SoTier

It's not at all "unpopular" to recognize that people in the past held views that are not acceptable today. What's "unpopular" is defending and/or excusing unacceptable views today by appeals to the existence of such attitudes or actions in the past. What's even more "unpopular" is holding those views today. If you hold views that are unacceptable to the society in which you live -- and publicly champion them -- especially on social media -- because your reverence for the past blinds you to the injustices done in the name of such views -- that's your problem not society's. Society, which is not a government and cannot be described as "totalitarian", does not have to accord "equal time" to morally reprehensible ideas nor coddle individuals who hold them. Thank you for an excellent post. Traditionally, baseball teams played "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" during the seventh inning stretch. Now, the supposed "traditionalists" are whining about a team no longer playing a "johnny come lately" ditty that has absolutely nothing to do with baseball. Why do you think the decision is "irrational"? Do you think that continuing to use a word or phrase or play a song that you know is offensive to some of your audience is good business practice? I'd say no. Is it ethical or justifiable? I would think you have to say no unless you think that some people don't count as much as others simply because of the color of their skin or their gender or their religious views, etc. Who's "homeland" are we talking about here? Blacks are Americans as much as you are. So are women, gays, Jews, etc. Let me guess, you're one of those white, conservative intellectuals who blames everybody but yourself because you can't compete with all the "undeserving" untermensch like blacks, Latinos, gays, women, immigrants, etc. despite your intellectual, racial, and sexual superiority. Christians in the Middle Ages were exceptionally pious -- and that didn't prevent them from butchering Jews, Moslems, and even other Christians. Pious Protestants and Catholics regularly butchered each other in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Pious Spanish Catholics came to the Americas where they killed Native Americans who wouldn't conbvert to Christianity and enslaved the rest -- and when los indios died out because they were worked to death, they imported African slaves. Those icons of piety -- the Puritans who came to Massachusetts Bay to create a more godly society -- burned women as witches based on the hysterical accusations of some silly girls. The KKK wrapped itself in robes of "protecting Christianity" from the threat of Jews and Papists, especially in the 1920s. Those pious preachers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson claimed that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment for not embracing their own reactionary social agenda. I could go on ... LOL. See above. How, exactly, does one determine "authentic piety" from pseudo piety? How can someone who accepts morally reprehensibly actions by individuals or governments or organizations be considered pious? Well, since you invited me to play grammar nazi, check out your post above and the bolded words. The word is "atrocious" ... and while "injust" is an actual word in the English language, it hasn't been used since the early 1700s. Maybe your employment issues would be solved if you stopped trying to demonstrate your superiority by using $50 words when 50 centers would do ... and I'm somewhat qualified to critique you on intellectual achievement because I have a PhD in 19th century American social history with minors in Latin American history and African history. I also have a BS in geology with a concentration in business computing (computer science wasn't a major when I was in college) either time -- and I never had a problem finding or holding a job because I was smart enough to not allow my private views to influence my work or pretend I was intellectually superior to everybody else.

It's a good excuse to butcher people who don't observe the same religious rules that pious bigots would like to impose on everyone.

I'd consider a society that had to go to war to end human slavery, that used violence and terror to deprive millions of Americans their right political and civil rights for more than a century, and that used religion to justify slavery, economic exploitation, and lynching as well as other forms of terror to be neither pious nor wise. Racist and greedy seems a much better description.

When will the whining by white men about being outraged that American courts and institutions consider blacks to legitimate grievances end?

I'd temper the enthusiasm over the current regime if I were you until we see some real results, ie more drafts and the maturation of the players from 2017 and 2018. A year or two out from any draft, many high picks looed much better than they turned out to be. In the case of the Bills drafts in the article, prior to the 2004 season, Mike Williams was still a promising LT, and prior to the 2009 season, the 2007 draft looked like a great draft with Marshawn Lynch, Paul Posluszny, and Trent Edwards in the first three rounds. So far, Beane has been here for 1 draft. McDermott has been here for 2. The rookies from last year, most noticeably Allen and Edmunds, look promising but you can't say more than that at present. The 2017 draft produced one actually good NFL player -- Tre White. Last season LB Matt Milano emerged as a solid defender but LT Dion Dawkins, who looked promising as a rookie, took a big step backward. After a horrific rookie season, Zay Jones improved but he's unlikely to be a regular starter this season. All of these players could yet go on to become better but they might also never get any better or even get worse.

Agreed. A player can't help that they don't have enough talent, and Peterman just didn't have it. After the opening game debacle, I thought he should have been released because it was obvious that he was helpless against regular season competition. Maybe if he sat on the bench for a season or two and just watched, he would have been a played a little better because he had a little more to work with. I said it at the time last year that keeping Peterman as Allen's backup rather than moving immediately to bring in a better backup QB was unnecessarily cruel to Peterman.

I think that on-field leadership was something that Allen didn't struggle with much last season. The same team that looked like a sandlot squad under Peterman and uninspiring under Anderson and Barkley, looked like it might have some hope under Allen. Now, however, he's going to have to execute if his teammates are going to continue to believe in him, especially with all the new FAs on offense. Allen is going to have to demonstrate early on that he can make plays with his arm and his head, not just with his legs, so I think that his passing stats such as completion percentage, yards per attempt and TD/INT ratio are going to have to improve. Doing so should enable the team to move the ball, make more 3rd downs, and score more TDs, especially in the RZ ... and hopefully, win more games.

Allen had a meh season for a rookie QB. In fact, all of the 2018 QBs except for Mayfield, weren't all that good -- and even Mayfield had tremendous room for improvement. Rookie QBs ALWAYS have room for improvement simply because they have a tremendous learning curve. That's why it's so important for QBs in their second year as starters to improve significantly. Staying the same simply isn't good enough -- and that's as true for Mayfield as it is for Allen.

I think young QBs -- whether they are first rounder or UDFAs -- do actually get somewhat better once they've started some games and "figured out which way is up" as it were. The problem is two fold, and they are linked to an extent. First, as you, noted, DCs figure them out after they have some film. It's why so often a young QB comes in and looks great (Nathan Peterman excepted) for several games -- maybe even a season or a little more -- and then he may either burn out like a meteor or simply become ineffective. At some point, all QBs get figured out and can be stopped at least for a while. The great ones, though, mostly overcome that. I think Ryan Fitzpatrick is an example of a talented QB who can be very good for as long as it takes for DCs to get enough tape on him with his current team to game plan for him (it seems to be about 5-6 games) and then he goes down in flames. Second, mistakes and inconsistencies are forgiven a rookie or first time starting QB, but after he's made 20 or 30 starts, he's not getting a pass for still making the same kinds of stupid mistakes that he made earlier. In order to limit his mistakes, a QB has to learn to read defenses. He has to improve and/or maintain his mechanics. He has to learn from his previous mistakes so that he makes better decisions (although some QBs seem to be gifted with superior decison makiing early on) -- and that's a tough task, especially when the better decisions conflict with their natural tendencies -- probably QBs labeled "gunslingers" are most prone to this problem. IOW, QBs who don't master the skills that modern QBs need to overcome defensive planning intended to thwart them, don't last long as starters. I think that Jameis Winston is a good example of a very talented young QB who seems to continue to make many of the same mistakes he made early on, which probably doesn't bode well for him having long term success.

Maybe the reason that nobody but Bills fans thinks the Bills will "surprise" the NFL is because they've been doing the "two steps forward, two steps backwards" dance for the last twenty years as evidenced by only 3 winning seasons and 1 playoff appearance.

^^^ This is probably the most common type of "sophomore slump" for QBs -- and it's not a good sign, especially if the QB, like Allen, didn't have a particularly good rookie season. The more a sophomore QB improves over his rookie season, the more likely he is to have long-term success. Off hand, the only recent first round QB I can think of who improved significantly in his second over his first and then crashed and burned was Josh Freeman whose failure, according to rumor, was due to drug use.

This. Rookie QBs who are mediocre, even less than mediocre, are one thing. Many of these guys come back to shine like Goff or Mahomes. Sophomore QBs who don't get demonstratively better almost always fail. IIRC Drew Brees is the only great QB in the last 20 years who didn't play as well as a second year starter as he did as a rookie, but he had a pretty good rookie season.

Whether it was Pegula, Brandon, and/or McDermott in any combination who decided to trade out of the #10 spot in 2017, he/they screwed up by passing on two excellent collegiate QBs when they needed a young QB. Two of the most likely reasons why they did this was that they needed a DB to replace Gilmore or that KC made them an offer they couldn't refuse. Claiming that the Bills passed on Mahomes or Watson because they were "waiting" for Allen is simply nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone with the power to make personnel decisions on the Bills at the time of the 2017 draft (ie, not Whaley and not the scouts) had enough knowledge of the college players who weren't in the current draft to have more than a vague knowledge of who they were. Furthermore, Allen's best season, 2016, was unimpressive compared to Mahomes and Watson's seasons, especially since they put up much better numbers while playing at major programs compared to Allen who played at Wyomfing which is, at best, a modest regional program. Actually, your example is irrelevant to this discussion. You're describing the idea of a team making a safe pick versus gambling on a player with much more potential but more risk (say from an injury or coming from a smaller program). That situation is not necessarily related to team need. Need vs BPA is based on passing on one or more better prospects in order to draft a lesser prospect primarily because the lesser prospect happens to play a position of "need".

I agree. I think need is always a consideration (or if you've just drafted your QB, lack of need) but it shouldn't be the driving force -- that's when teams end up with Donte Whitner rather than Hali Ngata or Aaron Maybin rather than anybody or Tre White rather than Patrick Mahomes. I think need comes into play when players of about equal talent are available. A lot of media types and posters are on Gettleman for taking Barkley over "a QB" but it's entirely possible that the Giants didn't like any of the 2018 QBs all that well or only liked Mayfield better or as well as Barkley. Historically, over the last twenty years, QBs who aren't clearly the #1 consensus pick in the draft tend to bust about half the time and most drafts produce only 1 franchise QB (and some none), so taking a RB who's considered a generational talent rather than grabbing a lesser QB just because the team needs a young QB makes a lot of sense.

I agree. Winning teams trade or sign FAs to acquire outstanding talent or fill key personnel needs. Perennial bottom feeder teams like the Bills too often make trades (especially during the draft) or sign big-name FAs in order to put butts in the seats by exciting their fan bases or to shuffle personnel like playing cards. The Bills have done both over the last twenty years, and almost always they've come out the loser. It's too early to judge the McDermott/Beane regime's success or failure but it is fair to say that unless Allen has a HOF quality career, McDermott/Beane will be judged a failure. Being a decent franchise QB (like Matthew Stafford, Cam Newton or Joe Flacco) isn't going to be good enough given that the Bills passed on Mahomes in 2017 and spent a fortune in talent and picks in 2018 to move up to get Allen.

If you re-read my post, you will find that I also included Russ Brandon in the supposed "brain trust" that lead the Bills in 2017 and 2018. McDermott was here in 2017 and 2018, and like everyone else, I don't know who exactly was responsible for the personnel moves while Brandon was the head honcho. Whaley had never really been in control of deciding which players the Bills would let walk in FA; that tended to be Brandon. Whaley was responsible for finding talent and evaluating it once it was on the team. He had input into the decisions about which players were re-signed, but he didn't make the final decision -- just as he didn't decide on HCs. I would guess that Beane was hired to fill that same role. How his role changed after Brandon was fired is unknown. I don't believe that the Pegulas hired anyone to fill the same role as Brandon did, but does that mean that they gave Beane more responsibility or has he remained subordinate to McDermott as he appeared to be in 2017? I don't know, and you don't either. The Bills have always kept their inner workings very private. I never said ANYTHING about Beane or McDermott not owning up to his/their mistakes. I said that you and some other posters refuse to recognize that serious personnel mistakes were made in 2017 and 2018, and I'll stand by my statement. Your last paragraph is a perfect example. Trading Watkins compounded by Beane trading for Matthews, who also couldn't "stay healthy" and for Benjamin, who wasn't healthy when he came to the Bills and seems to have not had a great attitude to boot. If you "believe" that Woods had no interest in having Taylor as his QB, then why would he have signed with the Rams with Jared Goff as their QB? Goff had a miserable rookie season on a miserable team in 2016 and many people were already penciling him in as a bust. However, keep up your excuse making. Furthermore, you conveniently ignored my example of how the QB situation was handled in 2018. That, to me, is far worse than whatever happened in 2017. At best, it hints that Beane was undergoing OTJ training and learned from his mistakes (ie, an offense without decent WRs and OLers is gonna suck). At worst, it suggests that the Bills are continuing the same philosophy under Pegula/McDermott/Beane that was prevalent under Wilson/Brandon: maximizing profits trump winning football games. If you don't like my opinions, feel free to put me on "ignore" so that my "cluelessness" won't impinge on your fantasies of an inevitable Bills Super Bowl under the current regime.

All FOs/HCs make mistakes. What is clueless is pretending that Brandon/Beane/McDermott didn't make mistakes and attempting to defend those mistakes as "they got rid of guys that were not performing or do not have the attitude they want". They allowed always productive, always hard-working WR Robert Woods leave in FA and then traded away Sammy Watkins. They replaced them with Jordan Matthews and Kelvin Benjamin. They not only wasted a draft pick on Nathan Peterman, they compounded their error by trading away Taylor and naming Peterman the starter even though his play as a rookie was awful. Then they kept Peterman as the backup to Allen for a month before they brought in another QB after Peterman demonstrated his incompetence yet again in the season opener. While what you said is true comparing last year and this year's rosters, that's only because last year's was so bad. At present, we can all hope that the roster will improve on paper with the draft but it's no guarantee that the Bills will be a better team on Opening Day 2019 than it was on Opening Day 2018 except that they'll be better at QB without Nathan Peterman on the roster.

Their criteria/methodology is flawed plain and simple. How can they realistically evaluate rookies who have not played even 1 complete NFL season against + veterans who have 3 or 4 seasons of experience? Rookies shouldn't be included, plain and simply. The history of the NFL is littered with great looking rookies who crashed and burned in subsequent seasons as well as rookies who sucked in their first season and turned into All Stars -- or like Brady and Mahomes, barely played but had extraordinary success as sophomores.

When an anomaly like Levi Wallace turning out to be "the best" when he played less than a full season --all of 7 games -- I have to question what criteria/methodology PFF used. It seems to me that a lot of their ratings tend to favor pretty average players over better players.

I was really po'd that the Bills didn't take Wilson. He was clearly a first round talent -- probably a top 5 pick -- if there hadn't been so much prejudice against short QBs at the time. Wilson was the reason that Mayfield was taken #1 rather than on Day 2. I don't think that Jones will ever be a top NFL WR although he could develop into a solid one. A lot of the Bills "misses" have been of that kind -- spending more to get a solid player rather than taking an excellent player.

You missed the gem of taking Aaron Maybin instead of Brian Orakpo at #9 in 2009, probably the perfect example of why a team shouldn't draft for need and also why a HC shouldn't be given control of personnel unless his name is Belichick.

I would guess that your definition of "good players" = "guys I like who play for the Bills" as opposed to "good players" = "starters on most NFL teams". I think that Brandon/Beane/McDermott have actually thrown away spectacular in pursuit of less than solid in several instances. I see a roster with too many bottom end players who would not be good enough to make most teams in the NFL. If the Bills are serious about building a real playoff team, the 2019 draft would be a good time to start. Even if Allen develops into a true franchise QB, he can't do everything himself.

That's as bad as the Bills having three or four Williams a few years ago.

Excellent post. IIRC Knox quit the Bills after the 1981 season because he wanted to acquire some better players but Wilson nixed that. Like Lou Saban in the 1960s and then the early 1970s, Knox had control of personnel but he was still subject to interference from Wilson and Wilson's advisors, several of whom were hired only because they were Wilson's pals. An interesting book on the 1980 Bills-- the team that ended zero-for-the-seventies against Miami -- is "Talking Proud - Rediscovering the Magical Season of the 1980 Buffalo Bills" by Rich Blake.

Where did I say that the Bills are doomed? I didn't. I said it's way too soon to figure out if the Beane regime is better, the same or worse than its predecessors. At this time into most of the previous regimes since 2000 (< 2 years) most fans thought those regimes were better than their predecessors, too. What do you know about Josh Rosen except having watched him a few times play on the train wreck that was the 2018 Cards and read articles/tweets/posts by authors who may very well have their own agendas, including stirring controversy to boost their readership. following or clicks? Have you met him? Have you played with him? Have you coached him? My guess is your answer to all of these questions would be "no". Furthermore, you can believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it true. Nobody knows if any of the 2018 QBs will actually become franchise QBs. Certainly Mayfield's rookie performance makes him the most promising of the lot but it's no guarantee that he doesn't crash and burn this season or next. The poster to whom I responded assumes that when Brady retires, the Patriots are going to instantly and permanently become cellar dwellers and that the Bills will then take their place as the dominant team in the AFCE. Aside from nobody knowing the future, the Bills being a good or bad team is entirely independent of whether NE is a good or bad team. For a lot of years in the last 20 years, Pittsburgh and Baltimore have frequently been among the class of the AFC during the same seasons. No, it's a function of the quality of the teams and coaches their organizations have put around them and any untimely injuries they've suffered. The same with Peyton Manning and Drew Brees -- and especially Phillip Rivers, Matthew Stafford, and probably Matt Ryan too. It has nothing to do with whether or not a QB expresses opinions or not.