Shaw66

This happens to me often. If you go back to my post, I was responding to a statement that said that Dorsey will be the same OC he was last season. What I said was that that statement was incredibly naive, because it ignores the fact that people improve in their jobs. Yes, not all people, but many, many people. It's why rookies don't start, but they do a year or two later. People improve. A blanket statement that Dorsey will not improve (which is what it means to say that he'll be the same OC in year 2 as year one), is a foolish statement. It cannot be known whether he will improve, but stating that he will not improve is foolish.

Agree with all of this. But in the case of Kyle, he could be yout guy in Buffalo fot 8 years. That stability is valuable.

I just don't buy this. The reality is that as soon as McDermott is addressing the team following a J Allen injury, McDermott is telling everyone on the team they have to step it. He's telling Dorsey, "you MUST have a game plan that protects Kyle Allen. He needs easy reads, easy throws, etc. You MUST have a running game." He's telling the DC (hah!), "you CANNOT give up more than 15 points this week." And all of those messages are getting passed down through the lines of communication. His message is "complementary football," and when one guy goes down, someone else has to step up. He has built his team to respond to challenges. Josh is down for three weeks, McDermott is preparing his team to win three games, and his team will respond. May not win three, but they will not roll over. So, I just don't think the world will end if Kyle Allen is playing QB. Guys have to step up. J Allen out for 6-8 games, it's a different story. But chances are very slim that any backup is replacing Josh for half a season and the team keeps winning.

Just reading this thread. I think you're right. I was stunned that they were looking at Lance; he just doesn't seem like a fit, although I suppose he's sort of like the Trubisky case. But the fact that they were looking is what is telling. Still, I'd think that they don't want to give up on Kyle as the long-term backup. He has the basic skills, and as has been said, Keenum didn't jump right in and pick it all up at once, either. We'll know in a day or two.

Gotta say I'm surprised you thunk they are that disappointed with Allen. I never would have guessed in when he signed, and I thought he looked pretty good Saturday.

Do you think the Bills do it for a fourth?

Buscaglia says that the Bills will carry 6 receivers and one needs to play special teams. Shorter apparently is more or less a lock, because he's the best receiver who plays special teams. I don't think AJE and Hughes are so similar. Hughes was a genuine high quality pass rusher, and some of his talent was put under wraps because of the discipline of the defense. Hughes learned to play effectively in that defense. AJE isn't that kind of pass rusher, unfortunately. And he hasn't been able to play with the discipline the defense requires.

I've been out for a few hours, and now I'm back. Here's what I think/meant, and it's all in my earlier responses to Beck. Beck said he thinks Beane goes after high risk, high reward guys late in the first round. I agree. And it may be a mistake to draft that way. Here's what I think about the draft. I think every year there are some guys in the draft who are close to locks in terms of being stars. No one is a totally sure thing, but awfully close. I think there five to ten guys in draft like that, year in, year out. Once you get to 10 or maybe 15, you're looking at guys who have really high ceilings, but who are more higher risk guys. When you get to the bottom of the first round, there still may be a few guys with high ceilings, but they are higher risk. And you start getting some guys who are locks to be players in the league for a long time, but with lower ceilings. So, drafting where Beane is drafting, he has a choice - go for the high ceiling high risk guys, or go for the lower ceiling lower risk guys. Beck's theory, and I think I agree, is that Beane pretty consistently goes after the high ceiling guys. I said I think Beane does this because the Bills very much want to have long-term keepers, and that means guys who get a second contract. Low ceiling guys are less likely to be second contract guys. Finally, I mentioned Edmunds for the reason Beck understood. Edmunds was a high ceiling guy, but he wasn't a top 10, near-lock kind of guy. He was a higher risk guy, but Beane was attracted to the possibility that Edmunds could become a generational middle linebacker, a no-brainer second contract guy. There's a cost to drafting that way, which is that you have a season or two or even three where you have a problem at a position because the high-ceiling guy you invested in, a guy like Elam or Cody Ford, not only doesn't approach his ceiling; he isn't even a valuable regular contributor to your team's success. How big is that cost, compared to having a guy who is contributing in his first season, a guy like Rousseau. Now, I don't think Rousseau's proved anything yet, he hasn't approached his ceiling, but at least Rousseau has been a regular contributor from the start. Is it worth it to have the chance at Rousseau's ceiling? I don't know if it's worth it. I really don't. But what Beck's pointed out is that, right or wrong, Beane's approach seems to be to bet on the high ceiling guys and be willing to take his lumps on misses. In fact, his approach to team-building is that he's going to beat the other teams at finding and developing high-ceiling talent. He's going to be better identifying talent, and then he's going to give that talent to McDermott. McDermott's job is get most of the high ceiling talent to reach their ceilings. Beane loves competition, and his job is competition against the other GMs. Beane lives to compete, and he leaves nothing on the field, so to speak. He and McDermott have the same mentality. In McDermott, I think of it as the wrestler's mentality. All-out physical fight. It's Beane's mentality, too. I wouldn't expect a competitor like that to do anything else; he's going to fight and scratch claw for the best players. That means he's always going after the high-ceiling guy. Almost always. Edit: Just to be clear, it took me some time to put together this post. While I fiddling with it, Beck posted saying a lot of the same things I say in this post. I didn't copy what he said, and now I find it surprising how similar it is.

There's another aspect to this. They want to draft players who will merit a second co tract. They want their future stats to come out of the draft. That may explain why they take a boom or bust approach. If they hit every other, they're in good shape. They need Rousseau to emerge.

This is a very interesting point. I'm not sure it's correct, but there's certainly plenty of evidence to think you're on to something. You should note, however, that Kincaid also falls in this category, which at least so far looks like he may be boom. Edmunds also was in this same category. He was a first-round reach in the sense that they hoped he would emerge into something more than he was at the time. The question is whether that's a good strategy. If you look at Torrence, he's a different category. He's a guy who just looked like he could be a solid starter for you, and you don't worry too much about whether he's going to be a star. Beane perhaps should be looking for that kind of guy in the bottom of the first. And perhaps he should be stockpiling picks so that every once in a while he can trade up from the bottom of the first to, say, the middle of the first or even to 10 or so and ***** a guy he really, really wants, a guy who is more likely a guy everyone knows is going to be a difference maker. On the other hand, it's hard to resist the chance to get another White late in the first. Interesting stuff. Thanks.

More than that, it's why you don't have to be frantic to draft running backs. I would much rather have signed Murray and Harris and drafted Williams than just drafted Evans. That would have been a waste of a pick. There's pretty much no way you can pick up in free agency a linebacker who makes plays as nice as that run is. Running backs really are a dime a dozen. Someone commented about Blackshear seeing the field in Carolina. It's almost as though every year you can have a running back in camp who's good enough to be on a roster somewhere.

One other player I think should be added is Kyle Allen. He showed me that he can be a serious back up. Yes, he didn't look like a starter, but just like your #2 wideout can't be expected to look like your #1, your backup QB isn't going to look like a starter (unless you have a Trubisky, but he isn't a long-term solution). Kyle showed a real facility to run the offense, something that was strangely missing a week early. He knew what he was doing out there. He made a lot of excellent throws, on target, on time. Really nice. And then he made some plays that made him look like a #2. Yes, it really troubles me that he has no touch, but I'm guessing he'll learn to get better at that. We have to realize that when the starting QB on a good team goes down, the only way the team continues to win is if (1) the backup manages the team well and doesn't affirmatively LOSE games, and (2) the rest of the team (the oline and the defense, particularly) pick it up a notch. Kyle Allen can be that guy.

You guys are studying the oline and I am not, but it is very interesting to read this thread. What it says is that the oline is in good shape, which is great. Pretty much everyone went into the off-season believing (as I did) that offensive line was an area of large concern to the Bills. For me it was the largest concern. I haven't worried all that much about the #2 wideout or the #2 running back, because there always seem to be solutions kicking around at those positions. And the Bills even picked up an edge rusher. But offensive line was a real concern. It seems from earlier this summer and from this thread and from other comments about the game that offensive guard has been solidified nicely, that Brown actually has picked it up since last season, and that there's some reasonably reliable depth. The problem for Beane will be holding on to it. I have to admit, I don't even know who Edwards is, but when I've happened to notice him at guard or hear comments about him, my conclusion is the guy can play. And Bates, and Anderson. These guys may not be stars, but they all look like good football players. And sure, there are going to be plays where someone loses his one on one battle, which is what people are talking about in this thread, but unless you have a line full of all-stars, everyone is going to get beaten sometimes. Looking at it globally, I'm pleasantly surprised on how well the oline has come together. I don't know that for a fact, but it isn't surprising. These guys whom McDermott likes are the guys who get the little things right a very high percentage of the time. They don't blow the fundamentals of their assignment. For Morse, it's get the line calls right, get the ball to Josh, and then do the best you can.

It's in Morse's DNA to get absolutely blown up from time to time. I think Morse is a classic example of the kind of guy that McDermott wants several of. He's the ultimate team player, he's a leader, he plays with his head - really smart. Those attributes are so important to McDermott that he's willing to accept something less than spectacular physical skills. That's why Klein is on the team, too. Every season, McDermott has some of these guys on the team. Dane Jackson is another one. And Bates. They are physical underperformers, but McDermott seems to believe that their other contributions to the team are so valuable that he chooses to live with the underperformance. Whether McDermott is right or wrong about this, I don't know, but it seems pretty clear to me that that is how he manages his roster.

The Bills studied Elam and concluded that he could learn to play the defense the Bills wanted him to play. That judgment has turned out, so far, to be wrong. Makes plenty of sense. That's exactly what McDermott did with his very first pick: Tre White. That time the judgment was correct. Basham and Epenesa weren't bad picks. They're good NFL players and will play many years in the league. They may not be as good as the Bills hoped they would be, but they are far from busts. The Bills may be about to give up on Epenesa, because he doesn't fit their mold, but they aren't done with Basham. It's all in the nature of the draft. I haven't seen the play, but I've seen him catch Josh's lasers before. And if we're going to measure Davis against "top wide receivers," he will always come up short. He is NOT a top wide receiver and never will be. He's a #2, and #2s are not consistently top playmakers. The only exceptions are the guys who are really #1s and are #2 only because they're still on their rookie contracts with a team that already has a #1. That's nice if you can do it, but it's not a sustainable model. Beane wants a quality #2 for the long term, and that still could be Davis.

Great stuff, Gunner. Just fabulous. I quoted it just so I can respond to several points. I simply didn't bother to figure out how I could watch the preseason games until yesterday, when I got the game first on my phone, then on my laptop. Never bothered to get it all the way up onto the television. I didn't listen, just watched. I don't know the players numbers (at one point watching I replay I actually asked myself who #14 was!), so I got a holistic view of the game and the team. My reaction was "this is a good team." I missed the opening drive, so I wasn't even reacting to the starters on offense. I was reacting to the look of the team, how they executed, how they managed the game, third downs, etc. I could see plays that were missed, but then I noticed that missed plays are always part of the game. Not every drive ends in a touchdown (except once on an absolutely glorious night in Orchard Park), and not every defensive drive ends with a takeaway or a three and out. Watching it all, what I saw was a good team. I'm ready for the season. One thing that I was struck by was the Bills' tackling. It was crisp and sure. Someone was always attacking the ball carrier. And I noticed that a lot of the time it was Neal. First time, I thought, "good for you." Second time, I thought, "nice." Third time was, "hmm, this guy has to be on the team." His active, attacking open-field pursuit and tackling is superior. So, I agree about Neal. I didn't see the starters, but I agree about rhythm. This was a team playing football the way the team wants to play football. In the game there are lots of ups and downs, but the team was a unit taking the ups and downs in stride and dictating the overall flow of the game. (I didn't see the end; apparently, there was some classic late-game nail biting, so I'm sure some will say the Bills still have work to do, and I won't argue.) Happy to hear about Benford. Frankly, what you describe is what I thought I was seeing last season. He's a very good defensive back. If Elam turns out to be depth, well that's too bad when we're evaluating hits and misses in the draft, but there's no reason not to celebrate the Benford hit as much as we may despair over the Elam miss. The Harris runs I saw were excellent. Better than I imagined. Excited to know he's the guy who can spell. Cook. I s till think Murray, too, will have an important role. And you didn't mention Evans, who really showed me skills on multiple plays. By late last season I was convinced that Hamlin can't be an answer at safety. He does everything as well as he possible can, but that's just not quite good enough. Disappointed about Epenesa, but he's been a pretty consistent story, always not quite what he needs to be. Shorter, on the other hand, is a rookie. Sure, he may have blown a play on special teams, but just like the Bills didn't give up on Epenesa or Neal when they made rookie mistakes, the Bills will give up on Shorter now, at least I don't think so. The Bills are about continuous improvement, and they are going to work with Shorter and trust that he will improve. (And, by the way, that's what's disappointing about Elam. The Bills aren't likely to give up on him yet, but he's supposed to be learning lessons and improving (like Neal), and that doesn't seem to be happening.) You're right, Davis is a lock. I've been saying in other threads that part of the problem is that the Bills offense has to be run in a way that makes the Bills less dependent on him. He's just a weapon on the offense, not a go-to guy. Just like Cook and Knox and several others. They're weapons, not go-to. Diggs is the go-to guy, and maybe Kincaid will become one. But reading you analysis and remembering what was said about Sherfield's history, is Sherfield the #2, with some combination of Kincaid and Harty and Shakir in the slot? Thanks again for your analysis. It's top-notch.

I'm responding to you and Balln. A typical #2 is not good to great at getting separation and is not good to great at making contested catches. A guy who is good to great at one or both of those skills is a #1 receiver. People are naming players like Hill and Waddle and Cinci's wideouts. Someone mentioned Gronk and Edelman. They're all #1 receivers. Why? Because they're all good to great at getting open using their own skills, or in Gronk's case they're open when they're covered, so they don't need to separate. Good #2s have decent speed, and are reliable ball catchers when they're open. They get open by executing their routes within the scheme; sometimes the defender makes a mistake, and sometimes the route design stresses the defense in a way that allows the #2 to get open. A #2 should be targeted only when that happens. They are not good at getting separation. The only #2s who separate well are #1s on their rookie contracts, by and large. I don't mind when Josh throws to a covered Diggs, because Diggs is a true #1. I do mind when Josh throws to a covered Davis, because that's a low-percentage throw. A three-yard dump off is a better decision than a 16-yard throw to a covered Davis. Throwing to Davis, or to any other covered #2, is a low percentage throw that is bad for the offense. If you want Davis's catch percentage to go up, tell Josh to stop throwing to him when he's covered. And when he does that, guess what will happen: Josh's completion percentage will go up. That three-yard dump off is a much better play for the team, and is much more likely to keep a drive alive, than a low percentage 16-yard throw to Davis when he's covered. I think you misunderstand what a typical #2 receiver is in the NFL.

Exactly. I haven't studied the stats, but I think last season Josh got greedy and threw downfield to Davis a lot because he was a big target, even though Davis wasn't really open. Find the open man and throw it to him.

Personally, I think this is mostly on the QB. You know what they say about great #1s? They say "he's open when he's covered." In other words, the QB can throw it to him when he's covered, because he's really special fighting for the ball. The same thing is rarely said about #2 receivers. If a #2 receiver is open when he's covered, he becomes someone's #1. A lot of Davis's targets are ball that are contested catches. The quarterback shouldn't be throwing the ball to him, because as a #2 almost by definition is not open when he's covered. The QB's job is to find the #1, and if he can't find the #1, he has to find the guy who is open. Throwing contested catches to anyone but your #1 is a mistake. With well designed modern passing routes, there's almost always an open receiver somewhere. Find him and throw it to him.

Thanks, but no I wasn't confusing the two. But you make a good point about smoothness facilitates explosiveness. Not sure I'd put Allen on the list. I wouldn't call him smooth. But Miller for sure. Different sport, but Ray Allen was smooth. Thanks. This discussion was interesting.

Here's a paper about how people are must now beginning to study smoothness. They say sports trainers recognize it, and it correlates with performance, but they don't really understand it. It is the loose hips, fluid motion characteristics you guys described. They don't know how to measure it, but people are working on trying understand it. https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-019-0215-y Thanks for getting me started.

This is really good, thanks. That's what I wanted to know. That's a great explanation of what people mean by the. Obviously an important package of little physical skills. Thanks.

Ooh, that's good. Thanks. That's am actual physical characteristic. I'm sure the scouts consider that. I appreciate that I got an actual explanation. That's what I wanted.

I don't have a problem. I just asked what it means and why it's relevant to a discussion of his talents. I don't think it's relevant, so I asked people. And it turns out no one really has been able to tell me. I said in a post, and I don't think anyone responded: If smoothness is really relevant to being a good player, why hasn't anyone come up with a way to measure smoothness? They don't test for smoothness at the combine. PFF grades players on all different kinds of things. Football Outsiders, too. Nobody measures smoothness. Why not? Because it can't be measured? I don't think so. They don't measure it because smoothness is not something it is important have, at least that's what I think. People are suggesting that smoothness has something to do with route running, but I've said there are plenty of good route runners who aren't smooth. One thing I can think about smoothness is that it may lull the defense into a false sense of security, because guys who are smooth don't look like their running hard, don't look like they're cutting sharply. Every looks easy for them, so they don't look like they're trying. Rice was like that. But it didn't take long for the rest of the league to figure out that regardless of how he looked doing it, you had work you tail off to try to cover him. So, I don't know that smoothness, if it's an asset on the field at all, lasts very long as an asset. After you get hypnotized once or twice by his smoothness, you wake up. As I said a few times now. I watch Shakir and think he's smooth. That's always been my impression of him. It doesn't make Shakier a starter. Jerry Rice was incredibly smooth. He flowed all over the field. I think that only made him more enjoyable to watch. I'm pretty sure smooth just describes how someone looks doing whatever he's doing. I don't about Chandler, but definitely Alworth. I don't think so. I think it's interesting that people have named a half dozen great receivers who were smooth. Almost none of them are playing today. OBJ, no. Hopkins, no. Maybe one or both guys at Cinci. Tyreek Hill, no. They're not smooth. I really think smooth is about how he looks when he's doing job. It's not about how well he does his job.

Sorry for your loss, and his family's loss. Great photo. Captures what you describe. Kid next door to us became a lifelong Bills fan for the same reason. It was inevitable; he grew up next door to my kids.