Arm of Harm

If you are using Windows do the following: 1) Click on the "type here to search" box to the right of the Windows button. (Lower left corner of your computer screen) 2) Type in the word Paint 3) Click on the button to open the Paint app. 4) Within Paint, click on the word "file" (upper left corner), then on "open". Use Paint to open the picture of the ticket stub. 5) Look at the picture of the ticket stub in Paint and make sure it looks as you wish. 6) Click on "file" then on "save as". To achieve the smallest size/lowest quality, select the .gif option. 7) Upload the .gif version of the file to this site. If your picture is on a cell phone, forward the picture to your own email address so you can open it on your PC. When on your PC, open the email with the picture in it, click on the file for the picture, and save the file to your hard drive. You will then be able to follow the above-listed steps.

In fairness to Ford, the penalty called on him was bogus. I'm on his side on that one. If a player is victimized by a bad call, should he complain about it on social media? I don't have the answer to that. Normally how a player conducts himself on social media won't affect my opinion of him much, one way or the other, unless he's either a) a really incredible guy, or b) a total dirt bag. Complaining about a bad call is somewhere in between those extremes. That said, I agree with you that he isn't any kind of mauler in the run game. A few months ago a website put together film analysis of what was wrong with the Bills' run game. Based on their analysis, it did not appear that Ford's run blocking was what you'd expect from a starting caliber OG. If he can get that fixed, the effect on the Bills' run game would be significant. If he can't, he needs to be replaced.

Now we know what the Bills' long-term plan is for backup QB.

If the Bills think they can get the next Tyreek Hill in the 5th round, by all means I'd love to see that happen! But if they don't think there will be a Tyreek Hill type player waiting for them in the fifth, and if they nevertheless want to give Josh Allen the same type of supporting cast Patrick Mahomes has, it might be necessary to pull the trigger on a WR at #30.

To what extent are the Bills planning on building around Josh Allen? Because if they are truly, 100% committed to building around him, you want to do as much to set him up for success as the Chiefs have done for Patrick Mahomes. Ideally, you want to surround him with young WRs that can remain with the team for the vast bulk of his career. Right now he doesn't have WRs like that, except for Gabe Davis. Beasley and Sanders are on the wrong side of 30. Stephon Diggs is under 30, but a few years older than Allen. They say a WR doesn't truly come into his own until year 3. Going WR at 30 would allow the Bills to bring a player along slowly for his rookie year, then have him step up next year to replace the possibly departing/aging/declining Sanders. At that point you have a young, presumably very good WR who will remain with Allen and the Bills for the next 10+ years.

I remember that film analysis as well. They showed Ford getting beaten on a number of running plays, thereby spoiling the plays. He wasn't the only culprit, but he was one of the most prominent.

Okay, so he lost 2.5 - 3 million per year, assuming that number is accurate. But, think of all the trouble he avoided by staying in Buffalo. Had he relocated, he would have needed at least 30 seconds to pack his belonging into his suitcase and empty out his apartment. 🙃

Yeah, the things you've described in your post are definitely more important than attempting to win an argument about statistics on an Internet discussion board. I think that both sides have done a good job making their cases, and I've bestowed likes on posts from both sides in this argument. However good or bad Allen was at deep passes in 2020, I hope he is outstanding at such passes this season! 👍

Agreed. The single most important thing we needed against the Chiefs was better coaching/better mentality. That said, there's also room to improve some of the players on this team. During the regular season the OL did well at pass protection, not so much in run blocking. In the postseason the OL did poorly in both pass protection and run blocking. The two weakest spots on the OL are both OGs. If the Bills wanted to improve the OL, adding an OG would be the obvious place to start. But as others have pointed out in this thread, there are certainly other needs on this team as well. The defense could use a good pass rusher, a good 1 tech, an improvement at #2 CB, and possibly a LB/S hybrid to cover TEs. The offense could use another weapon, whether it be a TE or a speedy WR to groom for the future. There's also room to improve at RB. By no means am I suggesting that the Bills should be locked in on an OG at #30, to the exclusion of all their other needs. But, I am saying that if the best OG available at #30 is a significantly better football player than the best player available at the other positions I mentioned, they should go with the OG.

If you were to let Beane know your feelings about this, he'd respond by saying, "You know something? You have a point!" Then he'd stop signing additional former Dolphins, focusing instead on former Panthers! 😶

The last time I saw an April Fools joke this good, the Bills starting quarterback was Joe Ferguson!

Suppose you're right and he's as good as you say. In that case, the Bills drafting Bobby Brown would be music to my ears! 😁

So . . . does this mean you're awarding the Bills a high mark for their choice of stadium name?

You ask very good questions. I think that at pretty much every position the Bills have in place a plausible solution. Not necessarily great, or even all that good, but plausible. Some of the team's weakest positions are OG, RB, TE, 1 tech, and #2 CB. But even at all of those, we still have plausible. Given that fact, my instinct is to want the Bills to select whichever player will have the best long-term impact on the team. Sure, I'd love for that player to be an OG, because the OL's performance (or lack thereof) has been eating at me. But let's say for the sake of argument that at #30 you could get a significantly better WR than you could an OG. Given that scenario I'd take the WR. They say a WR doesn't fully come into his own until year 3. So you could draft a WR now and give him a year or two to develop before you really need to lean on him heavily. By no means am I suggesting that I want the Bills to be locked into a WR at #30. I don't want them to be locked into anything at #30. The more flexible their approach, the less of a "need-based penalty" they're likely to pay. What is a need-based penalty? If the best player at a position of need is 90% as good as the best player available, that's a need-based penalty of 10%. The more tightly a team is locked in to specific positions, the more of a need-based penalty it's likely to pay. For example, Marv went into the 2006 draft with the thought that he had to use his first two picks on a SS and a DT. He ended up taking Donte Whitner 8th overall, and John McCargo somewhere in the 20s. He paid a huge need-based penalty for both players--a penalty which could have been avoided had he not been locked into those two positions. Because the Bills have "plausible" players at even their weakest positions, and because they have a number of positions where their starters are no more than plausible, they have a great opportunity to select the best available player from a fairly wide variety of positions.

The Bills' Wang was the first player of Chinese ancestry to be drafted into or play in the NFL. Do you feel the media fondled Wang endlessly?

Not sure why he's apologizing or why you're accepting his apology. This has turned into a good, constructive thread about the Bills' needs at DL and elsewhere. We need more threads like this in the offseason, not less.

During the regular season the Bills' OL did well in pass protection but not so well in run blocking. During the postseason the OL did badly at both. That sticks in my craw. Makes me want to do something to improve the situation. OG is the most obvious place to start! I'm not saying the OGs we have now are necessarily bad. You can get by with them if you have to. But if the Bills were to use their first round pick on a quality OG, there'd definitely be a great opportunity for him to provide a significant upgrade in play over what we're getting now.

I'd add OG to your list, but otherwise I think this is a good summation of this team's needs. If the BPA happened to be at any one of the positions you mentioned, or happened to be an OG, I'd have no problem whatsoever going BPA.

Your post is well thought-out, and you make your case well. Nevertheless there are parts with which I disagree. First, I'd argue that even though Roethlisberger has had a great career, the 2020 version of him was not a particularly good quarterback. In 2020 he averaged 6.3 yards per pass attempt. The career average for Trent Edwards is 6.5 yards per attempt, for Losman it's 6.6 yards per attempt. As for Russell Wilson: in 2020 he averaged 7.5 yards per pass attempt, and 9.5 yards per pass attempt against the Bills. However he threw 2 INTs and took 5 sacks against the Bills, so you could argue the Bills defense used big plays to help make up for their lack of performance on normal plays. Kyler Murray averaged 7.1 yards per pass attempt against his opponents in 2020, but 7.7 yards per attempt when playing the Bills. Justin Herbert averaged 7.1 yards per pass attempt during the regular season, but just 6.1 yards against the Bills. This is the best example of the defense playing well against a good quarterback. I maintain my belief that the Bills defense played badly against the Colts, and that the stops were largely due to mistakes on the Colts' part, rather than the Bills defense making plays. As for the Kansas City debacle: only one KC drive ended with a punt or turnover. That was their first drive, when a dropped pass forced them to punt. All the rest of KC's drives ended in touchdowns or kneeldowns, except for one drive which was a field goal. That defensive effort was bad enough that it alone determined the outcome of the game.

Highmark Stadium I can live with. Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield Stadium, not so much so.

Can't we go back to calling it Rich Stadium?

It wasn't just one game. In the first game against the Dolphins, the defense looked soft. Vulnerable to the pass. Easily exploited. It did a lot better job in the second game against the Dolphins. But, it's easy to turn in an "improved effort" against the pass when you're facing Tua instead of Fitzpatrick. You could counter that argument by pointing out that early in the year when the defense was struggling you had guys like Milano out with injury, or guys like Edmunds playing with injured shoulders. Those guys came back from their injuries and the defense improved. Fine. I'll give you that. But how many good quarterbacks did the defense play well against during the stretch where it looked good? Maybe one or two. Then in the playoffs the defense faced the Colts. The defense looked outmatched and out-coached. The Colts did more to stop themselves than the Bills defense did to stop them. As Andy Reid watched the film of that Colts game, do you think he saw weaknesses for his Chiefs offense to exploit? How good a job do you think he did in exploiting the weaknesses he saw? In the postseason the Bills defense faced two good passing quarterbacks, and turned in zero good performances against those two players. Those two bad performances are enough to counterbalance the small number of good performances the defense had against good passing quarterbacks during the regular season. This defense has shown itself to be vulnerable and weak against a good passing attack, it's a serious concern, and should be addressed during the draft if the right player is there.

There's that. And, there's the fact that two weeks earlier the defense played poorly against the Colts. The Colts game could have been a lot worse than it was, except that the Colts offense kept shooting itself in the foot. The fourth and goal being one example of that. The Colts offense did plenty of damage to the Bills defense, but you got the feeling that with better execution on their part, a higher level of play, the potential was there for them to have ripped the Bills defense to shreds. The Bills defense encountered that higher level of opponent play two weeks later. The one postseason game in which the Bills defense played well was in very windy conditions, against a running quarterback. I give the defense credit for their effort against the Ravens, and especially the pick 6. But I'd like to see the defense play well against a good passing attack in the postseason.

I'd like to see the Bills accomplish three things for this and all future drafts. 1) Fill needs 2) Minimize need-based penalty 3) Maximize position value As for 2): suppose the need-based player is 80% as good as the best player available. That's a need-based penalty of 20%. Ideally I'd like to keep my need-based penalty to 10% or less, while still drafting for need. To accomplish that I may need to trade up or trade down. The goal being to get into a draft spot where one of the best players available is a player at a position of need. Failing that, I'd draft the best player available. It is almost never acceptable to pay too large a need-based penalty. As for position value: some positions (LT, CB, WR, DE, QB) are considered more valuable than others. While I'd certainly take that into account, a strong component to my assessment of position value is longevity. If I expect an OG to have twice as long a useful career as a RB, then that's something which would (in my eyes) increase the position value of OG, relative to a RB. I've heard this is a pretty good draft for interior OL. The unstated assumption of my earlier posts is that the Bills could use a 1st or 2nd round pick on an OG, without having to pay a significant need-based penalty. Whether that assumption is correct will obviously depend on how the Bills have these players graded, and on how the draft plays out.

In another thread, there is a rumor that Beane is interested in using his first round pick on a RB. Not what I would do in his place, but let's say he does this anyway. At that point you still really need an interior OL, so that's where I'd use the round 2 pick, assuming that the first round pick gets used on the RB. Then in round 3 you either draft a 1 tech DT, or you hope that the combination of Star + Harrison Phillips is enough to get you squared away at that position for now. If you don't draft the 1 tech DT, other options would be another interior OL, or a LB, or a TE.