed the introduction, so I never heard who it was. He said that every week the Pats coaches would give him three or four or five keys to watch for against particular players who would line up across for him, keys that would provide valuable information about what play was coming. Sometimes just run or pass or inside or outside, but valuable information. He said the information was always correct, and that no coaches on any other team that for him. 3. There was a time about 6 or 7 years ago when Brady started the first seven or eight games of the season completely mediocre. He was, truly, at the Fitzpatrick level. Then about the beginning of November, he caught fire and all through November he became the GOAT Brady again. I heard him interviewed about it. Someone asked him how he turned it around. He said something like this: "It's simple. Bill and I have a routine. Every Wednesday after practice we spend two hours watching film, talking about the game plan, talking about what I need to do in this or that situation. As you know, this year we had a lot of young, new guys on defense, and our defense needed a lot of work. Bill didn't have time to meet with me, because he needed to spend time on the defense. So by about the end of October, the defense was in better shape, and Bill and I started meeting again." He was completely clear that in order to play like the Brady we know, he needed his weekly download from Belichick. As I said, Brady is the only great quarterback who has no great physical skills. Except his short-range accuracy, which I think is amazing, but even that was learned as a Patriot. What makes Brady great is his brain. But I think what's great about Brady is that he's smart enough and disciplined enough to absorb Belichick's brilliance and reflect it on the field. And, as you've said, I agree that they needed each other. Belichick would never have won like this without Brady, because Brady is perfect for him. But as I said, I think if they hadn't found each other, Belichick would still be in the Hall, and Brady wouldn't.