Draft Strategy: McBeane Absolutely Must Draft Around the Offense this Year

[LeGOATski]

48 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

Actually, it isn't that simple.  

....

The fact that they believe in him makes it that simple, yes.

 

They're in the offensive stage of their plans. FA was very offensive-minded. They'll be offensive-minded in the draft, but it won't trump getting the BPA.

 

It's that simple.

[Ronin]

11 hours ago, Rob's House said:

They've built the offense to Josh Allen's strengths. It's custom fit for a big, raw, power running QB with a monster arm.

 

Doesn't seem like you really read the piece based on this.  

 

It's unfortunate that so many people seem to think that the short-medium game can be all but entirely overlooked in favor of a deep passing game, that frankly, is not the basis for winning games. 

 

It almost seems the hard lesson that we Bills fans will learn, as if we haven't had enough hard lessons since the Polian era, if popular opinion is to drive things.  

1 hour ago, freddyjj said:

I do see the need for a flexible OT/G as part of long term OL solution.  Risner from KSU is prototype.  Could be there in the 3rd.  And a C/G prospect like McCoy from Texas A&M. Spain is young and OBD could sign to a long term deal if he plays well this year. To your point OBD need to find long term, replacements for Nsekhe and Long.

 

Another big WR and a TE would help too.  All could see playing time this year.

 

I am very concerned about the absence of a 3T on our DL given Kyle's retirement.  Also need an Edge rusher to help increase pass rush.  

 

I won't disagree with any of that, but again, keep in mind, we're looking at yet another coaching and likely GM change here if Allen flops.  

 

That changes everything, or should.  

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

And actually, reading the OP my conclusion was "darn we need to draft a Quarterback". Which I am not entirely sure wasn't the true message he was trying to convey.

 

Reread maybe.  :shrug:  

1 hour ago, Chandler#81 said:

I dunno. You’re pretty good at makin’ stuff up.

 

Well, let's start here, what have I "made up?"  

 

Other than opinions, if you can't find anything then I'd strongly suggest a cease & desist.  

[Ronin]

38 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Looked worse than Lamar Jackson?  Did you watch any of his games?  Do you know how simple the gameplan was for him?  It's not even an apples to oranges comparison

 

Jackson didn't turn the ball over at anywhere near the rate which kept the Ravens in games.  Oh yeah, he was also 6-1, had over 5 points better in compl. %, was more effective in the Red Zone, averaged about the same TDs/game than Allen did (on fewer yards), and had half the INT%.  

 

You can dismiss that.  You think that's wise in a comparison?  

 

Seems to me all that matters are results, aka wins.  At least that's what I've read here often. 

 

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

It's unfortunate that so many people seem to think that the short-medium game can be all but entirely overlooked in favor of a deep passing game, that frankly, is not the basis for winning games. 

 

On this, and maybe this alone, you and I agree totally. The basis for consistent winning in the NFL is an effective and efficient short and intermediate passing game that moves the sticks.

 

While Allen has work to do still in that area the fact that his legs will et him out of trouble while he continues to develop in those facets mean that I think it is very unlikely he bombs out in 2019.

[Ronin]

43 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

I'm not surprised by this useless, horrendous mis-characterization of my point.

 

Couldn't I have said the same thing?  

 

Short answer:  Yes

 

Otherwise, when you cite two single QBs as to why an analysis makes no sense, what could the point possibly be other than to imply or otherwise outright suggest that Allen's on the same path?  

 

If that's not it then it was a bad approach to whatever point you wanted to make.  Don't get upset with me if I use your polemical stategy to counter your own argument in spades.  That's the entire crux of my position, namely the Allen's leaning closer to duplicating the performance that laundry list, hardly comprehensive as well, than he is of duplicating the performance  of a couple of NFL exceptions on completely differently coached and organized teams.  

 

I don't know how it's going to end up, I'm hopeful although clearly not as much as the unicorns/rainbows/lollipops crowd, but that doesn't alter the facts.  

17 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

The fact that they believe in him makes it that simple, yes.

 

They're in the offensive stage of their plans. FA was very offensive-minded. They'll be offensive-minded in the draft, but it won't trump getting the BPA.

 

It's that simple.

 

OK

 

Deja vu from the whole BILL-ieve era comes to mind.  How'd that work out for us.  (rhetorical)  

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

[Ronin]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On this, and maybe this alone, you and I agree totally. The basis for consistent winning in the NFL is an effective and efficient short and intermediate passing game that moves the sticks.

 

While Allen has work to do still in that area the fact that his legs will et him out of trouble while he continues to develop in those facets mean that I think it is very unlikely he bombs out in 2019.

 

Great post!  

 

... and thanks!  

 

I agree to an extent, that extent being that yes, his legs will bail him out  on occasion, although as stated, or perhaps rather implied in the piece, not like it did in HS and college ball for him.  Keep in mind, last season he had the element of surprise in that way and largely enigmatic as such.  That circumstance will not exist this season as the element of surprise no longer exists for him.  That in and of itself will be significant. 

 

But to address your point more directly, the whole point will be to get him to not have to "bail," rather to look for quick outlets and get rid of the ball more quickly than he did last season when his "time to throw" was the greatest in the league.  That's a double-edged sword and in our case since our OL wasn't great, I'd strongly suggest that it leans towards that no-so-good side of that double-edge in that the reason why it was so long wasa because he didn't get rid of the ball quickly.  

 

If true, the reasons for that can be discussed, but the strongest implication from that is that he isn't getting the ball out quickly, and therefore, unless he had absolutely no receivers open short in the "high percentage pass" zone(s), which is a ridiculous argument, that's going to have to be where he improves, as you imply.  

 

Having said that all, "bailing" doesn't help.  What will help is forcing him to stay in the pocket until he learns how to and regularly makes those throws.  I doh't think that's as easy a task as some may think.  

 

In short, his reads need to bail him out, not his legs, if in fact he is to become a franchise QB.  I think we're in agreement there.  

 

Make sense?  

43 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

sAnd now it is a full blown anti-Allen rant. Which is what it read like from the start to me.

 

Improvement isn't always linear. Allen was up and down all year, but the second half of his season was still noticeably better than his first - whether you look at numbers or eye test.

 

I addressed that in a prior post and cited Allen's gamelogs for the three games prior to that last Miami game, games 13, 14, & 15.  Go look at them yourself and tell me you see improvement.  

 

His numbers were horrific thereby proving that narrative entirely false.  

 

If an "eye test" trumps results, well, .... LOL   That seems to be the case here.  Funny tho, any other time the same people citing an eye test will cite wins as the key/core relevant metric.  Funny how that moving bogey always shows up.  

Edited April 4, 2019 by TaskersGhost

[eball]

Hey @TaskersGhost -- given your screen name, I really think you should get behind my "drafting for ST" thread.  

[Stank_Nasty]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On this, and maybe this alone, you and I agree totally. The basis for consistent winning in the NFL is an effective and efficient short and intermediate passing game that moves the sticks.

 

While Allen has work to do still in that area the fact that his legs will et him out of trouble while he continues to develop in those facets mean that I think it is very unlikely he bombs out in 2019.

well ya..... but it wasn't overlooked. they went out and signed cole Beasley. that's not exactly overlooking the short game. how would somebody deduce that they are overlooking the short/intermediate game when they just went out gave somebody a good chunk a change that happens to use that as his bread n' butter?

 

the OP saying its been overlooked is another fabrication we can just stack onto the pile for him. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Stank_Nasty

[LeGOATski]

35 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

OK

 

Deja vu from the whole BILL-ieve era comes to mind.  How'd that work out for us.  (rhetorical)  

 

We're not discussing fan belief, dude. It's just a statement of the FO's plan.  They believe in Allen and have their plan in place. They've prioritized offensive players in FA and will get the BPA in the draft.

 

If they didn't believe in Allen, I'm sure their plan would change a little. If Allen doesn't show improvement this year or next, they'll look at drafting a new QB.

 

As long as they stick to the overall building plan (prioritize needs in FA and draft BPA; retain talent at the right value; maintain their organization's core values), then they should be alright. They'll be golden if they get a solid QB.

 

Allen doesn't have the stats yet, but he looks the part. We'll see how he pans out this season as the 3rd year of the building plan comes to a close.

[GunnerBill]

48 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

I addressed that in a prior post and cited Allen's gamelogs for the three games prior to that last Miami game, games 13, 14, & 15.  Go look at them yourself and tell me you see improvement.  

 

His numbers were horrific thereby proving that narrative entirely false.  

 

If an "eye test" trumps results, well, .... LOL   That seems to be the case here.  Funny tho, any other time the same people citing an eye test will cite wins as the key/core relevant metric.  Funny how that moving bogey always shows up.  

 

I think his numbers were better than his numbers pre-injury, that is my point. He was actually slightly better on completion percentage pre-injury (54% vs 52%) and avoiding INTs (5 vs 7) but post injury he was better on:

 

passing TDs (8 vs 2)

total TDs (13 vs 5)

yards per game (207 vs 166)

yards per attempt (6.9 vs 5.9)

avoiding sacks (7 vs 21)

 

Now I repeat.... that progress was not linear and it changed game to game but overall the balance of the numbers were better in his post-injury starts against his pre-injury starts. Indeed even if you remove the 2nd Miami game from all of those categories he is still better in the second half of the season (in 1 game fewer if you totally discount the Miami game).

 

And the eye test showed progress too, he was being more decisive in the pocket and his decision making on when to escape showed some improvement as did his chemistry with those around him. I am not an Allen homer, not be any stretch. I think he has a long way still to go. I think talk of him being in the MVP race next season is very premature but at the same time I think to deny that there was any improvement is stretching a point.

9 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

well ya..... but it wasn't overlooked. they went out and signed cole Beasley. that's not exactly overlooking the short game. how would somebody deduce that they are overlooking the short/intermediate game when they just went out gave somebody a good chunk a change that happens to use that as his bread n' butter?

 

the OP saying its been overlooked is another fabrication we can just stack onto the pile for him. 

 

In fairness to him there I think what he meant is people have overlooked the fact that there is a lot more growth needed from Allen in that area.

[Stank_Nasty]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

 

In fairness to him there I think what he meant is people have overlooked the fact that there is a lot more growth needed from Allen in that area.

fair enough..... I'll admit I have a hard time giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think we could probably all understand why.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Stank_Nasty

[Haplo848]

2 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

Appreciate the feedback, but this is part of yet another false narrative.  Namely that Allen improved.  

 

To start, using that week 17 game against Miami, which was literally half of his Red Zone production for the entire season, is poor form.  Short of it being an immensely emotionally charged game due to Kyle's retirement, and the fact that Miami came in as flat as they'd been all season, not to mention that they sucked, particularly on D where they are rated 27th in scoring D and 29th in yardage D, it's not a good baseline for steady-state play.  

 

But moving on to your statement, in the three games prior to that here are his totals: 

 

51 of 103 (49.5%) for 627 Yards, 2 TDs, 4 INTs, and a rating of 59.  59.  

 

That's what improvement looks like?    That completion % is worse than his season average and over 4 points worse than it was in his first 6 games.  Still think that's improvement?  

 

These unchallenged narratives are ridiculous.  That last Miami game was literally nearly half of his TD production over the last five games.  So unless that single game is the evidence of this improvement, that's a false narrative.  

 

Glad that you brought that up tho, it's relevant.  

 

Wait, you are seriously saying that Allen did not improve over the course of the year?  Congratulations, you've just negated any argument you're trying to make.  Did you even watch the games?  Anyone that knows anything about football saw that as the year went on, he was more in control of the offense, more poised in the pocket, read the defense better, gelled more with his receivers, etc.  There can be no question.  He absolutely improved over the course of the season.  You could see the improvement week-to-week most weeks. 

 

You're right, his stats for a very cherry-picked stretch weren't great.  He didn't play well against the Patriots.  Then again, what rookie QB DOES play well against Bellicheat?  That stretch also included one bad decision that led to an INT against the Jets, and one "we're down 4 points, with 1:30 left on the clock, 80 yards to go, we need to take chances if we're going to win this thing" INT.  There were also two running TDs you neglect over that stretch that could have easily been throwing TDs instead, as well.

 

These narratives are unchallenged because it's blatantly obvious to anyone who watched the games.  If you want to nitpick over completion percentages of a QB that is more often looking downfield than for a quick swing pass, especially when RBs often had to stay in to help the poor pass blocking, go for it.  You want to quibble about stats instead of actually watching the game film to make your point, go for it.  Don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously, though.

[Solomon Grundy]

1 hour ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

Doesn't seem like you really read the piece based on this.  

 

It's unfortunate that so many people seem to think that the short-medium game can be all but entirely overlooked in favor of a deep passing game, that frankly, is not the basis for winning games. 

 

It almost seems the hard lesson that we Bills fans will learn, as if we haven't had enough hard lessons since the Polian era, if popular opinion is to drive things.  

 

I won't disagree with any of that, but again, keep in mind, we're looking at yet another coaching and likely GM change here if Allen flops.  

 

That changes everything, or should.  

 

Reread maybe.  :shrug:  

 

Well, let's start here, what have I "made up?"  

 

Other than opinions, if you can't find anything then I'd strongly suggest a cease & desist.  

Yes, it's good to be able to have a short/medium range passing game but what good is it if you don't have the threat of going deep? Fitzmagic was the perfect short/medium range QB but not having the threat of going deep had DBs squatting on routes and allowed safeties to cheat up. From the looks of Daboll's offense in the second half of the season it seems like he was going vertical alot. I'm saying Metcalf, Brown and Foster are perfect for such system. Seems Beane/McDermott thought Benjamin was that big bodied receiver who could stretch the defense and why I think Metcalf is that guy

[thebandit27]

2 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

Couldn't I have said the same thing?  

 

Short answer:  Yes

 

Otherwise, when you cite two single QBs as to why an analysis makes no sense, what could the point possibly be other than to imply or otherwise outright suggest that Allen's on the same path?  

 

If that's not it then it was a bad approach to whatever point you wanted to make.  Don't get upset with me if I use your polemical stategy to counter your own argument in spades.  That's the entire crux of my position, namely the Allen's leaning closer to duplicating the performance that laundry list, hardly comprehensive as well, than he is of duplicating the performance  of a couple of NFL exceptions on completely differently coached and organized teams.  

 

 

 

With you, there's no good approach, because you don't seem to employ any level of intellectual honesty.

 

Case in point: you started a thread to discuss draft strategy.  I opined regarding draft strategy, have alluded to that post at least twice, and have yet to get a response.  Instead, you've gone noodles all over the Allen-is-a-bust matra that you seem to be unable to deviate from--even within your own thread; even when the very title has zero to do with the player.

 

Why draw a comparison to any player if one that doesn't fit your narrative is invalid? The reason to compare Allen to Goff and Trubisky is multi-fold, and intuitively obvious to even a casual football observer:

1) They were both raw rookies whose performances left a lot to be desired (though it's more than fair to say that Allen was more productive than the other 2).

2) They were both drafted highly, to teams that underwent a massive offensive makeover in year 2. The Rams added Whitworth, Sullivan, Blythe, Woods, Watkins, Kupp, Everett, and Higbee in a single offseason. tThe Bears added Gabriel, Robinson, Miller, Burton, and James Daniels. This offseason, the Bills added Brown, Beasley, Gore, Kroft, Spain, Morse, Nsekhe, and a few competitors for the RG spot.

3) They both feature QBs that went on to thrive in year 2 once a creative offensive play-caller centered the offense around speedy playmakers and maximizing what the young QB does well. Is it not apparent that that's what the Bills are trying to do?

 

I guess at this point I can't make things any clearer for you.  While I'd like to believe you'll actually honor the original supposed intent of your thread, I doubt I'll get any reciprocity when it comes to discussing draft strategy...oh well, onto the next thread.

[fansince88]

7 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

LOL @ Unicorn flatulence!   

 

Fully appreciate the sense of humor.  

 

This draft is quite solid with OL-men.  As well, very good blocking TEs can easily be had on day-3.  We really don't need a receiving TE more than Allen needs time.  As it goes, if you don't make optimal use of the weapons that you have, new ones won't be as effective as they're supposed to be either.  

 

If I were them I'd try to build the modern equivalent of The Hogs around Allen.  Won't happen in one season, and he may not need it if he can correct his tendencies, but the more options they have the better the odds that the OL will be better and more effective.  Wouldn't you agree?  Resting upon what we have, which is hardly a group of above-average OL-men with a history of starting effectively, and despite a plethora of mid-grade options there, isn't likely to produce anything close to that. 

 

Also, keep in mind that chemistry along the OL takes more time to develop than chemistry anywhere else on the team.  By my observances over decades, it takes an OL a good 6-8 weeks to gel with one another.  The more and better long-term options we have bode better for chemistry as such.  These two-year contracts hardly scream out confidence in that way and strongly suggest at least something about the caliber of players signed.  

 

Nope, not possible.  Apparently you didn't get past even that first sentence however.   

 

This is my way of sorting out whom I put on ignore. 

 

 

As a matter of fact, yes. 

 

Nice! How long does this last?

[stinky finger]

10 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

And anyone should care about this why now?   

 

Just curious.  

 

They do need DL help, IMO badly, but the D wasn't horrendous last season. 

 

The point being that it's all going to be moot if Allen doesn't work out.  If McD can't get him to at least average NFL levels this season, not even franchise status, the problems are going to start coming fast and furious.  

 

You're just as unlikable in short hand.

 

 

[Teddy KGB]

I made it to the 3rd sentence and threw in the towel.   

[SouthNYfan]

14 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

I made it to the 3rd sentence and threw in the towel.   

 

I gave up.

He has me on ignore now too.

[Green Lightning]

11 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

Be grateful I didn’t delete it as a mercy killing.

My TSW chuckle of the day!