Shaw66

This is the kind of BS that so often passes as wisdom in the sports fan world. Try to follow this: 1. Who is Rich Kowalski? Does he know anything about football? Has he ever been an NFL coach? A college coach? 2. What does he actually say? He says the Eagles coach admitted that he uses analytics. He says the Patriots have an analytics coach. 3. From that, he concludes that the Bills are behind the curve because, why? Because those two teams were in the Super Bowl and the Bills weren't? 4. Did he do any investigation into the 20 teams that didn't make the playoffs in 2017? Do they use analytics? If yes, then maybe it's better not use analytics. That's as logical as saying you should use them because the two Super Bowl teams use them. How do we know the Eagles' use of analytics contributed to their success last year? The point is that if RIch Kowalski visited 32 pro football teams with the team logos masked so he couldn't tell which teams he was visiting, I doubt, I seriously doubt, that he could tell which teams are using analytics well and benefitting, which teams aren't using analytics well. Linking success of a franchise to the amorphous notion of analytics is like suggesting you can tell whether a QB is good based on how many times he throws over the middle. I'm not sure you have it right. My analytics editor has studied the data for over 40,000 uses of the word "poo," and I think my characterization of the article as BS is more accurate than calling it just poo. And nothing is more important than analytics.

Look, I'm not saying David Carr didn't take a beating. You saw it, I didn't. The question isn't whether he took a beating, the question is whether any quarterback who would have been a true franchise QB failed to become a franchise QB because he started in the NFL sooner than was good for him. There is no evidence that David Carr would have been a franchise QB. He is just another QB drafted in the first round who didn't make it. There are a lot of those guys. Now, your theory may be that he was so brutalized in his first season starting that he never recovered. Well, there's no evidence of that. What you're saying is that he was suffering from a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, that somehow his psyche was so damaged that after his first year he couldn't reach his potential. If that's true, why was he in the NFL for another TEN years. Wouldn't the coaches have given up on him sometime before then? Leinart didn't last 10 years. Vince Young didn't last 10 years. Losman didn't. Edwards didn't. The NFL doesn't keep guys around because the NFL feels sorry for them. In his rookie season, David Carr led the league in sacks. He also led the league in sacks in his third year and again in his fourth year. If he had been beaten silly in his first season, wouldn't you think by his third season he would have figured out how to throw the ball away? Or his fourth season? Or are you going to say that he was so emotionally damaged by then that he just couldn't do it? NO BILLS QB WOULD SURVIVE THIS BOARD LEADING THE LEAGUE IN SACKS THREE OUT OF FOUR SEASONS. Fine, if that's what you want to believe, but from where I sit it looks to me like David Carr is just like EJ Manuel - he couldn't figure out how to play QB in the NFL. There are dozens and dozens of guys like that. But let's assume you're correct. David Carr would have been a Hall of Fame QB but for the fact that he started as a rookie. Give us another example, a guy we all could agree was likely to be a franchise QB and had his career irrevocably derailed because he started too early. If Carr is the best example, then I see no reason to be worried that Allen will be ruined by starting as a rookie.

Thanks. I responded directly, too. I mean, maybe David Carr is the exception, but I doubt it. The guy I know is Trent Edwards. Edwards really looked like he knew what he was doing in the weeks before his concussion. After that, he was never the same. In one sense, the concussion ruined his career. But not really - Edwards simply didn't have what it takes. I've seen Jim Kelly and Matt Stafford throw game-winning touchdowns minutes after having been unconscious on the field. Their concussions didn't ruin their careers. Why not? Because those are real men, tougher than anything I can imagine. Those are guys you want beside on the battlefield when live bullets are flying. Ask Kyle Williams this question: You're in a fox hole on Guadalcanal Island, pinned down by 20,000 Japanese soldiers. Who do you want next to you? Trent Edwards or Jim Kelly? David Carr is just another first-round QB who failed, not some guy the NFL failed. The NFL tests toughness, every day, and David Carr wasn't tough enough. Does anyone believe this: Aaron Maybin would have been a star, if only he hadn't been thrust into the NFL so quickly. He's a great athlete, right, so he it must be that the NFL screwed up somehow. No, nobody believes that. Aaron Maybin wasn't tough enough. He fell about 300,000 miles short in the toughness category. The NFL is totally unforgiving. Either you measure up, or you don't. The only guys who can complain are the guys who never got a real shot to show what they can do. There aren't many of those. David Carr is certainly NOT one of those. David Carr started for five seasons and NEVER had a passer rating better than Tyrod Taylor's WORST season in BUFFALO. Don't tell me David Carr was better than Tyrod Taylor., and certainly don't tell me he would have been a franchise QB if only he hadn't had a lousy offensive line as a rookie.

Ask any NFL player this: If a guy plays in the NFL for EVEVEN seasons and never succeeds as a starter, what does it say about the guy? Every NFL player will tell you that he wasn't good enough to be a starter. What are you trying to tell us? That in FOUR seasons as a starter after taking a beating as a rookie, Carr couldn't figure out how to be an effective starter because he was still afraid of the pass rush? That may be true; maybe he never could get comfortable in the pocket. What would Rickie Incognito say about that? What would Tom Brady say about that? What would Aaron Williams say about that? What would Steve Young say about that? What would ANY NFL player say about that? Every NFL player would say "suck it up." If you don't have the guts to overcome the adversity that the NFL gives every player, every day, you aren't good enough to play in the league.

I agree with this. Successful QBs are strong personalities. They are true competitors, and they don't give up. David Carr is the only guy who comes to mind who may have been ruined by starting early. Here are six guys who started as rookies, either full time or part time. Does anyone believe they succeeded or didn't succeed because they started too early? JP Losman, Troy Aikman, Trent Edwards, Peyton Manning, EJ Manuel, Steve Young. Great QBs are not ruined by being crappy as rookies, and crappy quarterbacks are crappy, whether they start immediately or ride the bench for a while. Are there exceptions? Maybe, but I'm hard pressed to think of one. Who is the guy we look at and think "what a shame! He would have been a Hall of Famer if only he hadn't started as a rookie."? Who is that guy? You want to make an argument that it's David Carr? Well, okay, you're telling me his psyche was injured so badly by starting that he failed instead of succeeding? I'd bet that if you could talk to Young or Aikman or Manning, talk to them privately, each would say that's BS. Each would say football is a tough occupation, maybe the toughest. You've got to have the guts to fight your way through adversity, and if you don't have the guts, the determination, you aren't going to make it. If Allen is the best QB coming out of preseason, he should start. The Bills should not leave him on the bench just because they're worried that he might not be able to deal with failure. The best guy plays. Why? 1. Because he earned it. 2. Because the rest of the team knows who the best guy is, and the rest of the team wants to win. They want to go on the field with the best guy. If the best guy is Allen, he plays.

We didn't insinuate anything other than he knows that there are no guarantees in this business.

You're wrong to dismiss what Shady said. He didn't have to say anything. He could have ducked the question very easily. Instead, he talked, about how talented is and how much he has to learn. Didn't have to say any of that. I'm guessing it's a pretty fair assessment.

I didn't see a thread about this. Interesting praise from Shady about his rookie qb. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/bills-rb-lesean-mccoy-compliemnts-josh-allen-not-big-fan-rookies-draft-pick/c73t872vib9t1xkvftdo6wvs3 “It’s still early,” McCoy said. “I don’t want to make him Jim Kelly already. He just has to learn different things, he’s a rookie, and quarterback is such an important role, he’s like a coach on the field as far as making the right reads, being confident, he has so much he has to learn, from his position to the wide receivers, to the linemen, protections, he has a lot on his plate. But other than that, just talent wise and intelligence, he has it to be a starting quarterback, and also a franchise quarterback."

Solid analysis. Thanks.

I agree about this. People talk about what McDermott means when he talks about the process and about character. We've seen it for a year now, and it's pretty clear. McD wants guys who are 100% team oriented. He wants guys who will compete until they drop. He wants guys ho don't have personal issues. He wants guys who will commit to the process. He believes that his TEAM will be better than a team with more talent, if his roster is full of those guys and the other team's roster isn't. Ideally his players have those qualities AND have talent, but if he has to choose, he'll take character first. Listen to what McBeane said about Allen and Edmunds. Character, character, character. Oh, yeah, and premier physical abilities. But character came first.

I think they've moved on from Richie. They're building for the future and Richie is the past. That's why they cut his pay. Richie is anteammplayer, but I think there's more "I" in him that McD likes. Richie and Kyle both are individuals, but Kyle is selfless. Richie isn't. That's why Kyle is back and Richie isn't. On paper, yes. I think they will surprise you. They won't play like the worst.

Not that it matters, but NexGen stats says Brady was 12th in the league, not first. And Taylor was tied with Jared Goff, so it isn't immediately apparent that holding the ball is a bad thing. And I wasn't talking about plays when he ran; I was talking about all the pass plays he extended with his legs. That drags his average way up. When everyone is averaging under three seconds, every time Taylor scrambled and took six seconds to throw really affected his average, especially because he was throwing fewer times than all the other QBs. What does matter is the point we agree on, which is the QB makes his offensive line better with effective decision making. We never saw enough of that with Taylor. I still wonder, however, whether he wasn't running in a poor system with poor coaching. When Rex's route guru, the receivers coach, had control of the receivers in 2015, Taylor had much less trouble finding guys. Whatever, Taylor's indecision, reluctance to throw into tight windows, whatever it was that made him hesitate, makes the offensive line look bad. The truth is that practically no one has really effective pass protection any more. The days of the QB setting up in the pocket and surveying the field are gone. Teams used to expect their QB to have 3+ seconds to throw, but those days are gone.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. First, it's pretty remarkable that he was the slowest for 41 out of 43 weeks. Second, that stat is really a measure of scrambling - Tyrod rates high here because he is the best scrambler in the league. (And because he held unto the ball instead of throwing it away.) It isn't a measure of whether the offensive line is good or bad. Third, a well-trained QB doesn't need a great offensive line, because he's getting rid the ball pretty quickly. Are you including semi-intentional walks? That changes the answer.

I believe coaching trumps talent. I think that good schemes and good coaching can make the relative no-name offensive line the Bills have effective. Whether they have that coaching is an open question. However, even if they're well coached, they will struggle when they play against the the best front sevens in the league. For example, I'm going to the game in Houston. That may get ugly real quick.

Depends. Damages for injury are not taxable. Damages for lost wages are. Punitive damages are. Article doesn't say how the judgment was broken down. I'd guess a big chunk of it is lost wages or punitive.

I'm exactly there. I don't have a horse in the race, except that I figure that Allen has the best chance of being great, and McCarron the second best. I'm a firm believer that you play the games to win, not to build for the future. The guy who gives you the best chance to win is the guy you put on the field. I think, based on one comment from McD, that McCarron has the edge in the competition - McD seemed skeptical that Allen as a rookie could outperform a veteran like McCarron, even given McCarron's lack of starts. A lot depends on Daboll. What kind of expectations will his offense put on the QB? Given his years in the Patriots' offense, it's likely that he will have high expectations - the offense may seem simple on the surface, but I'd guess that Daboll will expect the QB to do a lot of little things right, just like Belichick expects his QB to do a lot of little things right. If that's the case, McCarron has a big edge, because he already knows a lot of little things. It will take time for Allen to catch up. The best outcome is that Allen wins the competition and starts day 1. Teams can bet on only one QB at a time, and the Bills have bet on Allen. Having him on the bench only lengthens the amount of time it takes to find out whether the team has to make a new bet. That philosophy doesn't dictate that he start immediately - the best guy gets the start, but there's in terms of team building, the sooner you know that you have or don't have your QB, the sooner you can make personnel and draft decisions about the QB.

Yes, he may be an outlier. He may be a failure. But he was far from an utter failure last year. He may have underperformed expectations, but he wasn't a disaster. You keep him to see how he develops. Yes, your recollection is correct. You describe him as he was billed. But that's the same description as for Austin Proehl. Why did one go in the second and one in the seventh? They didn't make a five round mistake on Zay. Austin Proehl wishes he had the physical characteristics Jones has and showed in college. You just don't cut second round talent after one year unless there's something wrong with him.

The reason I think you don't cut a second round pick after one year is that the one thing that the scouts can evaluate with a high degree of certainty is raw physical talent. The guys with superior raw physical talent get drafted in the first two rounds. They're just physically better. Now, being physically better isn't all it takes to be a success in the league, but its the one characteristic that a player can't change. The guy taken in the second round is always going to be physically better than the guy taken in the fifth round. The fifth rounder can make the team by being smarter, working harder, etc., but he's always going to be beaten out by the second rounder who's as smart and works as hard. It takes most rookies a year to learn to survive in the league. It's in his second year that he really starts learning and playing the position. So you have to wait a year to see what a year's experience will do for him. The best free agents are the guys drafted in the second round, coming off their rookie contract after having underperformed. They have experience, they have superior talent, and they probably will succeed with a change of scenery. You don't want to lose those guys; you want to develop them. So you don't cut them unless they're problems.

No, he's correct. Not many rookie receivers make a splash, and mostly just the high picks. There are some exceptions, most guys don't emerge until their second or third years. I'd guess it relates to learning to read the defenses and learning to be elite route runners, because that's how guys make it in the league. The guys who are stars in year one are the guys with top-end talent. That's not Zay, and no one ever thought that's who he is.

I don't agree. The Bills aren't going to give up on a second round pick after one year, not unless the guy is a bad actor of some kind. They drafted him because he has talent. He had a subpar rookie year, but he saw more time than a lot of rookie receivers. You're better off keeping a talented young guy a year too long than a year too short.

what are you talking about? He wasn't in the military? He's a veteran in the NFL. He played essentially a full season, started 10 games, and was targeted 74 times. He learned his job in the running game. That experience makes him a veteran. He's way ahead of rookie receivers, except the most talented. I'm not saying he's good; I'm saying he has experience, and experience is valuable. Just like Holmes. Is it possible someone beats him out? Beats out Holmes? Absolutely. Is it possible that a rookie the Bills have now could do It? Yes. Likely? No. Why not? Because the Bills don't have a rookie receiver who has a top prospect. Except for the occasional surprise, rookie receivers who do well in their first year come at the top of the draft. Zay Jones has experience AND the talent that got him drafted in the second round. Why would a kid with not experience and less talent be expected to take the job from Jones? May happen. Not likely.

This is absolutely correct. There is no "program" to put him on that requires that Allen sit for a year. Some rookie QBs have come in and just taken over the job because they were that good. Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, Wentz. People need to listen to McDermott. He's very clear. Every position is a competition. The guy who wins the competition starts, at every position. McDermott said Allen will compete for the job. (He also said Allen's at a big disadvantage, because veterans know how to do things already, things he must learn). So I'm rooting for Allen to win the job, because that's the best result. If he wins, it will be by showing that he can play with the first team better than the other two. He will get some opportunities to run with them, and based on how he does in the those opportunities, and how he does running with the 2s and 3s, he may get some more opportunities. If he makes th most his opportunities, he wins the job. That would be a good thing. WIll it happen? Not likely; as McDermott said, he starts with a big handicap. But we will see.

The point is not whether you or I think he is the answer. The point is he is a veteran, so he knows a lot more than rookies. As long as he uses that knowledge he will be one of the best in camp because of what he knows. He IS fighting for a roster shot, but being a veteran gives him a big edge.

Vegas often under values the Bills on the over-under, because Vegas wants to even out the betting. The general public thinks the Bills are horrible (in part because of journalism like this), so the general public tends to take the under on the Bills. (The general public thinks the Pats will win it all, so the over-under on the Pats often is a little high, for the same reason. ) In order to even out the betting, Vegas has to push the Bills' over-under down a bit, making the over look like more of a bargain. So if Vegas is saying 6.5, and if they're discounting the Bills a bit, then the "real" over-under is about 7. I think that's low, but I'm an optimist; it's probably a pretty good prediction.

Look, I keep saying it's certainly possible that the Bills are among the worst teams in the league in 2018. It's not difficult to describe scenarios where the Bills are remarkably bad, starting with the fact that it's quite possible that they could have one of the worst starting QBs in the league. Their best starter appears to be McCarron, who couldn't take the job from Dalton, who is not anyone's dream quarterback. But if you want to predict that the Bills are going to be bad, how about giving some reasonably explanations, like I just did. Instead, this guy cherry-picks stats to explain his conclusion. Like, claiming Kelvin Benjamin is a horrible receiver because he's among the slowest. How about the fact that he was Cam Newton's favorite target and had back-to-back 1000 yard seasons? (well, almost.) What difference does it make if your wideout is slow, if you're running a run-first, possession offense and the guy is more or less unstoppable inside 20 yards? He's faster than Gronkowski, and he's nearly as dominant. He says that the Bills were a "regression-bound" 6-2 in games decided by one score. That is, the Bills were good at winning close games and the law of averages says they won't be that good. But in the same sentence he says the Bills were a horrible -57 in point differential, but somehow THAT stat is not regression bound. In other words, without justification he assumes that the Bills bad stats will remain bad and their good stats will turn bad. Not exactly sure how he concludes the Bills have the worst talent in the division. Bills finshed three games better than the Dolphins and four games better than the Jets, beat the Dolphins twice and split with the Jets. So how does that equate with those teams having better talent? Does that mean the Bills have much better coaching? The Bills added a starting defensive tackle and a starting corner back in free agency, and neither the Jets nor the Dolphins drafted a player with more upside than Edmunds. So where does he see a talent differential? As I said, the Bills could be bad, and their are reasons to explain why they might be. This guy doesn't seem to have any of those reasons. He just thinks they'll be bad because, well, he thinks it.