Cash

My only nitpick with this idea is that PUP means he’s out 4 weeks. So even if they know he’ll miss weeks 1 and 2, they still might think it’s worth keeping him on the 53 if there’s any reasonable chance he plays in week 3 or even 4. He’s a captain and arguably their best defensive player when healthy. One week of Tre is probably worth more to the Bills than 4 weeks of Cam Lewis or whomever. But I agree with the broader point: if they knew Tre was probably going to miss 4 weeks or more no matter what, he’s already be on PUP. And Beane has generally been a straight shooter when he actually says something. They clearly don’t know for sure when he’ll be back, but they think September is realistic.

I’m not at all worried about Tre. I think the team agrees with me: we need him healthy and on his A game for the playoffs. We’ll be okay in the regular season with or without him.

Right. And by the same token, it’s a pretty safe bet to expect a pipeline from the Bills to the Giants, with both Daboll and Schoen in place there.

These Bills have IMO shown that they give at least a tiebreaker to players like Brown over players like Quessenberry. As long as Brown’s improving from the added game experience, it represents an investment in the future of the team.

Who to add from the 2011 team? There are only a few considerations IMO. Here's my breakdown, from least to most helpful for 2022: WR Roscoe Parrish Pro: Upgrade at PR over anyone we have now. Could back up the McKenzie role on offense. Con: On offense, he's just a worse version of McKenzie. DT Marcell Dareus Pro: Most natural talent on the team; before he got soured on the Bills, he was an absolute force. Versatile enough to play anywhere on the line if needed. Con: Already didn't get along with McDermott once. 2011 was Dareus' rookie year and he wasn't as good as he eventually got. RB CJ Spiller Pro: He's fast, and breakaway speed is something Beane has prioritized this offseason. Con: He started looking competent down the stretch of 2011, but it took like 12 games to get there. Wasn't ever all that good, even in 2012. FS Jairus Byrd Pro: Great player! (But not as good as Micah Hyde) Con: He would be higher, but we're loaded at safety and he'd strictly be insurance if Hyde gets hurt. WR Stevie Johnson Pro: Can play outside or inside; not the best WR in the league but was incapable of being locked down. Con: Would his unorthodox style fit into our scheme? QB Ryan Fitzpatrick Pro: Way overqualified backup who's also a great locker room presence. Might be able to hold down the fort even if Allen had to miss a lot of time. Con: Would the 2011 version of Fitz be super-cool about being a backup? Probably, but it's hard to say for sure. DT Kyle Williams Pro: Another big-time McDermott guy, and he could play either 1-tech or 3-tech. Con: Better at 3-tech than 1-tech, and we look to be pretty well set up at 3-tech this year. How big a marginal upgrade would he be at either position? RB Fred Jackson Pro: Freddie! Definitely a McDermott-type guy, and probably an upgrade at RB over anyone currently on the roster. 2011 was one of his best statistical seasons, even though he was already 30. Not spectacular at anything, but at least decent at everything. Con: I'm higher on our current backs than most, so I don't see him as the huge on-field upgrade that most others do. And finally, my choice: LG Andy Levitre Pro: I have concerns about our interior O-line. Levitre was an awesome LG who would probably be a significant upgrade over Saffold. Worst case, he'd be a massive, MASSIVE upgrade over Mancz or Hart or Ford when it comes to depth. Con: If Saffold isn't over the hill AND stays healthy, there's not a lot of bang for the buck here. Note - the following were DQ'd due to availability concerns: Eric Wood Terrence McGee Big Mike Jasper

There is real value in guys like Siran Neal, who can play at all the positions Gunner listed without completely killing the defense. Is he great at any of those spots? No. But he's a depth player, and that's what's available. The alternative is probably a specialist who's slightly better at 1 of the positions, but significantly worse at all the others.

Dude’s lead blocker was getting stood up in the backfield. Usually that results in a bad play for the offense. But Moss stayed composed, cut back, found a great running lane, and showed some good speed getting outside for a huge gain. You do you, but that is a Good Run for the RB in my book.

Can they, though? Serious question: How do you know? Tasker was such an interesting case. Only got a shot at WR late in his career due to injury, and was electric for like a season and a half. But he was pretty much a gadget player on an offense that didn’t have many great weapons at that point. Hard to say he would’ve made a bigger impact as a WR than as a Special Teamer. (And for the record, I haven’t ever seen anyone say that; just my own musings.) My own hot take: Certainly special teams have less impact now than they did in the 90s. But it’s still not zero. So there’s a balance to be struck - how bad does a gunner need to be before it’s a major liability to the team? Maybe with Araiza’s leg and aggressive 4th down strategy, the bar is extremely low. Or maybe Araiza will be inconsistent enough that the bar will be fairly high. The point is, there is a bar there. This coaching staff/FO have so far shown that they want a “core” group of special teamers - a leadership group of experts who can hold the less experienced players accountable. To this point, they’ve (IMO) shown that they want those to be “guys who can play in a pinch”, but not guys who are part of the offensive or defensive gameplans. I’m certain they’ve cut better pure RBs than Taiwan Jones. So I’m not sure who forms that core ST group, but I’m sure it’ll exist in some form.

From an analystics perspective, the bolded is reason for optimism for 2022. Most teams average out at roughly 50/50 in one-score games over time. Regression to the mean would suggest we're more likely to be something like 3-3 in one score games this year - or 5-3, or 2-4, or 4-3, or whatever. Point is, it's unlikely we'd go winless 2 years in a row.

Yeah, I agree with Logic that the idea doesn't sound terrible at first glance - or at least it seems like there are some positives there. But there would probably be some SERIOUS unintended consequences. As JoPoy points out, the QB and probably 3-5 members of the O-line would likely be a package deal, depending on the team. Even if that's the only starters sitting, the game in question becomes a rip-off for the fans. National TV games would still have all the stars playing for sure. (Whether officially or unofficially, the NFL would make sure of that.) So if you buy a ticket to a non-national game, that means you have a very realistic chance of not seeing either your teams' stars or the opponent's stars. Would people keep going to those games? Probably yes, at least in the short term. Would they still feel like an Event, the way games do now? I think probably not. I think the "play 16 out of 18 games" proposal would be fun for like 3 years while coaches figured out how to handle it, but once it got solved, the solution would ultimately be a worse product than what we have now.

Those were mostly routine plays for Mahomes and pretty sustainable IMO. One guy flushing Mahomes out of the pocket doesn’t do much if Mahomes has room to run. He’ll either turn the corner, pick up an easy first, and go OB without taking a hit; or he’ll reset and hit the open man in the scrabble [EDIT:scramble] drill. He can do both of those all day.

FWIW, I was Team Flutie all the way at the time, and to some extent I still am. But I have no hate for “Hot Tub Rob” - just sympathy. We both would’ve been happier if he had been better! And it’s because of him that I first started learning how big an effect the QB can have on how the O-line looks. I’ll admit I didn’t like RJ from the start and was biased against him. But he never showed me anything to change my opinion. Great at hitting open WRs when he has time to let them shake their man, and pretty good on the move, and that’s about it. And on top of that, he couldn’t stay on the field. Not entirely his fault - sure he took a lot of hits from holding on to the ball too long, but he also seemed to be impacted by the hits more than most QBs. Even if he’d cleaned up his pocket awareness, I doubt he would’ve had a long career. By the way, I was EVEN MORE biased against Josh Allen when we drafted him - I had bought the analytics arguments without ever pressure testing them, and I still have no idea how to translate his Wyoming tape to the NFL. (I haven’t watched college football in years.) But he had mostly changed my mind by the end of his rookie season. Going into year 2, I was “interested to see how he looks this year.” Going into year 3, I was “optimistic.” (Still cautiously though, because I’ll always brace for failure unless/until we win the Super Bowl.) Going into year 4, I was no longer optimistic; I was all but certain that Allen is the real deal. Going into year 5, I’m fully certain that he’s the real deal. His prime won’t last forever, but it’s here now and I’ll enjoy it as long as it lasts.

Agreed. [EDIT: Except for the last paragraph.] I’ve aged out of their top demographic (males age 18-36), so they probably don’t care much about my opinion. But FWIW, I haven’t gotten ESPN for years and I don’t miss it. What would cause me to miss it? Exactly 2 things: 1.) Live sports 2.) Well-produced, curated highlights “#2 is stupid. You can see all the highlights on Twitter.” That’s wrong, Argumentative Guy I Made Up. Yes I can find highlights of individual plays on the internet. And for NFL specifically, nfl.com’s highlight packages the next day are pretty good! (I mean the ones that are clips from the broadcast.) But even those don’t really tell me the story of the game. Back when I regularly watched NFL Primetime, Inside the NFL, and Sportcenter, it seemed like the point of the highlights was twofold. Show all of the coolest or craziest plays in a game, and recap the game for those who missed it. There was a narrative to the highlight reel, and that’s missing these days.

Already taken by Greg Zeuerlein. I’m with others on this thread in thinking Punt God is a terrible nickname. It’s basically a pun off a pun, which I hate. And it’s completely unearned in the NFL. I don’t have any better suggestions at this time, mostly because he hasn’t played in an NFL game yet or even made the team. But I won’t be referring to Araiza as anything other than his name for now.

I remember loving that trade down. But I also wanted them to trade down again. EJ was my guy that year (meh), but he obviously wasn’t a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination. I thought we could’ve dropped into the mid 20s and still had our pick of QBs pretty safely.

It would depend on the team, I'm sure. If he was on the Patriots, Dolphins, Cowboys, Steelers, Titans, or another team I don't like, I'm sure I would hate him and delight every time he failed. If it was a team I'm more neutral or positive on, I think I'd probably like him. Most neutral fans seem to agree that he's objectively fun to watch. More importantly, I'm not worried about it. Sports are supposed to be fun. It's really fun to watch and root for Allen! And it's also fun to watch and root against the players on opposing teams. I "hate" Tom Brady probably more than any other NFL player in history, but most of it is just for entertainment's sake. (The part where he's selling snake oil, and people are gushing over his "agelessness" while ignoring the PEDs in the room? Those are fairly real. But strictly on-field, it's really fun to watch him fail, and I get annoyed because he doesn't fail often enough for my liking.)

Why do I need to prove that someone’s ahead of Crowder? You seemed certain that Crowder was top-3, and I asked where that came from. Apparently nowhere? And FWIW, McKenzie is on a 2 year deal, which astute observers will note is 1 year longer than Crowder’s. That’s not much to be sure, but I don’t see why we should consider Crowder a top 3 lock before training camp even starts.

What are you basing that on? I'm not aware of any public statements by the Bills that would suggest that, but there's plenty I'm not aware of. FWIW, Crowder is on a 1 year deal worth just under $2 million total, with a $750k signing bonus. That doesn't exactly scream "roster lock" to me. Side note: You realize you're technically agreeing with me, right? We both think Crowder will make the team unless he's lost a step.

I think there’s a fairly realistic scenario where Crowder gets cut. If it’s clear to the coaches that he’s lost a step, AND Shakir looks good enough to play the slot right away, I could see Crowder not making the team. McKenzie will be in the mix regardless, but I get the impression the Bills don’t think he can hold up to full-time work over the course of a full season. I wouldn’t bet on Crowder being cut at even money, but I would think about it at 10:1.

Agreed - this is a marginal difference to be sure. I'm just thinking like a 4th down with something like 4 to 10 yards to go. If we had Jordan Stout, maybe McD thinks we can pin them inside the 5 and goes conservative. One additional thought: I know some of the HATERZ have criticized Araiza's kicks for being too much the line drive variety. That's probably a legitimate criticism. But on the plus side, a line drive typically cuts through the wind better than a moonshot. And we all know what a challenge the wind in Orchard Park can be. Haack in particular seemed to really struggle. Seems like there were at least half a dozen punts last year that looked good off his foot, but then just hung up in the air and went nowhere.

I don't, sorry. Just know it offhand because Joe Buscaglia of The Athletic mentioned it a bunch of times in his draft coverage. I think he said the Dolphins were first at something like 43-46% and the Bills were 8th at around 34%. I agree with your guess - it's hard to imagine they started playing man-to-man more frequently without Tre.

Bills were 8th highest in % of man coverage last year.

I think the Bills probably had Araiza no higher than 2nd on their Punter Big Board. (Which I'll assume is an actual physical board at 1BD until proven otherwise.) The guy the Ravens drafted has almost as big of a leg as Araiza, but looks to be much better at hangtime and directional kicking. Fair enough. But there's two plusses for Araiza from my perspective: 1.) By the time we get to midfield, we should be going for it on 4th down anyway. So having a punter who's a little shaky at the coffin corner will only encourage McDermott to trust the offense. This is a good thing. 2.) As The Dean mentioned, he likes to hit! I don't think him making tackles is particularly going to help our punt coverage, but our team thrives on emotion. Araiza making a big hit on a punt (or kickoff) could be the type of thing that gets the defense fired up, and they usually play better when they're fired up.

Totally agree with this. I’ve never been afraid of undersized LBs - Mike Singletary, Sam Mills, Zach Thomas, London Fletcher, etc. I think the key is having the right DL to keep the OL off of the linebackers. (And I think that’s key regardless of the size of the LB.) Hopefully the Bills have that DL now. I thought they did last year, but once Star went out they really took a step back, and he wasn’t the same after he came back.

Agreed. But I’m also of the opinion that McKenzie can play outside (he’s done it some for us), and that McK would start over Kumerow if Diggs or Davis went down. Possibly Crowder as well, but I’ll admit that’s a pure guess on my part.