Thurman#1

Agreed. Valdez-Scantling was the receiver. We need another pass-rusher. Stat. Well, after the money becomes available anyway. Someone like Ngakoue, if affordable, would be terrific.

We don't need to have an elite offense. A very good offense? Yeah. Elite? Nah. Can you have a very good offense by spreading the ball around? Yeah, you can. Below are the top three offenses every year for the last ten years. Bolded and in red are all of the teams out of those elite offenses that won the Super Bowl. 2023: Fins, 9ers, Lions 2022: Chiefs, Bills, Eagles 2021: Cowboys, Bucs, Chiefs 2020: Chiefs, Bills, Titans 2019: Cowboys, Ravens, Bucs 2018: Chiefs, Rams, Bucs 2017: Pats, Saints, Steelers 2016: Saints, Falcons, Commanders 2015: Cardinals, Saints, Steelers 2014: Saints, Steelers, Colts And out of that one team, bolded and in red, that was an elite offense that won a Super Bowl in the last ten years, what did their WR room look like? Juju Smith-Schuster was their most productive WR, with 933 yards. Valdez-Scantling was their second-most-productive with 687. And yes, they had a sensational TE. That's the way we are trying to go as well. Again, Kincaid has the 4th best rookie year in history for TEs in terms of receptions and the 10th best in terms of yards. He could very well be very very good this year.

That's certainly not impossible, but Allen's passing is significantly better than Newton's ever was. Josh is also really good at pocket movement in the non-athletic sense, just stepping in the right direction with his eyes downfield. He doesn't do it every time, but overall he's pretty damn good at it. That skill should help to stand him in good stead when he begins to slow as he ages. We'll see. It's something to keep an eye on, no question.

That's just not true. Some do and some don't. Some people talk about this and some don't. Josh did videos during those years where he was interviewed with Palmer and specifically addressed what he was working on improving. Plenty of QBs don't do anything like that. Questions are generally asked at some point, but there are plenty of ways of answering while not answering, or just being real general about it. "I'm working hard out in California. In my playbook every day," for example.

Oh, yeah. I clicked, expecting to hate them, but those are sweet.

Good stuff! I love that the Bills so often do this with a UB guy or two on the 90.

Josh isn't in the top two in the league? Um, OK, I guess. I think he is. If he isn't, he's damn close. And while I'm as sure as you are that fans will be talking about trading up to draft WRs again, any but a small tradeup was a ridiculous idea this year and will almost certainly be equally so next. Yes, fans talk, and Allen fans constantly talk about receivers. Doesn't mean it makes sense. Beane made it clear that he didn't even make calls about those top three, but on the boards they were close to a majority preference. People will prefer shiny baubles, doesn't mean they're a good idea. The bottom line is that what Josh Allen needs is not a great WR room. It's a great team. If more and better WRs are a part of that, wonderful. But history shows very very clearly that you don't need a terrific WR room to win Super Bowls. Yes, the Chiefs didn't have a great WR room, but that's not a wild exception. A large majority of SB winners compensate for a WR room that's solid with an excellent QB and a really good roster, including the defensive side. And in the past two decades or so, a very good TE on top of the WRs, and often good receiving backs as well. Both of which we appear to have.

Spending available cap space, depending on how you do it, absolutely can be pushing all your chips in. And this is nowhere close to "writing off a prime year of Josh Allen," not even close. That's pure nonsense. It's not a mistake that Vegas has the Bills, with the current lineup and situation, tied for the 4th best odds to win this year's Super Bowl. That's anything but writing off a year. Ridiculous! Agreed that next year's draft capital, and better cap situation, are reasons for hope.

KC did NOT have one of the best TEs of all time last year. Kelce is on the downslope. Still top three or so in today's NFL, but our TE appears headed in that direction, and fast. Can't be sure yet. But that's the way it looks. I'm sure everyone's tired of this stat, but Kincaid was 4th all time for TE rookie catches and 10th all time for TE rookie receiving yards. But while Mahomes is certainly top two in the league, IMO so is Allen. It is indeed an exception to the rule, as are the Bills. While lack of WR talent could certainly hurt, it's way too early to be as sure as you are here. Just as Mahomes spread it around a ton and was really productive the past two years without a great deal of WR talent, Allen could very possibly manage the same kind of thing.

Yes, next year will be much much better than this year. But there's no reason to think we will not do something this year with the Tre White money, or rather with a very significant part of it. Also way too early to know what we will do with Von. We might indeed cut him. Or not. It'll depend largely on his performance this year. Spotrac has us as #28 in cap money in 2025. Overthecap has us at #26. Yes, we can do some things to get more. So can other teams. Doing those restructures just pushes things down the road. We'll doubtless do some of them. But the more we do, the more we go down the road towards another year like this one. It's a tough balance for Beane. He's shown himself to be pretty good at it, but not perfect. The Von pickup in particular was always a high-risk high-reward proposition. The way he was playing when healthy in his first year here might well have brought us a title. But he didn't stay healthy. He might find himself doing something like that again. Cap money is going to continue being a real concern. On the other hand, it shouldn't again be as bad anytime soon as it is this year.

You've missed the point again with the three games. Those three games you referred to were NOT what is required to prove that a QB is above average. The same thing can be said about every QB. Take his top three games out of any season and he will look much worse particuarly when you then take those vivisected thirteen game numbers and try to compare them against all the other QBs sixteen game stats. That ... is ... how ... stats ... work. And yet again you want to leave Newton's running out of the picture for exactly the obvious reasons. Newton's runs made him a ton more effective and a ton more productive. You can't isolate Newton's passing numbers, ignore the runs and pretend you are fairly evaluating Cam Newton as a QB. You aren't.

Just picking one, Milano was terrific in that playoff game against Cincy. He's consistently been good in the playoffs and sometimes very good. Another off the top of my head, Taron Johnson was very good consistently in the playoffs. And Allen had some bad playoff games. His first, for one, against Houston, but also the first Kansas City loss was OK but far from great. The Cincy game too was not great at all, though almost the whole team was bad, really. Generally, it hasn't been our playoff performance that's been bad. It's been our playoff performance against Kansas City, where we've generally been good but not quite good enough. Also the awful Cincy game. As for your QB point, plenty of arguably top six QBs have had problems making the playoffs consistently. Top yardage and top 6 TD QBs aren't necessarily the best QBs, they're the most productive that year, which often means they're surrounded well by good teams, including good defenses that get them the ball oftener and in better position. How many times did Stafford make the playoffs before he got a good team around him in L.A.? Philip Rivers was terrific, but had on and off teams around him and on and off playoff attendance. Herbert? When Ryan had good teams around him he generally looked close to the top six.

I see. You're not throwing them out. You're "discounting" them. You do know those two are essentially synonyms, right? They both mean that some statistics don't fit your vision, they're harmful to your argument, so you don't want to be inconvenienced by them so you're not going to use them. You're absolutely throwing them out. And again, doing so is simply illegitimate in any context but a context where you also throw out the best three games of every other QB. You're not doing that, and for the obvious reason that it would hurt your narrative. More, those aren't particularly the best three games in his career, except for in terms of TDs. The next year, 2016, he had a game with more yards than any of those three, and four TDs. In 2017 two games where he outgained those three games you are talking about and put up 3 TDs each time. In 2018 two more, each one with 3 TDs. And those are only in the years after 2015. You haven't got a single legit argument there for throwing them out. Beyond the fact that it suits you, that is. Again, every QB is going to tend to do well against poorer teams. And with every team playing 12 teams a year back then and 13 now, you'll play some crappy teams. This is just how statistics work, precisely what happens when you have football teams run through schedules against each other. They'll play some good teams and bad ones. They'll tend overall to do better against the bad teams. Each team will play some bad teams, and to "discount" by not considering the games against bad teams from one team will show nothing beyond the fact that you have some reason to make them want to look bad. You seem to have forgotten to include all of Cam's running stats. And they're a big part of his effectiveness. Your last group of stats there, where you throw out again his good games and pretend you're showing something useful ... again, it shows more about you than about Cam. You're making this bad argument even more bald-facedly. You take out his best three games. And then you try to use the resulting stats in rankings, rankings against QBs for whom you used all of their games, leaving their best games in, of course. Again, that shows far more about how far you'll go to make this argument than it does about Cam. He was never a great passer. But a pretty good one, (until he wasn't any more) who like Josh multiplied his productivity and effectiveness by being a run threat on every play. The OLs he played with were not very good, changing year after year, and the best one was absolutely 2015, though even then Remmers was a major weakness at tackle. Newton covered up a lot of below-average OL play during his tenure. Till the injuries ate away his effectiveness and dependability.

No, I don't think so, although I really hadn't remembered as well as I thought I had. Obviously I hadn't been watching him and the Panthers as much as the Bills. His dropoff didn't really come after 2015. More 2017 or 2018. You're right that particularly in passing TDs, 2015 was the standout year. Average overall? No, I'd say he had plenty of good years till about 2017 when his running started to drop off and his passing wasn't too far behind. In 2017 he had the rotator cuff. In 2018 the shoulder injury that reduced his performance at the end of the year and his Lisfranc injury year in 2019 didn't look good either. He was never a great passer, but throw in the running and he was really effective. Until he wasn't. As for variance and three five TD games, that's how stats work. Throw out the best three games and you can make just about any season look much more average. Throw out Josh's three highest TD games last year and he only threw 19 TDs in a 17 game season. He must suck. Again, throw out the best three games in Josh's 2022 and he only had 24 passing TDs. It's just how stats work. Yes, Cam had a lot of passing TDs that year, way above his average, but he was feared for a reason, he was a good productive effective QB through most of his career, till he dropped off. But yeah, he never had another year as good as that 2015. He's an interesting player. I'm glad you gave me a chance to go back and take a look.

You're mis-stating the model there. They clearly value pass-rushing DLs. Rousseau, for one. And for a DT, Oliver rushes very well. They also brought in Von. They value it. It's just that great pass-rushing DEs aren't usually still available where we generally draft. How many first rounders have the Chiefs spent on receivers? They traded up this year, but we got our WR only about five picks later this year. That's not about position value, it's about who each team liked and where they thought they could get them. The Chiefs've used a lot of draft picks on DLs as well. 10 since 2018 out of 48. And five out of 21 in the first three rounds, including three first rounders. This model has worked and is currently outperforming any other model. It's damn sustainable. Even if not with Cam Newton's health going so early.

Please. The fact that Diggs was drafted in the 5th completely ignores the fact that we spent a first on him. And he was worth it. Spending a first on a receiver is not putting receiver at a very low priority.

Yeah, absolutely. But we are talking about that year. Still amazed by how early Newton's drop-off happened, and how steep it was. I guess I disagree that he was overrated. Everyone knows he was never very good after that year. Before that year, pretty damn good. That year. Terrific.

Myself, no.

The Bills RBs are better. Stewart was on his way downhill at that point, 4.1 YPG, 989 yards and 99 more on passes. Give me Cook and whoever else, by quite a bit. Cook is really good, really productive. 4.1 YPC for the Panthers that year, leaving Newton's runs out of it. Cam's passing yards that year: 3837 Josh's passing yards the past four years: 4544, 4407, 4283, 4306 When I started looking this stuff up, I thought sure Cam's passing yards would be significantly below Josh's, but that his running yards would be well above. 'Tain't so. Josh's passing yards were well above Cam's, but his rush yards are, on the average, about equal to Cam's that year. Cam had 636 yards and 10 TDs. Josh went 421, 763, 762 and 524, which averages out to about the same. And 8, 6, 7 and 15 TDs, which averages out to 9 TDs a season, one below Cam. Give me Josh. But not by all that much. Newton was terrific that year.

The question is whether this happens. It's guesswork. Might happen, might not. Very possibly they can go deep as they're constructed. But a lot of the reason they dinked and dunked more is because that's what's available, not just to us but to all of the better passing offenses. Mahomes had the lowest YPA of his career, by a very significant margin last year. He dinked and dunked too. And I hear he can throw a little bit hard himself. Dinking and dunking becomes more necessary as defenses teams that like to go deep get defensed by using cover two more and more efficiently.

Oh, and hey, the pessimistic view could turn out to be right here. I certainly hope not, but it absolutely could.

McDermott did that, he's said so, because he didn't think he was capable of fully evaluating QBs, especially in the whirlwind of getting things started as a coach in his first year. You don't care? Fine. But why should we care what you care about? Not that you're not just as smart as the rest of us - I'm sure you are - but pretending we know that Mahomes would have been the same guy in Buffalo is not reasonable. He might have, or he might not. Under Reid and with a year to sit and learn he has been terrific. So has Allen. The reason he thinks Beane is the primary decision maker is because there is zero credible evidence that it isn't true. Zero. Beane says it's true, McDermott says it's true, everyone says it's true, and there's no reason to think Beane would settle for being a rubber stamp.

Bill, Carter is going to be a team leader and soon. No, almost certainly not as a rookie, generally it's not up to rookies to lead, but soon. At Duke they said there was one team-wide leader and that was Carter. So, soon. And there's every reason to believe Carter will be here for a while. And if Josh Allen is smart - and he is - he'd be happier with the guy who makes the team better. Josh shows no signs of being an offense-or-bust guy. As for speed, Keon ran a 4.62 at the combine. But also the electronic tracking data shows he plays faster than that. No, he's not a burner. Yes, he's fast enough to be very effective. In any case, the final goal in drafting a WR is not to draft the fastest one. It is to draft the best one. Sometimes those two overlap. Plenty of times they do not. I didn't want Coleman there. But I'm capable of being plenty wrong. We'll have to see. As for not having anybody fast in 12, depends on whether Curtis Samuel is on the field. He ran a 4.31. Again, speed isn't everything. No, it doesn't concern me right now that we might or might not have a burner on the field in 12 formations. It will if we turn out to be not very productive in those formations, but that's too early to say. I'm not all confident all of a sudden. Not one of those they-drafted-him-so-I'm-all-in guys, but but he's got a solid chance to be good or even very good. Looking forward to see if that happens.

Yes. This. Without a doubt.

Well, I guess we can agree to mildly disagree. IMO moving around and trading up a bit - say having a draft equivalent to Philly's - would still have left us having taken a step back. this year. Even successful rookies rarely have such a huge impact that year, not enough to make up for losing Morse, Diggs and Gabe Davis, Tre, Leonard Floyd and several more marginal contributors. I just don't see it. I mean, say we traded up for BTJ. Do you think he makes 1000 yards this season? It's certainly reasonably possible, but the odds are against it. My guess would be 700 - 900 yards, and that would be a success. And comparing our draft to Philly's overlooks several facts. First, that they started six spots above us. If we'd had that draft spot, we could have picked up BTJ without a trade-up. Second they also started the day in a much better position, with picks 50 and 53. Philly's original 22, 50 and 53 was a great deal better situation than our 28 and 60. Their two seconds made it possible to both trade up to #40 and at the same time to acquire both an additional third and fourth. Their final positions were considerably better than ours. That helped them do better in the draft. And they got to those final positions because they started with much better positions. But yeah, for us, solid but not exciting. We weren't in a position, IMO, to do much better than we did.