SoTier

I was very skeptical about Watson' based on his performance as a rookie and about Mahomes early on last year, but in their third and second year as starters respectively, they are so good that even if they don't improve, they are great as they are. Joe Flacco was good but never in the same area code as Watson and Mahomes. Mariota always seemed to me to be a very uninspiring game manager. I think he lacks leadership for want of a better word. Technically, he's probably a better passer than Tannehill, but Tannehill just gets more out of his teammates despite his shortcomings.

I think you know what kind of QB you have when he stops improving his play and keeps making the same kind of plays -- good or bad -- over and over. I think that sometime between the start of his second and the end of his third season as a starter, he hits his ceiling and any improvements from then on are probably only minimal. It's why so many QBs who look so good as first or second year starters derail -- they hit the limits of their abilities and those limits aren't high enough to justify that QB being a competent NFL starting QB AFAIK, there haven't been any cases of a QB who's been mediocre to poor for his first three seasons as a starter suddenly metamorphisizing into a great QB. I think the hard part for teams is deciding to cut ties with a young starting QB who's not improving. They know he's not getting better but they keep hoping. The Bucs handling of Jameis Winston is the classic example of this. Rarely, a poor team or an injury obscures a QB's progress, which is what happened with Drew Brees in SD and Derek Carr in Oakland early in their careers as well as with Carson Wentz. However, sometimes a poor team or injuries simply obscures the fact that the QB just isn't that good, which seems to be the case with Marcus Mariota. OTOH, some young QBs are so good coming out of the gate that even minimal improvement later doesn't affect their status as NFL starters. I think that both Patrick Mahomes and DeShaun Watson fit this category. Back before the season started, there were a number of threads on "what do you need to see from Josh Allen", to which I responded that I needed to see him on a continual arc of improvement (meaning that while there might be setbacks, he was still improving as a QB and hadn't hit his ceiling). Allen made a big jump between last season and this one. He's continued to improve as the season has gone on. Unfortunately, he was so far behind the other QBs in his class -- and most other first round QBs in recent years -- in his passing skills that he remains very much a question mark as to whether he'll ever be good enough to be considered a franchise QB. At this point in time, he certainly seems to be on track, a young QB still on the upswing, unlike the 2 QBs taken ahead of him in 2019: Mayfield and Darnold. Hopefully, by this time next year, the Bills will have figured out if he's truly a keeper of not.

That's a very partisan and elitist statement -- and it's untrue. Maybe it's not where you're coming from, but most of the proponents of this view are the same people who advocate subsidizing private elementary and secondary education via vouchers; are always worried about "unqualified" people color being admitted to prestigious educational institutions while being just fine with "unqualified" children of alumni taking spots at competitive colleges, etc; and who actively promote the idea that college degrees are unnecessary when, in fact, statistical data shows just the opposite. The rise in the cost of tuition coincides with the decline of government support for higher education, especially on the state level with aid to public colleges and universities; with the rampant inflation of the 1970s and 1980s which raised costs for all organizations and businesses; with the unionization of collegiate faculties which raised the wages of teaching and research staff; and finally, a massive increase in demand, especially for prestigious schools. Except for the issue of government support, these same factors have resulted in massive tuition increases in private elementary and secondary schools where government backed loans have never existed.

Alumni contributions seldom actually reduce tuition for all students. The Ivies have monstrous endowments (which are used to provide a reliable revenue stream for operating expenses) and it took an expose by the media about a decade ago to embarrass schools like Harvard and Yale to give almost all students reduced or free tuition. Most contributions to colleges go into endowment and building funds -- often for building Taj Mahal-like sports facilities -- as well as providing inflated salaries for institution administrators, big name professors, and football and basketball coaches. Donations to scholarship funds are the only dollars that are actually earmarked to help students with college costs with the income from those scholarship funds.

Agreed. "Legacy" = affirmative action for rich white folks. At lesser institutions, it's favoring graduates' relatives in hopes of garnering a few thousand dollars in donations. At prestigious institutions, it's giving slots to frequently unqualified candidates who are the children/grandchildren of wealthy, prominent alumni in exchange for millions in donations.

Game. Set. Match.

No, it's more like they've been so badly treated for so long that they act like any little bit of good treatment -- ie, squeakng into a WC berth or going 6-2 in the first half of the season --- that they think their in heaven.

Buffalo is not a FA destination because it's a small market team or because it's in a cold weather area. It's not a FA destination because it's been a poorly run organization for 20 years under 2 owners and has been largely irrelevant to the rest of the NFL because the team has failed to win on the field. Winning makes teams attractive to FAs. See Green Bay vs Washington or Tampa Bay. As for the QBs, why can't the Bills find a world class QB? Maybe they need to do a better job at the draft, which is again the failure of a poor organization. In 2004, the Bills traded up to take JP Losman in the first round rather than wait to take Matt Schaub (who's still in the NFL btw) in the 2nd or 3rd round. The Bills traded up for bust WR TJ Graham in the 3rd round of the 2012 draft and left Russell Wilson for Seattle to scoop up. How about drafting EJ Manuel in the first round in 2013 simply because they wanted a first round QB even though the QBs were all poor prospects when they could have had Teddy Bridgewater, Derek Carr or Jimmy Garoppolo the next season. They could have had Jacoby Brissett or Dak Prescott in 2016 instead of Cardale Jones. Then they passed on both Mahomes and Watson in 2017 to take a DB.

Great post! I feel the same way. So many posters on TSW are so happy with so little it's really sad. Aim higher, dudes! Expect more!

Apparently, criticizing how the Bills played a particular game or their style of game = thinking this is a bad team to some posters. The Bills aren't a bad team but they aren't quite as good as their record suggests that they are, either. Some teams with worse records than they have -- like Indy, Jax, and Pittsburgh -- have dealt with significantly more difficulty, ie, the loss of their starting QBs than the Bills have faced and are still in the playoff hunt. Foles is supposed to be nearly ready to play, so the Jags might turn things around. Brissett has proven to be a more than competent replacement for Luck, and he may even be good enough to play this week. Mason Rudolph isn't Roethlisberger but he's not Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold either.

This bothers me, too. I also see how many teams regularly make chunk plays that enable them to cover 70 or 80 yards in 5 or 6 plays not 10 or 12 as well as how many teams can go entire games without a single pre-snap offensive penalty. The Bills just don't look like they can truly compete with the Cowboys, Ravens, or Steelers. They probably can compete with the Pats if they don't commit turn overs like they did in their first meeting, but that's because the Pats offense isn't that good this season -- and maybe their defense isn't as good as advertised, either. I think the Bills will likely make the playoffs baring a sudden surge from a team like Oakland, Tennessee, Carolina or Pittsburgh but If they have to play "the big boys" like KC, Indy or Houston in the WC, they look like they might be one and done. Again.

Given how many posters on TSW defend every questionable and even stupid move made by McDermott and Beane, and how ignorant so many posters are of what goes on in the NFL, someone posting that Oliver was playing well after he was benched is certainly plausible.

Daboll was McDermott's choice at OC. His first OC was lousy, too. In fact, he's on his second coach at most of the offensive and special teams positions in three seasons. If he can't hire decent assistants, he's not a very good HC.

Seriously? You are aware that Oliver was benched in the Washington game, right? DK Metcalf OTOH has caught 29 passes for 525 yards (18.1 y/r) and 5 TDs.

Is there enough population outside the metro to support a team? I'm not familiar with Oregon specifically but I know that pretty much when you get out beyond the suburbs of major western cities outside of California, all you've got is farm and/or ranch land, forest or desert dotted with small towns of a few hundred people. A major population center in these areas would have about 5000-10000 people. The eastern parts of both Washington and Oregon are primarily sparsely populated mountains and high desert. Even Northern Cal is much more rural and sparsely populated than further south around the Bay Area.

Good life for a stray cat compared to life out on the streets.

Agreed. LA couldn't support 2 teams the first time around, so I'm not sure why the NFL suits thought it would work again except that stadium boosters/developers sold owners a bill of goods. I don't think that the cities you mentioned are viable options because they aren't big enough metros, population wise, to support an NFL franchise in this era. I think that San Diego and St Louis are both viable, and probably Oakland as well. Those cities didn't lose their franchises because the fans didn't support their teams but because the owners couldn't strong arm the local governments into building them new stadiums.

I would do so in a heartbeat if I could grab a Nick Bosa or Minkah Fitzpatrick. Aim higher, dude. Several years? Try twenty years. Two decades. That this team is "MUCH MUCH better" than previous editions doesn't mean much when those teams sucked. What I want to see is this team at least be competitive with the good teams in the NFL today, and I don't think they are, especially on offense.

McDermott is better than Jauron but the philosophical basis for how they coach (or in Jauron's case, attempt to coach) are very similar. It was a philosophy that had some validity -- and success -- a few decades ago but not in 2019.

McDermott wins against bad teams. Not so much against good ones. He's a significantly better coach and evaluator of talent than Jauron. His assistants, however poor or mediocre they are, are better than Jauron's. The problem with Jauron ball -- which is sometimes called "small ball" in other places where they haven't had the misfortune to have Jauron coach their NFL team -- is that the conservative philosophy which emphasizes defense and low risk offense limits what a team can do. In today's NFL, teams have to be able to score 3 or 4 TDs against most opponents if they want to be competitive with the big dogs in the league. Moreover, they can't let up if they get up by 2 TDs because most quality teams have at least one -- and often several -- receivers (WRs and TEs) capable of scoring from any point on the field at any time. Nothing says Jauron ball more than how conservative the play calling becomes after the Bills build up a lead.

That's how I see it, too.

It's Jauron ball, and it's been McDermott's style since he became HC. Play not to lose. Don't take many chances and especially not big chances. Daboll either shares McDermott's philosophy or has adapted to it.

Why shouldn't that be the standard for the Bills???? I'm sure that Belichick and Co have that standard for the Pats. I'm sure that that's what Andy Reid, John Harbaugh, Sean McVay, Frank Reich, and Doug Pedersen expect from their offenses? Why do the Bills FO/HCs accept mediocrity as "good enough" -- and so many of their fans applaud them for it?

I absolutely agree. Most of the Bills wins have been against teams without a whole lot of talent. The Browns have the talent to do to the Bills what Philly did. As I said in the thread about the next four games, if they get their act together, they are fully capable of smacking the Bills upside the head. BTW, the 7-1 Packers visited the 3-5 Chargers, another team which has underperformed its talent, and got embarrassed, so for the Browns to trip up the Bills is entirely possible.

Playing not to lose by too much.