Alphadawg7

Of course everyone doesn't mean literally everyone, I mean there were people who agreed McKenzie wasn't any good as a significant contributor. But I will say the majority pushed back and I took flack and a bunch of insults for claiming that McKenzie wasn't gonna be much better than he had been in the past and was not good enough before the season started last year. So I was more jesting in the "I told you so" comment here, but it was one of those kidding, but not totally kidding type comments ha. I still like McKenzie and his personality, so hope the Colts bring him back or he can find another home if not. But, not a fan of him being relied on in any kind of heavy use role, he just isn't good enough in that capacity.

I still remember most this board arguing with me last preseason when I said McKenzie wasn’t good enough to start or to be anything more than a gadget or role player. Everyone kept bringing up his 1 game vs Pats as proof he was the heir to Coles slot throne while ignoring the other 5 years worth of evidence. So…I told you so 😂😜🤪

This is quite the scoop by Beane, I have no doubt that this is an immediate upgrade at MLB and it certainly calms some of the panic at MLB being still so unsettled. I suspect he will be on the active 53 here very soon, and wouldn't surprise me if he was active week 1

This just keeps getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Season can't start soon enough

LMAO, what is with all the doom and gloom posts since the 53 roster cut downs? Did we cut Josh Allen and I just miss it or something? 13-3 last year, 8 points away from being undefeated. Over the last 3 seasons, Bills are 2nd only to KC and behind by just 5 total points in scoring in the NFL, and yet we enter this season with the best set of weapons Allen has had ever. Yes we are weaker at MLB which is a major hole, but we have our secondary healthy again which is one of the best overall in the NFL and has been for several years now. Our pass rush is getting bolstered by Vons return and Floyd being added, plus McD should be more aggressive than Frazier was giving the potential to generate more pressure. This team has upgraded at WR, RB, TE, LG, RG, and has a healthy Allen. Then on D its upgraded at S, CB, DL, and Edge compared to last year. Only downgrade on the whole roster is at KR (losing Hines) and MLB (big downgrade). We are the same at C, RT, OLB (although Dorian is more depth there). So how are you seeing this team as "worse" than last year? Will we have a worse record? Possibly, no season is the same, our schedule is brutal. But overall, this team has upgraded slightly or significantly at almost every position over last year either through FA's, Rookies, or guys being back healthy. We have 2 major questions marks at MLB and RT still, but those don't offset all the other positives either. And we still don't know how much of an issue MLB and RT will be given Bernard didn't get to play the whole preseason and Brown is still an unknown on how much better he could be with the injuries behind him. So while those are our biggest weak spots, we don't actually know how weak they are, if at all.

Did you know the last time a SB winning team had a 1000 yard rusher on the season was 2016? Did you know that the last time a SB winning team also had the NFL leading rusher was back in the 90's with Denver and Terrell Davis? Yeah...your concern about the RB room is already a thing of the past. Your analysis of how bad the RB's we have are is less accurate than your concern about the RB position itself.

Its pretty funny. I mean, some unknown person just says "I am the guy who broke the CMC trade news" and everyone takes that as fact. Maybe he has a connection where he got some info early, maybe he doesn't. All I know some guy saying he does isn't confirmation of the fact.

Yup, and Rams couldn't get it done paying Gurley, then actually won the SB a handful of years later with cheap RB's.

Its a what have you done for me lately mentality...and nobody wants to remember we were 8 points away from being undefeated last year despite all the injuries and all the emotionally draining events the team went though on its way to 13 wins and #2 seed (Araiza, Luke Knox passing, store massacre, multiple blizzards and deaths, and of course Hamlin). Instead, they only want to remember the team that last saw the field against Cincy and Diggs frustration on the sideline. Literally thats it...and that is what they are basing it all on.

Going too far back is irrelevant though, it was a different game 20 years ago, and that was a different game than even 10-20 years before that. What matters is what is most effective in the modern NFL, which we all know is both a pass driven league where the QB makes a gazillion dollars if they are even just solid. When you have a team with a rookie contract at QB, more things open up temporarily like in SF where they can afford to have an elite defense, elite RB, and pay their recieving playmakers top dollar too. Because they aren't paying much at all at QB. Just taking a quick look at the last 10 SB winners...none of them had a top 5 paid RB 2023 - Chiefs - 7th round rookie making peanuts 2022 - Rams - RB making peanuts 2021 - Bucs - RB making peanuts 2020 - Chiefs - RB making peanuts 2019 - Pats - RB making peanuts and it was a platoon 2018 - Eagles - RB making peanuts 2017 - Pats - RB making peanuts and a platoon 2016 - Broncos - RB was making peanuts 2015 - Pats - RB was making peanuts 2014 - Seattle - Lynch got $6m, but wouldn't get his $12M per year deal until a year later and because Wilson was still on a rookie deal, although this was also when Seattle would begin to unravel moving forward 2013 - Ravens - Ray Rice was making under a million I mean that is just a quick look only looking at last 10 winners. Point is, teams who pay big money to RB's have not been winning the SB much in the modern era, if at all. I am not even sure how far back you have to go to find a team who had a top 5 paid RB. Does not mean there were not teams who had talented RB's on them, means that they didn't use significant cap space on those positions and either had them on rookie deals or cheap FA deals. TRIVIA: When was the last time a Super Bowl winning team had a 1,000 yard rusher? Answer: 2016 LaGarette Blount. Its an NFL record now for most years in a row that the SB champion did not have a 1,000 yard rusher that season. And Blount was a low budget FA signing. So not only are teams winning SB's without highly paid RB's, they are doing so without RB's who aren't even amassing 1,000 yards in a season anymore. This notion that an elite RB matters so much is factually incorrect in just about every capacity in the modern NFL...which is why talented and elite RB's are getting hosed by the NFL on their contracts despite being some of the most talented players on their rosters. Its just not a proven way to win anymore, in fact, its practically proven to not be effective way to win a Super Bowl. BONUS FUN FACT: The last team to have a RB lead the NFL in rushing that won a Super Bowl that year was the Broncos in the 90's with Terrell Davis.

Lmao, move the goal post? This was my first comment. And second you clearly just don't want to actually talk about reality and rather live in a fantasy world where players dont cost anything or against the cap. So compare apples to apples here. Just saying some lame blanket statement about how adding elite players helps is irrelevant. Any position, adding elite talent helps any team. But one player doesn't make up a roster. So why not stay in the world of reality? My guess is because it doesn't support your opinion, so you rather ignore the reality of investing big around a RB because it doesn't normally work out. Go look up teams who invested top 5 contracts specifically into RB's and show me how many of them made and won the Super Bowl. Show me how spending top tier money on that position makes teams SB winners. Spoiler alert: The list is very short, won't say how short, I will leave that as a surprise for you to find on your own. Oh...and he was dead the whole time

Now go research how much money was invested in RB's that were part of the Super Bowl teams. How is this something people keep missing? When you weaken your team elsewhere to over pay a RB, the overall team success drops considerably. Over the last 20 years, while there have been talented RB's who have been in the SB, the vast majority did not have hefty top of the market RB contracts. So your list is irrelevant in relation to whether its worth paying for a top tier RB

AJE had 6.5 sacks last year as a rotational guy playing for a DC whose defenses are not known for sacking the QB. In 5 seasons with Frazier, Jerry Hughes averaged 4 sacks a season. In 5 seasons without Frazier (4 in Buf before Frazier and last year in Hou) Hughes averaged 8 sacks a season, including 9 last year when everyone here said he was washed up. So I don't get why people would want to trade AJE right now personally who is proving to be good depth right now

Nothing about this logic makes any sense to me. Josh isn't left handed, the LT spot protects his back and blind side, it is significantly more important to a right handed QB to have a quality player at LT. Guys coming off the RT spot are easier for him to see and react to. So I can't see where you logic here is coming from here. Not to mention the challenge of swapping positions for a player.

Yeah, if this is accurate, its a no brainer as it essentially is like upgrading one of our extra 6ths to a 3rd and also upgrades the backup spot. Do you know how well it works cap wise on the trade? I mean he can't be making that much right

Not directing this directly at you, just more commenting on the over the top heat Lynch has been getting since Lance was traded. The fans and media love to dwell on a single move as if it is an indicator of a GM's total track record even though no GM is perfect. While fans and media have been railing on Lynch over Trey Lance, the 49ers have made 3 NFC Conference Championships in the past 4 seasons and one Super Bowl under Lynch. And Lynch took over a bad team, this is what he built. They enter this year as one of the SB favorites again and have one of the most talented rosters and teams in the league that Lynch built. And even though they made a SB and 3 straight NFC Conference Championship games, this is probably their most talented roster yet. They also found what seems to be a starting QB with the very last pick of the draft that is dubbed "Mr. Irrlevant" for a reason as it almost every case has ended up being a pick of a guy that would never do much in the NFL. Pretty sure most teams would kill to have a GM in John Lynch miss on a QB while building one of the best teams in the NFL who have been to a SB and 3 NFC Title games the past 4 seasons. He is legit one of the best GM's currently in the NFL.

I actually thought he had a pretty solid presason too. So maybe it was they already knew they were going to try and trade him given the log jam at DL in general and were getting him more reps to boost trade interest.

Boogie was buried on the depth chart here since his arrival, so hard to tell if he could grow or develop more once given some playing time. For us, it certainly makes sense to move him, we had a deep log jam and Shaq has more of a role here. But I will be interested to see how Boogie does in NY, I do think he still has potential to earn more playing time there than he did here. Don't know if he can develop into a starter level player or not, but he will at least get more opportunities there than he did here. Even though Boogie has been buried, he has had moments where he flashes some potential, even this preseason. Now its on Boogie to see if he can take advantage of more opportunities or not.

This is what I think too, and what I’ve been saying is what I think will happen at CB2 all camp. So totally agree with that

I agree, again was not proposing this, was wondering if this was why Benford started given Dane seemed to be in the lead to start all camp and preseason. I want to keep them all too Yeah all good

I agree, I think people might be over analyzing or overly down on Elam thus far. He was pretty good last year when he played, and got stronger down the stretch. He has had a good camp for the most part, not like this competition is against scrubs, I mean Dane and Benford are having good camps too. They are different players than Elam though and there have been plenty of times where both Dane and Benford were getting cooked out there due to the lack of speed and physicality. So I think its going to be more of a platoon at CB2 and they are going to use Elam more in those situations and Dane/Benford as more the zone schemes and play calls.

Honestly I would call him a lock

I dont disagree with you at all, like I said, I want to keep him and agree with what you are saying here. The main reason I didn't look at Elam as a potential trade candidate is 2 fold: First, they invested more into him just one year ago and Elam played well down the stretch last year including an INT in the playoffs. They knew the areas he needed to improve when they drafted him and doubt they would just give up on him over those one year in after using a 1st and a 4th to get him. Plus, he has had a pretty good camp himself and his rank on the depth chart is less about his struggles and more about all 3 guys have had strong camps. Second, if they were willing to trade him, I think they get him into this last preseason game either earlier or even as the starter to raise his value, especially given what they invested in him. Moving him down to CB4 is going to lower his perceived trade value, and that doesn't seem like a Beane move to me. So I am skeptical Elam went into the final preseason game as someone they were considering trading as it just doesn't make a lot of sense. I still think its most plausible all 3 stay here and there are no trades at CB. Just the late over taking of Dane by Benford in the final start felt odd given how well Dane played and made me wonder if its to see what kind of offers Benford might get given they already were getting calls for him last offseason as Beane stated.

Where did I suggest it as an idea though? I said I don't want to trade him right out the gate. I just simply wondered if there was more to him starting over Dane who has had a great camp and preseason and lead the CB2 race all preseason.

Ha, its all good...I figured most would take this wrong and react like I am saying we should or its for sure happening, which is not at all what I was saying. Im 100% with you, I don't want to trade him and feel the same as you where you can never have too many good corners. And we have a gauntlet of WR's amongst the top contending teams in both AFC and even NFC. This was more about being surprised Dane didn't get the start in the dress rehearsal given he has been leading the race thus far and has had a great camp and preseason, so was a bit surprised to see Benford start over him this final week. Personally, as I have said before, I still think CB2 may be more of a platoon based on scheme and matchups anyway and that the "starter" designation doesn't mean as much as it does for say Tre who dominates the snaps at CB1.