Thurman#1

Nonsense. Ridiculous. Groot is living up to his pick. Not exceeding it, but he's living up to it. Oliver keeps improving, he also is playing really really well. This DL is a different entity when he's in there. Kincaid shows signs of becoming a top five TE, and soon. Not there yet, but he's very close. Certainly Elam is a failure, even if he seems to be significantly better in the different system they're using in Dallas. In ours, though, he simply wasn't good enough. Edmunds played really well. It's not a mistake that he got what is now, two years later, still the 3rd highest ILB contract in football according to Spotrac. People hear someone is a 1st rounder and say, "How come he's not playing like this guy, who was top ten, and this guy who was top five and this guy who was #12?" It's a lot harder to get players with genuinely huge impact late in the first, it just is. It happens, but at lower rates.

"even if a move feels highly unlikely," says Russini. Yeah, that. Might be one of those, "We'll listen, but unless you blow us away, forget about it," deals. Can't see it happening, really. Wouldn't mind a bit if it did, but the likelihood is just miniscule. Haven't kept up with Thomas, really, so I can't say anything either way about the folks here saying he hasn't been very good this year. Interesting, and it makes you wonder why. But again, can't see this happening.

This. He's amusing, he's funny and he's charismantic. Not actor charismatic, though. He'll succeed at nearly anything he does after his career. But I feel very safe saying it won't be movies or acting.

Taron played pretty well last week. He'd been a bit weak before that.

What the Pats did was watch us give the ball away three times and have I think it was 11 penalties and they still barely beat us. The Falcons did indeed watch that, because after seeing it, they watched Allen throw two more INTs and the Bills get 8 penalties for 64 yards accepted. Including that turnover they gave us on the first play that got eliminated by a penalty. This isn't about the Falcons and Pats playing better or us being figured out. It's about us playing more poorly than usual. Could that continue? Sure. My bet is it doesn't, but we'll see.

Thoughtful and interesting. I disagree about a few things, I guess. About speed, Cook is fast, and it's still showing, IMO. When our 1st round pick comes back, we should see some more of that on defense as well. You say that the Chiefs have speed and give Rashee Rice as an example. Rice really isn't that fast. 4.51, if I remember correctly. He's more quick than fast. And plenty of times quickness can serve in place of speed. I have no problems with our power, or at least on the OL, the part you mentioned. Dawkins, Torrence and Brown are wildly powerful and McGovern's a big strong dude at center as well. I don't think that's a problem at all. On defense I can see this as more of a problem, particularly with DaQuan out. Offensive stagnation and struggling with mediocre opponents I think are very reasonable criticisms. Particularly the past two games or so. Hard to tell whether this was a bad streak or a season-long problem, but it's certainly true of what we've seen recently. Thanks for the thoughts. I am just as worried about injury trends and the awful riptide of penalties lately. Plus the fact that the D isn't getting turnovers. That's never been a problem in this D before. IMO a lot is to do with the safeties just not confusing anybody. They aren't as wily and in synch as the guys we grew used to. My guess on the odds of that happening? 0.02%. As a result of serious injury.

Why would you not consider Frazier, Dabs and Brady as part of his tree? Certainly they all had some experience previous to joining the Bills. But that's the way it generally works. It's not that common for guys to start out already with the person who will be their biggest mentor. I mean, Sean Payton is considered part of Parcells' tree. But he only spent four years with Parcells. He'd been a coach since '88 and didn't get to the Cowboys with Parcells from 2003 to 2005. I can see not going with Frazier, I can. But Dabs and Brady I'd say would absolutely be part of McD's tree. I'd expect more as time goes on. How successful the tree will be, I dunno, it doesn't seem to be predictable. Belichick's tree is awful, big but awful. Parcells was a defensive guy. Payton is on offense. Belichick has guys on his tree from both sides of the ball, as do many others. Same with Bill Walsh; it's pretty common.

Um, because did McDermott say that until now he hadn't known it was a possibility and just a few minutes before he discovered it was a possibility? Because it sure looks to me like that's an assumption on your part, that he just found out, rather than anything he's said. Looked to me like he was asked the question and answered it, without any additional information about when they'd decided it. It's not embarrassing in the slightest. A little frustrating that the doctors can't give more details on timetables and how quickly different guys will respond to treatment, but that's hardly on McDermott. Not at all, Brown was a real success. Did a lot of routes at all levels, with success at all of them. Dangerous in the deep middle, but was very capable of picking up the six yard first downs also. Didn't last long enough for me, what with Covid and a high but in those two years, he was a really good pickup. As is Shakir. As was Beasley. As was Emmanuel Sanders for what we spent on him. As was McKenzie for what we spent on him. As was Gabe Davis for what we spent on him. Hollins was good for what they paid him. So was Diggs till he made himself too annoying. The problem isn't really bad pickups. It's that many want him to spend many more resources on WR than he does. Yet the offense has been very good for a long time. There are some choices that should be questioned. Samuel hasn't been healthy enough consistently to be effective. Scantling didn't work out, but again, the contract was pretty small. Harty wasn't successful here. There are others, but he hasn't made many big swings, so even if these guys didn't work out, we didn't lose a ton. Now that we spent a 1st on Coleman, he'll be held accountable for that pick. Too early to say so far, but it's not far off before we'll be able to legitimately start questioning his effectiveness. Signs are not great so far, but is it him or how he's being used?

Coming out of college he had been very successful on buttonhooks also, but yeah, slants too. Anything where he was working back towards the QB at the end of the route he was good at.

As for what you say here, if that's your definition of #1 treatment, you are saying that there's a #1 on every team. And if that's your argument, yeah, maybe he is our #1 if it's not Shakir. Personally I don't think every team has a #1, and that the Bills don't feel they have a #1. And that that's what everybody eats is all about. And that game plans seem to vary every week with who plays more and who gets focused on more. IMO he's not getting number 1 treatment, he's getting most snaps treatment. Which is not the same. And he's getting one more target than Shakir treatment, which considering Shakir has about 10% less in snaps means he's getting fewer targets for how much he's on the field than Shakir is. #1 status doesn't have much to do with snaps, as far as I'm concerned. But I still don't really get what you are saying in the first post I replied to.

I'm not disagreeing with your statement. I'm telling you I have no idea what you were saying. To me, your English is not clear there. What are you saying?

Gee, tough question there. A real brain twister. Took me nearly a tenth of a second to figure the answer. How much better? I don't care, it's irrelevant. Better. Hard to imagine that they'd get better when Kincaid and Palmer return ... or when Hawes gets even more experience ... or when Brady game plans better than he did against the Falcons, or when Josh plays better than he did against the Falcons ... oh, wait, it's not difficult at all. It's actually really easy. Plus, great point there that offensive EPA per play totally equals how good they are. Not as if there aren't other things involved. Like, say, avoiding dumb interceptions, penalties and fumbles. No, offensive EPA per play totally sums up everything, as long as you don't worry about clear thinking.

"The Coleman thing and being treated as if the #1 is shocking to me," you say. I don't think I'm the only one who does not understand what you mean here.

Not seeing the "not far off" thing that you are: Lockett: 21 targets, 10 receptions, 70 yards, 0 TDs, 3 1st downs, Success Percentage 33.3% Shakir: 34 targets, 25 receptions, 268 yards, 2 TDs, 12 1st downs, Success Percentage 52.9% Haven't seen anything about the Palmer injury being "long term." Did I miss something? I heard "week to week," which could easily mean back very soon, just that it's not clear. Keon and Moore have both had some success and beaten single coverage at times. Could we use an upgrade at boundary, though? Sure, if it's a good fit. I have the same reservations as you about how well Lockett would fit our needs here, though.

It really will not tell you that. Even if you think it does. It won't tell you what Beane is thinking. It will tell you how well your thinking lines up with Beane's. If it doesn't, that doesn't tell you what Beane is thinking. Only that you are thinking differently.

Yeah? I would. And do. Every reason to think it could happen, especially as it seems to go that way every year. Could this be the year it doesn't? Sure. But don't bet the mortgage on it. I fully expect the offense to do a bunch better later in the year. And don't for an instant think they'll consider letting Brady go or that we will get what you would consider a top tier WR. Wouldn't be surprised if they get a mid-tier guy before the deadline, though. And that would likely help.

So is playing badly. And Josh did. He doesn't do it often. But every once in a while, yeah. Same with Mahomes, and everyone, really. Comes with being human. He was not good against Atlanta. That doesn't mean the rest of the team was above criticism, though. Penalties, bad tackling and gap fill problems. A lot going on. But a bad game by the QB is always going to be tough to overcome by any team.

Nonsense. There are tens of thousands of homecoming queens all over American every year. A better analogy would be that it takes a special type to date Ana DeArmas. But not doing that doesn't mean you're only going to the dance and that you're obviously not trying hard enough, that's nonsense. We're a terrific team. Or have been anyways. It's hard to be sure of that this year in any way. But it's still very possible. Nor is it in any way obvious that getting a #1 would bring us Ana DeArmas or a Lombardi this year. It might well raise the odds, but pretending that automatically gets us there is just kidding yourself

He does. But still, Wilson and Waddle won't be going in the division. Wouldn't mind Olave if they could get him. But seems N.O. is working towards signing him. Olave would be more reasonable and likely in every way. That's an interesting idea, I'd love to see them get Buddha if possible. Rapp really looked pretty good last year. Not nearly so much this year. And we need a good pair of safeties for a McDermott defense.

Of course I would. Three unproven guys who might be really really good? Without a doubt!! But I eat bird poop and go bungee jumping with the cord around my neck. OF course I would. But again, I eat bird poop and go bungee jumping with the cord around my neck.

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.