Alphadawg7

In all fairness, he was the 25th ranked CB last year when healthy and he has rarely even been healthy the past 4 seasons. So he first needs to stay healthy and then needs to see if he can find his old form again. Benford was the 5th ranked CB last year for reference. I would have preferred he signed in the NFC too, but this move doesn't particularly worry me either. If he can stay healthy, I suspect he probably plays better there than he has the last 2 years in GB battling injuries which would be good for the Ravens. But that is a big if... He has only played in 14 games since 2022 He has missed 32 games the past 4 seasons since 2020. So staying healthy is a real question mark for him, and how well he can play after all these injuries the past 4 years is still a legit question which is why I am not overly concerned about the move either. FWIW - I know a lot of big GB fans that were not sad to see him go.

First...let me just say, this is all subjective, no wrong answers here Mahomes is more than just clutch though. When he had proper weapons he was setting NFL records. With bad weapons his personal stats have taken a little hit...but it doesn't change the fact they still win, and win a lot and because of him. Mahomes has been a starter for 7 years and gone to the AFCCG or more in all 7 season consecutive seasons and was the #1 seed 4 times. He has 5 SB appearances in those 7 years with 3 Rings to go along with multiple MVPs and SB MVP's. And he was the main reason for all that success, not like he was coasting behind a dominant team where he wasn't leaned on. Fun question: Do the Chiefs reach 3 straight Super Bowls if Lamar is there instead of Mahomes? What about Burrow instead of Mahomes? I don't think they reach any Super Bowls the past 3 years with either guy over Mahomes personally and Josh probably was 1 or 2 under his belt instead. So for me, a QB who hasn't made the playoffs since 2022 and another who hasn't been able to perform at the same levels in the postseason are not leap frogging a guy who just went to his 3rd straight SB despite an inferior cast around him for the past 3 years and has a 100% success rate of reaching the AFCCG every year as a starter for all 7 seasons. NOTE: I do think playoff performance means more than regular season performance too as you can only be a champion winning in the post season when the pressure and level of opposition are all higher.

I get what you are saying about Hurts and "clutch" stuff...But Mahomes isn't just clutch, hes proved elite QB play and statistical dominance, and more single season dominance than even Allen, Lamar, or Burrow has shown in their best seasons, when he had legit weapons in different seasons. But since Hill was traded, Kelce has slowed down some with age, his WR's have been mostly trash or hurt, and he has had a mediocre run game and meh OL the past 3 years. Still - 3 straight SB's and 2 rings. Burrow has missed the playoffs 2 straight years throwing to Chase and Higgins. Lamar had better weapons and Henry who had one of the best RB seasons ever yet didn't last long enough to even face Mahomes in the AFCCG. It's all subjective, so really no wrong answers here - but IMHO I think you are weighing recent stats a bit too much over talent/ability and not giving the difference in personnel enough consideration into why the stats favor the others more recently.

I mean lots of people have opinions in sports media, but I bet Chris Simms saying he is 4th would be in the minority - and Marino is a youtuber. I would bet you if you polled every coach, GM, and player in the NFL that Mahomes would not come in as low as 4 and would probably be first. Stats are not a function of just ability, but also the personnel around him. What Mahomes had to work with compared to Burrow and Lamar last year is not even comparable. Mahomes is in his prime, its not like he is 35 and maybe isn't as good as he once was. As I said, Allen and Mahomes debate has some validity to it, but Burrow cant even get his team to the playoffs and starts in a hole every year and Lamar doesn't have the same post season success as he does in the regular season. Meanwhile, Mahomes wins games and comes through in the clutch moments despite not having the same level of weapons Burrow has had or what Lamar had last year.

But have they really been better QB's or just guys who got better stats because Mahomes has had arguably the least to work with weapon wise due to injuries or personnel decisions? Burrow hasn't even made the playoffs the past 2 years as his team notoriously starts each season off in a hole and Lamar hasn't been as good in the post season as he has been in the regular season over his career. Its all in the eye of the beholder, so no wrong answers, just I can get behind the debate of Allen or Mahomes, but Burrow and Lamar over Mahomes just feels like a reach. Here is an interesting question - Who are you going to give the ball too in the postseason with the game on the line and one final drive to win it? NOTE: Saw a wild stat that Mahomes is the only QB in history with a 100% success rate doing that and no one else in history is even at 50% and Mahomes has done it 7 out 7 times I believe it said.

You do know that stepping on someones foot, hard cuts and sudden stops in basketball are lot higher risk for a significant injury than just landing after a dunk right? My point isn't that softball or golf is that dangerous, its that dunking isn't this inflated risk its being portrayed as

No offense, but unless this is a fantasy football ranking, there are definitely not 3 QB's who are better QB's than Mahomes. Its one thing to play with the Allen or Mahomes thing at 1 and 2...but to put Mahomes 4th is a bit over the top.

Here is my stab Allen Mahomes Lamar Burrow Daniels Hurts Baker Goff Purdy Herbert Stafford Dak Love Stroud Lawerence Darnold Nix Kyler Tua Geno Caleb Fields Maye Penix Ward Rodgers Wilson Young McCarthy D. Jones Flacco Shough

A reach? A guy who plays basketball his whole life dunking isn't some high probability injury situation, the over reaction IMO is a bit of a reach. And guys have hurt their ankles rounding bases or chasing balls in softball plenty of times too. Also not a high probability for risk, but definitely not an absurd comparison either. Point is - this wasn't that serious and nothing outside the ordinary of what professional athletes do in the offseason either. On the risk factor scale on what they could be doing, this was pretty low.

He could hurt his back on a swing, could tear an ACL playing his Hydes annual softball game rounding a base or chasing a ball, etc. I mean, its not like these guys are in bubble wrap in the offseason. Allen also plays basketball in the offseason too by the way. Players across the NFL do this kind of stuff all the time, not sure why its an issue for some when Keon does it in a teammates charity game.

I mean you can say that about any of the guys on the team playing the softball game every year where they can get hurt as well, or these guys just working out in the offseason, or any extra curricular activity that other guys on the team do, including Josh, over each offseason.

Remember, I didn't start or make the argument or imaginary numbers...the two of you were discussing if he would or not on Diggs same targets...and all I did was chime in and say that saying "no chance" he could was a silly premise because mathematically is a certainty he would be able to achieve 379 more yards on 60 additional targets, any WR on our roster could and should amass 379+ yards on 60 more targets in this offense. BUT - I never said he should get that many targets, and as I have said, I don't think any WR should get that many targets in this offense. I don't think any one player should see more than 120 targets in this spread the ball around offense personally.

I mean anything is possible, but I really don't think this has much chance of happening without a slew of injuries making it happen personally.

I watched them both, although I was younger when Butler was playing, so my memory of him is less. As far as Lofton goes, its not about whose career was better IMO, it was who was the better Bills player. If it was who had the best career, than yes its Lofton...but then in that case, Owens over takes all of them. In terms of who was the greatest Bills players, as in when they played here, then for me early and prime Lee Evans was definitely better than end of career Lofton. I think people forget how good Evans really was, he gets short changed a bit because he played in a bad era of Bills football. Yet he is still the Bills 3rd all time leading WR despite the bad teams and bad QB's he played with. He would have put up crazy numbers had he got to play with Allen during his prime.

LOL at Klieman...$500 is pretty insignificant, so unless someone was in despair, I doubt anyone takes the $500. 1 ticket to Disneyland costs that much lol. He should have done like $5k, $10k, $25k or something like that to make it more compelling of a decision at least. But $500K? Thats a different story, heck even $400k, $300k, $200k, etc...this is the kind of money I would use to make a lot more money over the next 3-5 years and impact my life/family, especially in my early retirement goals. Bills winning a SB isn't going to change my life. My world revolves around my wife and kids, as long as they are good, my life is perfect. But you give me an amount of money that I can use in a way to impact or benefit my life/family, then that always takes precedence over sports fandom for me.

I think the top 4 WR's in Bills history were: Reed, Diggs, Moulds, and Evans in that order. After that it gets more subjective with guys like Lofton, Butler, Cole, Stevie, etc as to who is 5th.

I agree...and I will say this, Allen at 6 was a joke. They labeled this the greatest "players" not greatest "careers". And even though he is 29, he has already established he is the greatest individual player to put on a Bills jersey of all time. You nailed the top 3 - And I think the order starts with Josh and then you can interchange Bruce or OJ at 2 and 3. But I would go Josh, OJ, Bruce. Thurman is without a doubt next at 4 too, so you nailed that again. And I think Reed and Kelly next were clear choices too, even in no particular order. So yeah, I agree with everything you said here, although I think Diggs has a case for 7th. Once you get past these guys it does get murky and very subjective, especially since a lot of the most talented guys either didn't play here that long (came late, left in FA, etc) or were saddled with a terrible era of football that over shadowed them or hurt their production (Moulds, Kyle, etc). For example, guys like Gilmore, Peters, Diggs, McCoy, etc. are subjective in where you can rank them despite their immense talents.

You said there was "no chance" and denied the math equation, I simply corrected the sillyness of the premise there was "no chance". Its all it was, nothing more, literally referred to it as a "simple math" equation multiple times. At no point did I advocate for him to get 160 targets, and quite honestly I wouldn't advocate for anyone to get 160 targets again in this offense. Other people who just want to argue skewed what was said and tried to turn into a bunch of other things...as usual because that is what they always do.

I didn’t say give him 160 targets…you said there is no chance he could reach 1200-1400 IF he did. And clearly that’s a silly premise

First of all, no one is arguing for him to get 160 targets (which I just told you as well in the previous post too). Someone said there was “no chance” he could reach “1200-1400 yards” on 60 more targets and mathematically it’s simply not true and that is all that was said. So I don’t know why you want to drag this in all these other directions. And as for the bold, because he’s a good football player. His efficiency in 2023 was an outlier on minimal targets, no one expected that not to drop, I mean of course it did. But it doesn’t drop perpetually either, he’s still a good football player, his efficiency is going to have a floor and to just imply it will forever drop at the same rate is just a ridiculous premise. And when you have 100 targets, you’ve got a pretty reliable sample size to know pretty much what would be expected at that point. Lmao, no I never once projected that, not even close lol. That’s a false premise a certain someone likes to pretend I said by twisting something out of context to pretend I did. That reference was made when I pointed out the difference in efficiency between Shakir and Diggs during Diggs final season. My actual projection for him was around 90-110 targets and 900-1100 yards which is pretty much what he did when he was healthy.

You are completely missing the question and the point though. One of the posters said "no chance" he could amass "1200-1400" yards on the same targets we fed Diggs (160). So the only thing being discussed right now is if he got 60 more targets last year, what would his yards have been. What you think his strengths and weaknesses are is irrelevant to the math question of how many more yards above the 821 yards would he have had if he received 60 additional targets. Unless you think he is going to add 0 yards and 0 receptions with those 60 more targets in his role last year, then how many yards he would have on 160 targets is clearly bigger than the 821 yards he got on his first 100 targets. And based on his actual production last year, that would have been 1313 yards with 60 more targets...and if you used his career averages it would be even higher. Its not an advocation to give him 160 targets, but for anyone to say there is "no chance" he could get to "1200-1400" yards with 160 targets is pretty silly because he clearly could on that many targets and its honestly not really even debatable.

What is being discussed is if Shakir got Diggs same target share (160 targets) compared to the 100 targets he got last year could he hit 1200-1400 yards. He had 821 yards on 100 targets...60 more targets is another 492 yards, which is over 1313 yards. And if you use his career averages it would project to even more yards. And Shakir is actually a really good route runner and the arm thing is maybe one of the most over exaggerated aspects of his game and you would be hard pressed to find many examples on film where this negatively impacted his ability to make a play when given the opportunity. Now will he get 160 targets probably not, and definitely not in this offense as no one will hear under Brady with how they spread the ball around and incorporate the run game. But IF he got 160 yards he clearly would finish in the 1200-1400 yard range, and its not really a question to be honest, its simple math.

Yeah that was my whole point

Yes he would. You don’t think Shakir could get 379 more yards on 60 more targets? Of course he could. Diggs is the better WR in his prime without question, he was legit top 5. Shakir isn’t going to put up the same season as Diggs…But to say Shakir has no chance to get to 1200-1400 yards if he saw 160 targets is just not accurate.

Seems pretty minor luckily