Thurman#1

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.

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