I sincerely don't get all of the negativity.....

[Roundybout]

45 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

 

Russell Wilson is better than every QB the Bills have ever had, including Kelly. 

 

Its not close. 

 

[Happy]

3 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Ridiculous to say he's the GOAT? 

 

No doubt Marino would be awesome nowadays. No doubt. 

 

But Tom Brady has led how many comebacks? Has what TD to Interception ratio? Has been elite for how long?

 

And all of that is swept away with a flick of the wrist because its was more physical back then. Okay. 

 

Because Brady wouldn't be protected back then like he is now, and he sure as hell wouldn't be playing at age 40, which was unheard of back then..  Most of these rules protecting QBs are for the sake of keeping Brady around, who draws viewers and is good for NFL ratings.

 

The rest of your post is pointless.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

14 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Exactly.  Which is why it is ridiculous to say that Brady is GOAT, for example.  He might be the greatest of his playing era, but I suspect he would get demolished in 1990.  Marino might be GOAT if he played today.  People don't think about this.

TB12 getting "released" from a sure sack by Speaks, to instead rushing for a TD yesterday is definitely an exhibit to that argument--should never have scored there (and wouldn't have if Bruce Smith was in the process of wrapping him up on that play with the rules of his era)

[Happy]

1 minute ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

TB12 getting "released" from a sure sack by Speaks, to instead rushing for a TD yesterday is definitely an exhibit to that argument--should never have scored there (and wouldn't have if Bruce Smith was in the process of wrapping him up on that play with the rules of his era)

 

Yep.  Same thing happened last week as Hughes released Mariotta early since he didn't want to get flagged.  The players today are definitely more athletic than back 30 years ago, but the game is of less quality.  I really hope this changes and defense is made a little more prevalent.  43-40 final score games are boring.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

55 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Okay, so you believe all the Bills FO and Coach need is time?

 

And then the Bills will be winning in this league? Going to AFC Title Games?

 

I think the odds of that based on what we've seen out of this GM and Coach are microscopic. 

 

The point was Seattle and Denver, defensive led teams, had real HOF talent. 

 

The Bills have a few nice players defensively, and a couple of key cogs who are 35 years old.  

 

Big difference. 

Laugh it up Joe. 

 

Russell Wilson is better than every QB the Bills have ever had, including Kelly. 

 

Its not close. 

Straight up blasphemy bro. You can't possibly believe that Wilson's (or any of the other dudes routinely tossing 4K plus these days) stats would be magically the same playing against the rules-enabled D's of Kelly's era--or do you think that Ken Norton Jr. wouldn't have been able to take out Wilson's knees like he did Kelly's in SB XXVII? The point being, in the league today it's almost arcade game like and/or comical, the way the league has consciously moved towards sugarcoating the offense, and QB's in particular, since Wilson burst on the scene. Just ask Clay Matthews which era he'd prefer to play in. When even guys like Roethlisberger or Rodgers are saying it's gone too far, I'd say it's gone too far. Wilson is a nice piece to have, would love to see him as our QB right now in fact, but don't ever categorically state that he would then automatically be better than any Bills QB who's ever suited up ("modern" era excepted).   

[ColoradoBills]

13 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Yeah and Russell Wilson is a better athlete all around.

 

Brady has started for 18 straight years. 

 

In an era where Coaches have instantaneous film to dissect, computers to analyze statistics and trends, in an era with money to fund larger scouting departments and Front Offices. 

 

Ridiculous to say he's the GOAT? 

 

No doubt Marino would be awesome nowadays. No doubt. 

 

But Tom Brady has led how many comebacks? Has what TD to Interception ratio? Has been elite for how long?

 

And all of that is swept away with a flick of the wrist because its was more physical back then. Okay. 

 

There have been so many rule changes that a comparison cannot be made.

Brady playing for 18 years is a direct result of those rule changes.

 

Just the OL player rule changes would make a huge difference.

Linemen had to hold their fists to their chests to block.

There is a reason that great QBs in the 60's era only had 45-55% completion rates.

Everything from training facilities and equipment (shoes, pads, flack jackets) are night and day.

 

A player tore a ligament and his career was over!

[TheBrownBear]

Getting back to the OP, I am finally coming to grips that what you are seeing on this board is one of the following:

 

1) A board littered with at least a double digit number of trolls (who are doing a fine job btw); 

2) A board with a majority pre-teen membership; or

3) A board littered with mouth breathing imbeciles. 

[TigerJ]

I believe the negativity is the consequence of nearly two decades of futility on the field.  The moment something goes wrong, the negativity rears its ugly head.  Finger pointing begins.  There have been times when I would avoid message boards for at least 2 or 3 days after a loss because of it.  I recognize there are problems, and Beane/McDermott have misjudged some things.  I'm pretty sure they counted on AJ McCarron to at least be decent and able to start games for most of the season to give Josh Allen a chance to get acclimated to the NFL and develop the skills needed to be effective.  He wasn't, and Peterman was also ineffective, so Josh Allen had to step in before he could be effective.  

 

After it became clear Buffalo was going to lose their two best offensive linemen, (Incognito and Wood) Beane elected to stay with his original plan of finding a franchise QB and shoring up the defense.  He would use a bandaid approach for the offensive line and the wide receivers group.  The result is, Buffalo has an near elite defense and an inept offense.  Josh Allen won't be a franchise caliber QB, or even a starting caliber QB this year.  He might even be deficient next year in some ways (though hopefully will make a quantum leap forward over this year.  So the negativity is rampant right now.  A lot of it is just noise that I just screan out.  I figure the Bills are going to struggle this year, then in the offseason, with Buffalo's dead cap money woes behind us, a huge amount of cap room to play with and plenty of draft capital, we should see major strides made next season:

 

Josh Allen will be better (I hope).  Buffalo should be able to sign a couple quality veteran offensive linemen and one quality #1 receiver.  I think  they will probably draft another receiver, offensive lineman and defensive end in the first three rounds of the 2019 draft.  That would be a significant infusion of talent for the offense.  I hold out hope that Wyatt Teller is developing and will be ready to start at guard next year too.  I think Buffalo will be adding a running back in the middle of the draft, and probably in free agency as well.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

34 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Because Brady wouldn't be protected back then like he is now, and he sure as hell wouldn't be playing at age 40, which was unheard of back then..  Most of these rules protecting QBs are for the sake of keeping Brady around, who draws viewers and is good for NFL ratings.

 

The rest of your post is pointless.

 

I know you've been watching football since Jim Thorpe and Red Grange, but I think my comments have more depth than your one opinion about how the game was harder then than it is now.

 

Nobody disputes that it was more violent for QBs back in the day, but I also don't think the skill level of those QBs was too high for the best of today. 

 

No way was there only one set of men tough enough to play under those rules and now Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger, Cam, Wilson, Ryan etc, would be utterly ineffective in 1982. 

 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Straight up blasphemy bro. You can't possibly believe that Wilson's (or any of the other dudes routinely tossing 4K plus these days) stats would be magically the same playing against the rules-enabled D's of Kelly's era--or do you think that Ken Norton Jr. wouldn't have been able to take out Wilson's knees like he did Kelly's in SB XXVII? The point being, in the league today it's almost arcade game like and/or comical, the way the league has consciously moved towards sugarcoating the offense, and QB's in particular, since Wilson burst on the scene. Just ask Clay Matthews which era he'd prefer to play in. When even guys like Roethlisberger or Rodgers are saying it's gone too far, I'd say it's gone too far. Wilson is a nice piece to have, would love to see him as our QB right now in fact, but don't ever categorically state that he would then automatically be better than any Bills QB who's ever suited up ("modern" era excepted).   

I've acknowledged the rules differences make a tangible difference bro. 

 

Kelly did play is a much more physical era. 

 

But Wilson has also played in an era where tape is instantaneous, where analytics break down tendencies, where he has come in and started 16 games every season and won a Super Bowl in his 2nd year. 

 

Wilson's numbers would assuredly drop back in 1990. Of course, agree. But he doesn't go from 64% Completion, 25 TDs, 9 Ints to out of the league in 1990 either. 

 

 

[Happy]

2 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

I know you've been watching football since Jim Thorpe and Red Grange, but I think my comments have more depth than your one opinion about how the game was harder then than it is now.

 

I'm not quite that old...LOL.  I do remember Joe Ferguson, Jim Plunkett, Dan Fouts, Ken Anderson and players going forward.

 

2 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Nobody disputes that it was more violent for QBs back in the day, but I also don't think the skill level of those QBs was too high for the best of today. 

 

No way was there only one set of men tough enough to play under those rules and now Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger, Cam, Wilson, Ryan etc, would be utterly ineffective in 1982. 

 

It's not about skill level, it's about the rules today.  Today's players are better athletes then back then, in general;  except for Jerry Rice who was the greatest WR of all time, all things considered, and in my opinion.  The point I'm trying to make is that today's QBs and WRs, especially, would not have the big numbers back then like they do today.  This is because the NFL actually let teams play defense back then.  Could those guys you mentioned have done well in 1988?  Quite possibly.  But they wouldn't have the career numbers they do and 300+ yards passing on average a game.  The rules today have catered to big offensive production because the NFL *thinks* it draws fans, and they want to protect Tom Brady.  You seem to be missing that point.

[CSBill]

3 hours ago, warrior9 said:

When you look at our team/FO/ etc, etc... They came in with a pile of you know what as a team. They came off of  Rex/ Whaley regime that strapped this team against the cap and left it talentless. They took that team to the play-offs with none of us expecting it (while completely gutting it in 1 year).... while trying to fix the cap issues. 

 

Say what you want about Beane and McDermott but those that refuse to see the cap as an issue of talent acquisition are simply not seeing the big picture..... money = ability to acquire high end talent and/ or system role players. Where did they spend the available money? Defense... and that defense (which is essentially all Beane and McDermott acquired players) is absolutely balling out. 

 

I think this coming off-season and draft are going to define this regime. They absolutely have to address the offense in every aspect. I do believe Daboll has called some absolutely atrocious games this year, yet we are still competing. I sincerely hope that his inability to call an effective NFL game does not hinder the growth of Josh Allen.

 

Think about where we are as a team and the cornerstones we have....

 

Seemingly top 3 secondary (with a second year CB that is most likely a future All-Pro)

A 20 year old stud at MLB (and Milano growing into a nice player)

A young DT that has played well above where he was drafted and has been very impressive

A left tackle that is young and improving with every game

A young first round QB (and this regime believes it's their guy)

80+ Million in cap space next year

10(i believe) draft picks

 

 

We have many many important pieces in place for a promising future..... I think we need to be patient and look for the growth of this team and players throughout the rest of this year. 

 

Just my .02....

 

When we step back and look at the big picture, totally agree.

 

But in the moment, the frustration of our offense causes all the anger. We'll be over it by Thursday.

Edited October 15, 2018 by CSBill

[SoCal Deek]

I posted this earlier.  Everyone wanted Allen to start...and so did I when the alternative was Peterman.  Now we have to live with the growing pains.  I believe that this is actually the IDEAL scenario. Allen has had a month to get a taste of the NFL.  He'll now get a few weeks off and be spared the embarrassment of going up against NE and Chicago.  After sitting for awhile and watching a veteran run the same Offense, he'll re-enter the line up for the last month of the season, rested and well schooled.  This season was never going anywhere and every knowledgeable Bills fan was ready for it.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

12 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

I'm not quite that old...LOL.  I do remember Joe Ferguson, Jim Plunkett, Dan Fouts, Ken Anderson and players going forward.

 

 

It's not about skill level, it's about the rules today.  Today's players are better athletes then back then, in general;  except for Jerry Rice who was the greatest WR of all time, all things considered, and in my opinion.  The point I'm trying to make is that today's QBs and WRs, especially, would not have the big numbers back then like they do today.  This is because the NFL actually let teams play defense back then.  Could those guys you mentioned have done well in 1988?  Quite possibly.  But they wouldn't have the career numbers they do and 300+ yards passing on average a game.  The rules today have catered to big offensive production because the NFL *thinks* it draws fans, and they want to protect Tom Brady.  You seem to be missing that point.

I'm not missing anything. 

I've 20x in this thread that of course, clutching, grabbing and no flags would bring down the statistics. 

 

But I also argue that Russell Wilson doesn't go from 3,900 yards, 64% completion, 25 TDs, 9 Ints and 99 Rating 

 

to

 

2,700 yards, 54% completion, 16 TDs, 18 Ints and a 72 rating just because he is getting hit more and his WRs are getting grabbed more. 

 

Yes, it's not video game numbers back then, but today's top QBs could slice and dice old defenses too. What intrinsically made Dan Marino much tougher than Phillip Rivers? Randall Cunningham is just tougher than Joe Flacco? Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have won with the 1989 49ers because he would have been hurt Game 1? 

 

Kahlil Mack wouldn't have been able to handle Anthony Munoz because he's used too a soft NFL. 

 

Rob Gronkowski would be useless against Ronnie Lott.  

[BobbyC81]

3 hours ago, DasNootz said:

The negativity comes from the fact that we're "Trusting the Process" that they will suddenly become good and pro-personnel scouting when we have the money to go out and spend... so far that hasn't been the case.  HOPEFULLY we have the nucleus to build around, but there are other teams  including the Jets in our own division that will have  a lot of money to spend this year too, so we will still have to persuade or overspend to get FAs in the door.  If Allen can show something more than 100 yards per week down the stretch, maybe the persuasion would be a little more likely.

 

Their pro personnel scouting has been questionable.  Although the trade of a fourth round pick for Benjamin seemed to be a good one, they didn't seem to investigate the reasons Carolina was willing to deal him.  Same with Corey Coleman.

 

Star Lotulelei was rated as one of the worst DTs last season, yet they gave him a big free agent contract.

[Happy]

5 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

I'm not missing anything. 

I've 20x in this thread that of course, clutching, grabbing and no flags would bring down the statistics. 

 

But I also argue that Russell Wilson doesn't go from 3,900 yards, 64% completion, 25 TDs, 9 Ints and 99 Rating 

 

to

 

2,700 yards, 54% completion, 16 TDs, 18 Ints and a 72 rating just because he is getting hit more and his WRs are getting grabbed more. 

 

Yes, it's not video game numbers back then, but today's top QBs could slice and dice old defenses too. What intrinsically made Dan Marino much tougher than Phillip Rivers? Randall Cunningham is just tougher than Joe Flacco? Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have won with the 1989 49ers because he would have been hurt Game 1? 

 

Kahlil Mack wouldn't have been able to handle Anthony Munoz because he's used too a soft NFL. 

 

Rob Gronkowski would be useless against Ronnie Lott.  

 

Russell Wilson would go from running around to laying on a stretcher back then.

Today's QBs might have some success, assuming they were kept upright - yesterday's QBs took violent hits, not like the "don't put your body weight on them" sacks of today.

You forget that the WRs wouldn't have had the same rules protecting them back then, either.  They were hit at the LOS and there wasn't all the ticky tack pass interference then like there are today.  The numbers wouldn't have been so big, and they weren't if you go back and look.

Kahlil Mack (and pass rushers in general) would have done better back then - fewer rules on their play.  Bruce Smith's sack record will never be broken because of this.

Gronk would have suffered more concussions and would have been beaten to a pulp for the crap he pulled against Tre last year, back then.

[BobbyC81]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBear said:

Getting back to the OP, I am finally coming to grips that what you are seeing on this board is one of the following:

 

1) A board littered with at least a double digit number of trolls (who are doing a fine job btw); 

2) A board with a majority pre-teen membership; or

3) A board littered with mouth breathing imbeciles. 

 

You forgot:   4) All of the above.

Edited October 15, 2018 by LittleJoeCartwright

[Straight Hucklebuck]

1 minute ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Russell Wilson would go from running around to laying on a stretcher back then.

Today's QBs might have some success, assuming they were kept upright - yesterday's QBs took violent hits, not like the "don't put your body weight on them" sacks of today.

You forget that the WRs wouldn't have had the same rules protecting them back then, either.  They were hit at the LOS and there wasn't all the ticky tack pass interference then like there are today.  The numbers wouldn't have been so big, and they weren't if you go back and look.

Kahlil Mack (and pass rushers in general) would have done better back then - fewer rules on their play.  Bruce Smith's sack record will never be broken because of this.

Gronk would have suffered more concussions and would have been beaten to a pulp for the crap he pulled against Tre last year, back then.

 

Didn't forget anything, the post you are quoting references "clutching and grabbing". 

 

We get it - more physical in 1985 than 2018.

 

But the athletes are even better now because its Year Around training aided by science. 

 

Julio Jones is good in 1984. 

 

If Mark Bavarro was solid 1988, then Gronk at 6'6" 270 would be too. 

 

Just because you got hit more back then, doesn't mean today's players "couldn't take it". 

 

Phillip Rivers would take the punishment and get up just like Boomer Esiason did after a Bruce Smith sack. 

 

I agree his numbers would be lower, but I don't think Steve Young was tougher than Andrew Luck just because he played in 1993 as opposed to 2014. 

[Dr. Who]

48 minutes ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:

 

Their pro personnel scouting has been questionable.  Although the trade of a fourth round pick for Benjamin seemed to be a good one, they didn't seem to investigate the reasons Carolina was willing to deal him.  Same with Corey Coleman.

 

Star Lotulelei was rated as one of the worst DTs last season, yet they gave him a big free agent contract.

3rd round pick for Benjamin. Pro personnel evaluation is an issue. Offensive player and coach evaluation in general, though I like Allen in spite of the growing pains.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

1 minute ago, Dr. Who said:

3rd round pick for Benjamin. Pro personnel evaluation is an issue. Offensive player and coach evaluation in general, though I like Allen in spite of the growing pains.

What has Allen done that makes you like him?

 

 

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

What has Allen done that makes you like him?

 

 

I was one of the few who liked him before the draft. I factored in the probable need for a redshirt year. If OBD had a decent veteran, he wouldn't have been thrown to the wolves with a porous oline, not very good wr corps, etc. I'm not shocked he's struggling early. I stand by my initial view that he has the talent, intelligence, and character to eventually grow into a solid qb. Fine if you don't agree.