Thurman#1

I see, Dave. My lazy reading. I apologize for targeting what I said at you. I stand by my opinions, but should have read the article and targeted Graham.

Trusting you on this .... No trading partner came through. Hmmm. Wonder why that was. Couldn't have been that maybe nobody else wanted to give him $15M/year either, could it? He may turn out to be worth $15M/year. But he hadn't proven it at the time. He had legitimate blocking issues and he hadn't put up a lot of snaps. Could he now put up a ton of snaps and prove that he could have been doing it from day one? That's one possibility. Or he could wear down if they use him that much, that's another. And there are many more. One reason that GMs give players permission to seek out a trade is that they think this will give the player a realistic look at what his market is. And Cook didn't just play out his contract, he signed a deal with the Bills. Again, hmmmm. There's more than one way to look at that.

Virgil, you're usually a really strong poster, but this post is just awful. Just addressing these first few line I found several misguided We have four starters, not three from the last three drafts. Coleman, Bishop, Kincaid and Torrence. Hell, Hawes has started two of the last three games. And expecting starters from the first year particularly on a loaded roster this early in the season goes against history, especially with McDermott at coach. Would Hairston have started sometime this year, without the injury? Very very likely, and still possible. Plus you've got several guys contributing a lot of snaps already, as platoon players or in sub-packages. Levy had the same philosophy. It's hard to start early on a good roster. You claim to have bolded the guys who've contributed in a meaningful way. Seriously? You didn't bold Coleman, Hawes, Bishop, Ray Davies or Dorian Williams, who's started five games and played 64% of snaps. You didn't bold Taron Johnson. I mean ... Or maybe that they could have found ways to handle that situation by the time Cook was gone in 2026. Or maybe they thought that - and I grant this thought is way way out there - Cook might end up signing a deal that was closer to what the Bills thought was reasonable than the $15M per year Cook had publicly asked for.

Yes, Strong is on IR. Doesn't change the fact that he overperformed. Um, starting two and a half years in college and missing half a season in fact does bode well for future projection of injuries. When you have one injury that keeps you out of games in college over the course of three years, that's not a bad omen at all. Three or four spots over the years where things have kept you out a game or two at a time or even more? That would bode very poorly. If one injury that had him miss games shows to you that he has a penchant for being injured, that's good evidence that your perceptions are distorted on this particular issue at this time. Lots of guys have one or two injuries in college and then are healthy in the NFL. Frank Gore and Adrian Peterson are always my two favorite examples of this, but Gronk's college back thing is another. There are thousands more. I explained quite clearly the parts I found ridiculous. Not surprised you're not willing to address those specifically. To each his own indeed; there's another thing you wrote that I agree with. Just looking at the bell curve will tell you that if a guy's own thing is wild pessimism, he will still be correct a certain percentage of the time. And in fact, I agreed with a number of things you said.

No, Dorian Strong has overperformed as well so far. And while it would sure be better if Hairston weren't injured, he didn't have a rep as injury-prone. He missed half a season in college, but that was it. He is small. Absolutely could turn out to have this as a consistent problem. Or not. We'll have to see. But no, he didn't have any particular penchant for injuries. It's way way too early to judge anyone this draft as a disappointment. Ridiculous to think so. "Make everyone accountable, " you say? Yeah, that's ridiculous. Everyone is accountable. They always have been. That's how it works here, and nearly everywhere, really.

A few good points here. Most of it, though, has a reasonably large diddly-poo content. Just as an example, you say that he seemed willing to let Cook walk. Well, no. That you thought that was so doesn't mean it actually was. What apparently actually happened was that they had an amount they were willing to spend and that Cook was well above that figure, and that a compromise was reached, with Cook coming way down from his self-announced figure of $15M per year. Teams and players disagreeing on contracts is the most common thing in the world. The fact that Cook signed for about $12M, getting some guaranteed money in exchange, tells you that Beane was anything but unreasonable here. Your take on this is dumb. You say that the highest draft picks haven't made an impact. And yet you somehow forget to mention that a bunch of this year's picks are already, after six weeks, significantly over-performing, and that the reason Hairston hasn't made an impact is that he was injured. Again, a dumb take on Hairston, and deeply slanted on the take concerning this draft class, not to mention that making criticisms of a draft class after six weeks is like criticizing a recipe because it's not ready two minutes after being put in the oven. And criticizing protection from pocket time is deeply flawed reasoning. If a QB throws a quick-hitter to one side half a second after he gets the ball, his pocket time average will go down, regardless of the fact that the release came because it was planned to be that early, not as a result of any pressure. The Bills have thrown a ton of quick routes and behind the LOS connections. Again, this results in a low pocket time, regardless of the fact that there may have been absolutely zero pressure. They've concentrated on the short game. That will result in shorter pocket time. Amari Cooper has been credited with opening up things last year. By some. But it's very far from clear that he was even a big factor. If he was the reason we got so much better, how come we played every bit as well in the passing game when he was on the bench as when he was on the field? He played only 46% of the snaps after he got here. We were just as good when he was riding pine. Worth looking at the protection, though. It's looked pretty good overall, but I'd agree not quite as good as last year. They likely do need to see if they can figure out some solutions. Perhaps keep in an RB who's good at pass blocking, but on the other hand perhaps not. Ty really hasn't been quite as good this year, nor has Ray Davis, and I'm not clear on why that is. Again, there are a few very good reasons for concern and criticism. Benford doesn't seem to be performing up to his usual standard. The safeties have looked good at times but have not been consistent, you're dead right on that. IMO it's not clear if these two are a long-term solution here or whether we need to look at new solutions, either short or long term. You're right also that penalties, while not awful in every game, have been bad enough to cost us a great deal in terms of lost opportunities and yardage, and probably that includes the whole loss against the Pats. Awful. So there really are some good points here to be made. And you make some. But your POV here isn't just glass half-empty, it's more like there's probably viruses in the water that's there, don't drink it whatever you do.

Yup. If we don't have Kincaid and Palmer for another game, that will seriously hurt us, as it did last week.

First, the defense is better than the offense the past couple of games. Second, your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, IMO. It's understood within the framework of deferring to double dip at the half that the other team having the ball first is valuable to them and potentially consequential. It's a tradeoff. A reasonable one, IMO. Um, not at all. The first half puts your team ahead, or behind. It frames the second half. It's very very very meaningful.

For years ... YEARS ... we had people on here telling us the whole problem was our mediocre run game, that we needed to take the pressure off Josh to act like Superman all the time by getting a good runner and a good physical OL. So we get that and now it's that the problem is that we've taken the ball out of Josh's hands. Josh isn't playing as well as he usually does. Nor is most of the offense. Plus losing Kincaid and Palmer is going to tend to reduce passing effectiveness. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure it's not to give him more difficult throws. Mix in more longer and mid-range stuff, maybe? More bunch formations and such? I'm not against bringing in another WR in a trade, but people keep asking for Chase and for Garrett Wilson. Better to be realistic. Maybe a speed guy would help. The Bills have a record, a long and consistent record, of fixing problems they encounter early and in the middle of the season by the time December rolls around. Hopefully that will continue.

No, of course not. The idea's batshit crazy.j

That's not a fact, friend. It's an opinion. Also that it's all about failed draft picks isn't just an opinion, it's a very questionable opinion. As I pointed out above, he's considered a top ten drafter and GM pretty much without exception. Shouldn't say without exception, I guess, but the exceptions are pretty much all Bills fans after losses. And judging draft picks as early as you're doing in several cases here just isn't good practice.

Every QB misses a few. Penix was 20 for 32. Last week he was 20 for 26 and overall he's completing 62.4%, which is pretty decent. Don't want to hear about it? Tough. You will, and you should. It's part of the picture. The D had a ton of injuries, with DaQuan's absence in particular apparently doing very bad things to our run defense.

Um, no. On one they didn't go for it and took the field goal, and that should count agains the Bills? And on the other they didn't kick the field goal and that should count against the Bills? Either way? Yeah, um, no. That would have been 13 points. Or zero. Pretending you know - either way - is utterly ridiculous. Worth noting that that missed field goal drive started on the Atlanta 47. A team gets the ball there, a field goal try is not a bad result for a defense. When the points don't go on the board, they don't count. The defense wasn't good. Nobody should say that. But they were a lot better than the offense. They weren't awful by any means.

Fair that responsibility for talent acquisition goes to the GM. He indeed can't be held unresponsible for bad picks like Elam. He also can't make great picks like Benford and Deone Walker and many others without receiving credit. All on Beane. Beane's draft record is consistently ranked very high almost without exception. For good reason. Yup, the buck stops there on the draft. Doesn't mean he doesn't factor in McDermott's input a great deal. He absolutely does, particularly in terms of what kinds of players are wanted. But yeah, it stops on Beane. But again, his drafts have been quite good. Amazing since they consistently pick so late. Here's what you get when you google "best drafting GMs rankings NFL": #8 https://www.nbcsports.com/fantasy/football/news/rotopats-2025-nfl-gm-rankings-analysis-for-all-32-teams #5 https://nflspinzone.com/nfl-power-rankings-ranking-the-best-gms-in-the-league-for-the-2025-season-01jyd16br9kj/2 #9 https://nfltraderumors.co/2024-nfl-gm-power-rankings/ #5 https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1157-nfl-daily-with-gregg-rose-29915968/episode/ranking-almost-every-nfl-general-manager-277425860/ #9 https://gameday-analysis.com/2025/07/11/every-nfl-gm-in-2025-ranked-from-worst-to-first/ #4 https://www.vikefans.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=13121 #8 https://youtu.be/X9ouCU9Fr6U #6 https://nfltraderumors.co/2025-nfl-general-manager-power-rankings/ #4 https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6655181/2025/09/24/nfl-front-office-rankings-vote/ #7 https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-gm-rankings-2024-howie-roseman-brett-veach-eric-decosta-at-the-top/ And it goes on and on and on and on ... just like that.

First, we're 4 - 2. Not that bad. Yes we looked pretty poor in this game. But there's every reason to think we can get much better. Second, the idea that the (quite good) situation is all because of Beane is just stupid. It comes down to Beane, to McDermott, to the coaches and staff and players. Same as all the other teams. I do remember Zay Jones. Beane was in Carolina when he was drafted. I do remember Charles Clay. Beane still had three more years to go in Carolina when we signed him. The first paragraph was so poor, I didn't read the rest, figured it was most likely just trolling. Which is sad. But yeah, if not, quite a lot sadder. The Bills do have a lot of work to do right now. But reading this entire post would stil have wasted my time.