Tanoros
-
Posts
431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tanoros
-
-
7 hours ago, KingBoots8 said:
I probably should have clarified- I was thinking in that scenario if we traded back up and it cost us some of the lower round picks. I wouldn’t mind if we did that if we think he’s the guy. I’d rather pass on fliers in the 6th like Wildgoose and Hamlin and use those picks (plus maybe a swap of 5ths) tomove back up late in the 4th and get a day 1 starter
This is draft is one of the deepest drafts in years, whereas last years draft was one of the least deep drafts in years. Even then, Hamlin didn’t look bad as a rookie.
So many completely undervalue late round picks. Plenty of starters and/or good players come from the later rounds, and in deep draft like this one, there should be more than in most years.
As other posters have pointed out, punters across the board aren’t much different from the worst to the best in the NFL, and rotational/special teams players will have many more snaps then the punter over the course of a season.
I trust Beane whatever he does, but I’d be absolutely stunned if he took a punter in the 4th, much less trading up into the 3rd. That’s just insane, especially when we need contributors on rookie deals with Josh’s contract ballooning next season.
-
14 hours ago, KingBoots8 said:
Normally I would agree, but for an immediate impact player I would absolutely do it. Day 1 starter. I’d rather have him than a potential PS player waiting to make a start 3/4 of the way into the seasonMatt Milano and Taron Johnson are both 4th/5th round picks and they are legitimate starters. Sure they both had to develop for a time, but we NEED to draft starters/future starters who will be on rookie contracts with Josh’s higher pay coming next season.
Can we use an upgrade at punter? Sure, but punter wasn’t the reason we lost to KC, and most everyone feels if 13 seconds went different we may have won it all.
I’m sure we can get an upgrade at punter either in FA or draft, even if it isn’t Arazia. To answer your question, 5th at the absolute earliest, but I’d prefer the 6th round.
-
16 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:
In my admittedly homerist opinion, it isn't just the talent, and coaching that has made the Bills a great team that is a favorite for the SB next season-- it's the culture that Beane, and McD have created. Character, and culture matter, especially for this Bills team. It's the way it's been built. I believe this, and I'm not sure that Gronkowsky fits the Bills' culture.
But if the Bills pick him up, it’s a good sign he will fit the culture.
-
10 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:
Since the rule change in 2010 for regular season, 2012 for playoffs, there have been 163 OT games. Coin toss winner winner won 52.8% of those games.
Playoffs are a sample size of 11 games over 10 seasons, and only 7 teams that won the toss scored a TD on their first possession. So 63.6% (not 90%) of those games involved only 1 team having a chance to score).
Even so, the small sample size gives a poor reflection of the actual advantage for the coin toss (just over 50:50 for the toss winner).
The win percentage I said should have been 80%, I didn’t look it up for reference. So the coin toss winner is 10-2 in OT since the 2010 change with 7 of the 10 wins coming from first possession (touchdowns).
I didn’t realize the 10-2 was just winning and not walk off touchdowns. Either way, 10-2 still isn’t the isn’t great odds, and it shows the current format could be improved, even with a smaller sample size in the playoffs.
9 hours ago, DRutka said:I think they should do a shoot-out type formula.
- Each team gets 3 plays from the 10 yard line.
- You could score 3 times. 1 point for each time you make it in the end zone.
If tied after each team gets 3 attempts, it goes to sudden death with the same formula.
- Team A goes, then team B.
- If tied still, keep going until at the end of a round, there is a winner.
This will do the following:
- Each team will always get the same amount of tries.
- No more whining about fare possessions.
- Puts the focus on both offense and defense
- Put the game in he hands of the star players. (Sorry, special team guys, your day is done. If your best player is a returner or kicker, get better players.)
This should be done for regular season AND playoffs.
- NO MORE TIES!!!
I think ties are fine for the regular season. It means less stat padding and less chance for injury. In the playoffs a team HAS to win, so there needs to be a format gives them both a chance and both sides of the team a chance to be in the field.
With that said, there would be a certain entertainment value to a shootout style format and I’m sure I’d learn to enjoy it. However, I think something more akin to the other 4 quarters of play would be more realistic, and better reflect the game.
-
1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:
If the opposing D can hold the flip winner to a FG, they will get the ball and a chance to tie or win on their possession.
We all know that, the point is, 90% of the time in the playoffs the team who wins the coin toss goes down and scores a TD. So the current format isn’t working.
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
OK. Team B kicks a game tying FG with 20 seconds left. Team B kicks off for a touch back. Team A would start the possession on their own 25 and begin their drive. Can't get too conservative because the drive is continued into OT. You don't want to waste downs. It'll be just like the end of the 1st or 3rd but now OT rules kick in.
We always play OT like it's a new game but it's not. So much happened to get to this point but now none of it matters. The whole process of stopping the game and doing a coin flip just takes away from an exciting finish to regulation.
Continue where from where the fourth quarter ends isn’t bad, but not if a TD wins the game. In some ways, I suppose it’s better to know what’s going to happen rather than relying on a random coin toss. Team B could go for the win, instead of a FG. Risky sure, but you know team A gets the ball to start OT
-
4 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:
Because it can go on for an hour. Have you seen some of these college OT's. Terrible idea considering the defense's are already exhausted. The rules committee will say if the team with the first possession scores a td, the other team will be given an opportunity to match. If they do match, then the game Immediately becomes sudden death. Probably takes less than 10 minutes.
This would be good enough. The advantage of using 4th downs can be nullified due to team A having the chance to win on their first possession of sudden death.
-
19 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
Play it exactly how they would at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter. They get the ball to start OT wherever they were at the end of the 4th. Same down and distance. Same timeouts. If a score happens at the end of regulation then it's a kickoff to start OT.
In your scenario Team A is around midfield I'm guessing driving and there's like 20 seconds left. Remember OT rules are you only win on the 1st possession with a TD. A Team A FG on this drive in OT would give the ball to Team B with a chance to win sudden death with a TD.
Knowing that, as a fan what would you suggest your team do? I would want my team to go for the win in regulation.
I think your idea with a slight modification would be my preferred OT.
That modification being, if first team in OT scores a TD, they have to go for the XP. The second team, assuming they score the TD, has to go for 2. This way the second team having the advantage of using 4th down is slightly nullified in having to go for 2. Also, if the game goes to sudden death, the first team having the ball in OT has the advantage.
Now assuming the first team missed the XP, the second team can then try for an XP instead of going for 2.
24 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:Play it exactly how they would at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter. They get the ball to start OT wherever they were at the end of the 4th. Same down and distance. Same timeouts. If a score happens at the end of regulation then it's a kickoff to start OT.
In your scenario Team A is around midfield I'm guessing driving and there's like 20 seconds left. Remember OT rules are you only win on the 1st possession with a TD. A Team A FG on this drive in OT would give the ball to Team B with a chance to win sudden death with a TD.
Knowing that, as a fan what would you suggest your team do? I would want my team to go for the win in regulation.
Consider this though. Team A gets the ball with very little time, say less than 20 seconds and the game is tied. They wouldn’t need to be aggressive, they could just move the ball casually knowing they will get the ball in OT. This wouldn’t be so bad, unless that team can win with a TD in OT.
However, I do like your idea of removing the coin flip. Even if OT was just a whole period that was played out.
-
23 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
well, that was lessened not long ago with a change in the OT rule. Recently, a team won on the first possession with a FG, Now it has to be a TD or the other team gets a possession to tie or win.
They don't need to change it again. The Defense is expected to play hard in OT as well as the Offense.
This is a non-issue.
Since this change (in post season) the team who has won the toss has won 90% of the games. This is the main issue with the drive for change. A coin toss is seemingly deciding the outcomes of games between very good teams.
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
First scenario is perfect. That's exactly how it should be. Like I said, team B already knows who gets possession in OT. So if they score a TD they could go for 2 to win in regulation instead of play defense in OT and hope to get the ball back.
Second scenario would take game management by the coach. Remember at the end of regulation you still win the game if you make the long FG. In OT a made FG gives the ball to the opponent for their possession. Team A would still have to score a TD on their 1st possession in OT to win on that possession.
I like your idea IF OT is timed and not as it currently is. Because this would remove the coin toss factor in OT.
1 hour ago, JESSEFEFFER said:The OT rule as per me. Team A scores a TD on first OT possession and must kick their XP. Team B gets the ball and must score a TD and if so they must go for 2 pt conversion assuming Team A made their kick. If Team A missed their XP then Team B has the option to kick for the win. Would the team winning the coin toss elect to play defense first? I think so because the second team to possess the ball has the advantage of knowing what they need and the availability of 4th downs to sustain their drive. All other scoring rules stay the same. If there is a weather effect on the game that favors one direction over the other, then there is an additional bonus to playing defense first.
In the case of matching FGs by each team, next score wins the game. Team A gets the advantage of winning the game on their 2nd possession with a score of any kind. B does not get a second chance. Now what does the winner of the coin toss do? I still think they would play defense and choose the EZ they defend.
This is not a bad idea at all. Each team has an advantage in some way, but also a disadvantage.
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
I figured out what the change should be. Eliminate the coin flip. Continue the game into extra time.
OT rules basically stay the same. TD on 1st possession wins it, after 1st possession it's sudden death.
BUT the big change is the game just continues where it ended in regulation. No coin flip. For example, Cheifs tied the game vs the Bills at the end of regulation. OT would start where regulation ends. Chiefs kicking off to the Bills in OT.
If there were still some time left in regulation with a tie, let's say 10 seconds, normally a team would kneel. Now teams would know they continue possession into OT.
Also in this scenario since the team that is losing at the end of regulation knows the other team gets possession you would likely see more teams go for two instead of the tie at the end of regulation.
Tell me this isn't the perfect fix? No more coin flip deciding games.
Consider this. The game is tied, Team A is driving towards the end of the game, BUT not in scoring range yet. Do they get the ball on the same yard line when the 4th Q ends? If so, they wouldn’t have much reason to push the ball downfield and take risks when they have more time coming.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Greg S said:
Do what they do in the regular season then. Each team gets a possession. Only thing I would change is if the team who gets the ball first scores a TD then the other team would still get a chance with the ball which they currently don't get.
The thing to consider in this scenario is the second team would have the advantage of using 4th downs. Still better than what we have now, but it would be better to get the ball second if this were the case.
It seems like having a timed OT period would the the best way to go. At least for the first OT period.
-
2 hours ago, BillMafia716ix said:
Overtime rules don’t need to be changed. Play defense. End of story
In the post season the coin toss winner in OT has won nearly 90% of the time. Every game is different, but the Bills/Chiefs game was to the point both offenses were scoring at will (the defenses were gassed), and the league is moving more offensive heavy, so the chances are we will see this type of scenario more often in upcoming years. We don’t want to see the result of a post season game decided by chance and the more the outcome can be taken out of the hands of chance, the better.
Having a timed OT makes the most sense. This way we ensure both sides of both teams see the field. Perhaps a second OT could be sudden death, and the team that ends the first period of OT on defense, gets the ball to start in the second period. This would allow the team on offense to either go for the win before the end of the first OT period or trust their D. Either way, chance isn’t a factor.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, billybrew1 said:
Missed for years? We were unstoppable last year and led the league in scoring and set all kinds of team records the year before.
I get the desire to build a record setting offense but clearly our defense’s label of being #1 was way off as KC scored at Will and dropped 42 massive points on us. It’s crystal clear where the majority of our assets for 2022-23 should go…. Defense!
You misread what he said then. He was saying we have missed a home run threat from the rb position for years. Which is true, I can’t think of one home run threat at the rb position during the McDermott era unless you count a guy like Brieda. The point is, having a home run threat at the rb position would be a nice get.
As far as defense, I’m sure we will see a cb and de in this draft (I would guess higher than lower for both). Most likely we get a nice run stuffing dt too, and don’t rule out a lb to learn behind Edmonds. That’s still only 4 picks and we have more than that. So there will be offense too, part of the draft is building for the future and not next season only.
Extreme positions on things are rarely correct, usually the correct answer is somewhere in the middle.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, dje85 said:
Christian Watson WR NDSU 6'4 211 4.4 speed
You want a dynamic big body wr 3 with speed who could also return kicks / punts. Who also could become elite with some coaching up in a couple years? Look no further. Round 3-4 projection right now. Wowed at the senior bowl and may at the under wear olympics pushing him into the second round if a team is smart enough to take him.
If you paste the link from the top of the youtube page it auto links it, At least, does for me. I assume it would for you as well.
With that said I like Wan Dale he is very explosive. Could definitely seeing us take him and use him as a hybrid rb/wr our own Deebo Samuel-esque player.
Ok, that makes sense. I clicked the chain link looking icon and posted the URL in that. I outsmarted myself.
I hadn’t seen or heard about Christian Watson until earlier today, and yes looks amazing too. I’d love to pick up a wr in this draft and the more I look at the group the better I feel about getting a wr post first round. There are so many talented guys w/ speed!
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J4uPrlPq8UA
(Wan’Dale Robinson) While watching his highlights he just looks like a guy who would fit the Bills offense. Kind of in the McKenzie role but he seems to have more to offer in upside. This is one of the non first round wr that I’m most excited about.
28 minutes ago, dje85 said:RB Tyler Allgeier, RB BYU
4.4 Speed with size and can both catch and block. North to South Rb who could be a three down back in the NFL but would be the perfect 1-2 combo with Singletary. Likely going in the second or high third round he is rb3 in the draft for most pundits.
How do I post the video like this?
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Cutting him this offseason before his bonuses kicks in saves $4.1M in cap space over the next 2 seasons...........which is all room that they can use to add talent this year with creative accounting.
Also saves ownership nearly $4M in real money that they wouldn't have to pay Lotulelei.
It's not as simple as only being able to save $1.5M.............it's overall cap space and actual dollars that are both around $4M.
Looks like the savings partially depends on when he is released. I’m certainly not a cap expert, I said 1.5 because that’s the number I keep seeing.
if this source is correct, we save 3.5 if cutting him after June 1.
Star situation is interesting to monitor. His contract is too much for us value, but he played pretty good before Covid last year, but not so much after. I wonder how the Bills staff feels about it all?
-
1 hour ago, elijah said:
Well, wouldn’t this be advantage Lamar strictly in terms of durability and long-term health?
Did you see the stat in this thread that Lamar has ran nearly 200 more times than Josh?
Additionally, being the person making the hits generally means less likely to be injured. Josh is bigger, and delivers blows (to be fair, he takes his shots too), Lamar not so much.
-
2 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:
He’s not being traded this year. I’m talking about going forward.
I see. Well on that I agree
-
2 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-2022-nfl-free-agency-rankings-linebackers
Every guy on this list would be significantly cheaper than Edmunds according to their projections. And there look to be 5-6 MLB’s projected to go in first 3 rounds.
Edmonds salary is already on the books and not going anywhere unless we trade him. Additionally, since we are in our Super Bowl window, we need to look to upgrade our team, and losing Edmonds just to fill in with a rookie is more of a wash than upgrading depth or even making an upgrade at starter.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we took a ILB somewhere early in the drat, we need LBer depth and it’s a good time to try and draft Edmonds replacement. However, we keep Edmonds for the year and move on after.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:
My point is he won’t be difficult to replace, his absence won’t move the needle in the W/L column, and that money would be better served else where such as on the offensive line or a pass rusher.
But the money is accounted for already this year. There isn’t much we can do, unless by some rare chance we find a trade partner, but I don’t think that’s very likely.
The chances are we have him for one more year, and then move on. I’ll trust the Bills FO, but I do hope we move on in the end.
-
25 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:
I think the argument is that you could still give up 500 yards and 40 points without committing another $12.7m to the defense especially to a guy who don’t make any big plays. You need guys on defense to make big plays (turnovers, sacks, TFL’s) in order to beat the better offenses. See Hyde int vs Patriots. That changed the entire game. Everything else is kinda spinning your wheels and you might as well spend it on offense. What good was having the #1 ranked defense vs the Chiefs the last 2 playoffs?
Conversely, if they Bills played a different scheme (something like the Bengals) with the same players, could they have been more effective? It’s hard to be much worse in that game.
What route would you go to replace Edmonds this offseason? Do you have any specific players in mind?
We picked up his option and the chanced of a trade are pretty slim, not to mention replacing him with an upgrade or same level of play.
-
58 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:
Why do you need a clear upgrade? In its last game the defense gave up over 500 yards of offense and 40 plus points with Edmunds playing 100% of the snaps… Let’s face it, the offense and Josh Allen carry this football team. Losing Edmunds will not negatively effect the W/L column at all IMO…. Especially when you can use that cap space to upgrade somewhere offensively.
That’s WAY to simplistic way of looking at things. Was Edmonds the reason our defense was torched? There was 10 others guys out there and we were missing our best defender.
Our defense may not have deserved to be number 1, but either way, they WERE a very good defense. Allen and the offense lead the way for us, but the defense matters and Edmonds has an important role, even if he could be better.
obviously Edmonds isn’t a star, but he also isn’t bad. The Bills are in the middle of a Super Bowl window, they won’t move on from Edmonds unless they have someone to take his spot, which they don’t have. Weaker MLB play won’t help win a Super Bowl, and there is no guarantee we find a better replacement. As an example, who would recommend we replace Edmonds with?
Anyone who hopes to see the Bills move on from Edmonds before this season will not be happy. The most likely scenario is the Bills draft a LBer to learn the ropes this season, and then the Bills offer Edmonds a contract worthy of his production. If he takes it, fine. If not, they have someone to step in who knows the defense.
15 minutes ago, uticaclub said:Not true. 2020 was our best year and he didnt play
2020 minus the injuries? The defense was better this year.
we save a little over 1.5 million moving on from Star, I don’t see us doing that this year unless we get a sure fire replacement (that would most likely be the draft). If we cut star, whoever we bring in to replace him most likely costs more than what we save.
-
On 2/25/2022 at 2:54 PM, LABILLBACKER said:
Completely agree. We have a very good defense, just not elite. I'm not going to get into the #1 ranking debate. I forsee Levi leaving and with Tre's return delayed, this will probably force our 1st pick to be CB. If we can get a 2nd or 3rd for Edmunds then I'd do that Immediately. We're stuck with Star but I could see us drafting a Travis Jones in the 3rd? He could compliment Harry. I see all 3 of Addison, Hughes & Butler gone. I wish we could afford Chandler Jones but that's probably not feasible. Go more snaps with the young guys and see what you have?
You would be willing to move on from Edmonds at the price of worse MLB this upcoming season? Expecting to just replace Edmonds with better MLB isn’t very realistic, especially going into this upcoming season. Even a high profile rookie would likely not perform as well, and then we would be swapping out a good player for another, instead of upgrading a spot.
If you want to see Edmonds gone, I think the best thing to hope for is his replacement is drafted this season, and takes over next year. Anything else is very unrealistic.
Speculative article on friction between McDermott and Staff?
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
But it wasn’t just our schedule, the Bills were the number 1 defense by DVOA which takes into account how that team (the ones on our schedule) did against ALL of their other games. Which means, we did better against the bad teams than others.
I’m not saying the Bills defense can’t get better, but just trying to put the narrative that we played a soft schedule in perspective. Soft though it may be, we did better than others who played the same soft teams.