Thurman#1

McKenzie and Crowder are slots ... both of whom can play outside. Crowder in particular has done so a bunch in the past. I personally expect Shakir to be the most frequent #3 outside guy late in the year, but early I think it'll be a mix-up of Crowder, McKenzie, Shakir and even Kumerow sometimes giving them a lot of different talent options.

"Could they fit ....?" is almost never the right question. They "could" fit nearly anyone, with consequences hurting them down the road, major consequences in the case of Golladay. The right question to ask is generally, "Should they fit ...?" In the case of Golladay I think the answer is hell no.

I don't see any more trades, really. Maybe if someone calls us for a guy not likely to make the roster. I think Ford would have made the final 53 with how he's played in camp this year. I don't see anyone else like that that I think they'll trade. If a great enough offer comes, who knows, but my guess is we're done. If forced to guess I'd say maybe OJ Howard but I don't really think it happens. Oh, yeah, I think Crowder is in their plans, both inside and outside.

You are linking two separate events. The only reason to do so is an absolutely desperate need to frame a positive as a negative. A few people on here seem to share your sad need to do so. The rest of us look on in pity. Few if any defend Beane's choice of Ford in the draft. It appears to have been a bad pick. It is also in the past, and as such unchangeable. A sunken cost, as Kirby put it. What Beane did today, in the current situation, was a damn good move. Yes, if you go out of your way to lasso something from the past and to look at them together, you're not looking at what happened today correctly. It would be just as reasonable to say that when you look at the move today in the context of Beane's also selecting Milano in the 5th, it proves that today's move shows Beane is one of the greatest of all time. That would also be unreasonably framing today's move, though that would be a poor attempt to frame positively rather than the negative way you are doing it. Roping the two together is simply a distortion of what happened today. It is a pathetic attempt to frame what happened today as a negative. It is not. It is damn good move. Which does not eliminate the fact that what happened three years ago in drafting him was a negative. Again, it was. If you can find people on here trying to say that drafting Ford was a good move, you'll be sensible to argue with them. But not many would say that. What happened today appears to be a damn good move. It's still possible we look back in a few years and say that he doesn't hold onto OLs long enough as the Ford and Teller moves show. But that appears to me and to most of us as unlikely. As of today, today's move looks pretty damn good to clear-eyed Bills fans. Clear. Just really dumb. The desperate need to yet again try to frame this by looking at two moves rather than one is poor thinking .

You say you understand it takes time. Thinking you can judge now shows you may understand intellectually but you haven't internalized this truth. And "showed nothing" is just nonsense, for both of those guys. They've showed, though certainly not enough yet. But it's early, most particularly for Basham. There is no 2nd round curse except in your mind. In a few years it might possibly become a thing. In a few years, who knows, maybe. Right now it makes no sense. Groot was better. You'd generally expect that for a first rounder, but because one guy is good early does absolutely nothing to show that another guy drafted lower and will be a bad pick. It could go either way.

If you don't think it's too early on Basham and Epenesa, you're kidding yourself. This early, you're guessing. Unless a guy has already been terrific or is off the team, it takes a minimum of three years to judge a guy. Yeah, plenty jump the gun, and those folks are wrong a much much higher percentage of the time than those who correctly understand that very often these things take time.

Well, yes, it's impossible to call someone a genius because of a minor move like that one. But the guy you were replying to when you made that statement wasn't doing that. You were (at least to him) throwing up a straw man. It's always fair to criticize picks, wrong or right, but you'll be criticized for some of those criticisms sometimes with very good reason. Messiah? No. Absolutely terrific GM overall? Um, yeah. The GM's main responsibility is to build a terrific roster. Beane has done that. Without question. It's not a mistake he generally falls somewhere in the top three or so on most GM lists these days. Hell, you can find lists where he's #1 these days. When was the last time that happened with a Bills GM? https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-gm-power-rankings-bills-brandon-beane-sean-mcdermott-rams-les-snead-top-the- https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-general-manager-rankings-2021/1hfg2twob1m7l1ij24pbqwnwrw https://www.nbcsportsedge.com/article/goal-line-stand/nfls-best-gms-2022 He was executive of the year, voted on by his peers, in 2020. https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-awards-2020-chiefs-browns-bills/n3zug71hkf0h1oemcc1v9k6ij We're extremely fortunate to have him.

He drafts well in the first and it's too early to know how well he will do in the 2nd. When we know how Basham and Epenesa and eventually Cook turn out, we'll have a better sense of his record. In 2019 and 2018, far enough back you can have a pretty good sense of how someone will turn out, he only had one 2nd round pick. The results do not appear good, but one person is simply not a significant sample.

Not amazing? OK, fair enough, I suppose. A very nice move, though, IMO.

Yeah, he is. You don't think you're correct when you say that, but you are. Pretending that geniuses don't make mistakes is butt-stupid. They do. Everyone - absolutely everyone - does. Geniuses make few enough of them that they produce excellent outcomes. Beane has done precisely that.

No, it just isn't. Drafting him that high in the first place certainly appears to have been a major mistake. Getting a 5th for the player with what we know now is a good move. Those are two separate moves.

Come on, man. You're a good poster, but it's very obvious he wasn't specifically referring to this trade only when he referred to Beane as a wizard. Some may have been, but he wasn't. Bean has been sensational. That's absolutely a very big majority consensus. As it should be. Not perfect, nobody is, but terrific, absolutely.

Yeah, nobody comes back from the Achilles on the O-line. Take Jason Peters and his Achilles team in 2012, he's sucked since except almost certainly earning his way to the Hall of Fame. Terrell Suggs. Vince Wilfork. Sure, there's a chance he'll never come back, or that if he does he'll be a "shadow of himself." But there's also a possibility he'll be fine. As is generally so, we'll have to wait and see.

He may have. Being a serviceable player and being traded from this team are not mutually exclusive.

That's the extension, not the contract. He's now signed for 5 years and $85M. We'll see how much of that is actually likely to be earned when we see the details.

There are a lot more STs impact plays kicks than TDs. A run out to the 40 or 45, stoning an opponent's return inside the 20, these are impact plays. Matakevich had an absolute game-saving play recovering that surprise onside kick Belichick called, was it in 2020? Plus some nice work on D here and there.f And while I'm not willing to go count, I doubt more impact plays were made by WR5s and LB5s. Plus, Kumerow had a great TD catch. Matakevich had an absolute game-saving play recovering that surprise onside kick Belichick called, was it in 2020? Plus some nice work on D here and there.

Too early to be gloating. Our offense hasn't kept up with the defense either. But I certainly wouldn't mind if this kept up through the season.

Julio must have skied for 8 - 12 inches there. Still like Julio, but I'm glad we're not having to count on him. I'm sure Tampa is too, as Godwin will come back and they can keep the demands a bit light on Julio. Oughta be interesting.

Heh heh. Nice.

Dunno what capfriendly does. Since nobody has gotten back to you yet, have you tried Spotrac? They have some roster manipulation and salary cap effects stuff. You may already know them. If you don't, google: Spotrac Buffalo Bills. Then play with the "Manage Roster" feature.

Competing in that chart only with (outside of Gabe Davis and Diggs, obviously) Hodgins, Marquez Stevenson, Tanner Gentry and Neil Pau'u, by the way. In real life, several others are running reps at outside WR in camp. But I'm with you that I think Kumerow is going to make the roster. He's pretty cheap and they absolutely love him on STs beyond any time he might spend at WR.

Oh my God, that's HILARIOUS!! You're so desperate that you change the quote and carefully leave the link off, so nobody can check it? HILARIOUS!!! Here's the actual quote, the whole thing, with a link so anyone who wants can check it: "Shakir had a nice day yesterday, I think position 1 for him is probably right now slot as well, but he can play outside, he's got some versatility. I would definitely say we're stronger from a depth point inside than outside, we'll continue to look." https://www.audacy.com/podcasts/howard-and-jeremy-20258/hjs-bills-general-manager-brandon-beane-1516265348 Somehow BADOL accidentally left out the part of the quote that is most damaging to his argument. Isn't that a funny coincidence? Weirdly, he put the whole quote in quotation marks, moved things around to slant it a bit more towards his argument, and left out that part. Shockingly, he forgot to put the ellipses in there to show he left something out. Anyone surprised he'd deliberately mess up a quote if it served his argument? The guy who, referring specifically to that quote above said, "Just last week Brandon Beane said Shakir was a slot receiver"? Anyone surprised? Anyone?

No. Big Turk didn't say that Shakir would only be used outside. So you're wrong there too. He said "Shakir is going to be fine there." I'm not sure I agree with that, frankly. But there's no reason to think that he meant they were going to use Shakir primarily outside. He could easily have meant that if there's an injury he thought that the Bills thought that Shakir could back up our outside guys well enough. You replied - WRONGLY - ""Brandon Beane said Shakir was a slot receiver." Since I've asked three or four times for a link elsewhere to him saying that and you have replied with crickets, you're obviously referring to what he said to Howard and Jeremy. And it's very obvious that he never said that. Just the opposite, as part of the quote is that "[Shakir] can play outside, he's got some versatility." Yeah. You're wrong. He never said that.

Am I saying you were wrong? Um, yeah. The reason I say that is because you were wrong. But again, I give you a chance to prove me wrong about that. Here's what you said: If you can find a link to anywhere where "Brandon Beane said Shakir was a slot receiver," you'll have proved me wrong. He didn't say that. Due to your confirmation bias, that's what you heard, obviously. What he actually said was, "I think position 1 for him is probably right now slot as well, but he can play outside, he's got some versatility." Those are his words. If you had said something along the lines of, "'Beane said he thinks position 1 for Shakir is probably slot but that he can play outside,' but due to my pre-existing biases I take that to mean that Beane said Shakir was a slot" ... I'd have had no argument. But again, you didn't say that. You didn't even say something like, "I think Beane means that Shakir's a slot." Again, you said, "Beane said Shakir was a slot receiver." And Beane didn't say that. He said, "I think position 1 for him is probably right now slot as well, but he can play outside, he's got some versatility." Those are his words. To repeat, if you find somewhere where Beane said that Shakir was a slot, I'll be glad to admit that you were correct.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Thought it was not clear why he went there first. Could easily have been because he's the only guy there who is clearly and only outside depth. As for Shakir getting heavy usage outside, that's probably fair. Odds are against Kumerow doing so either, IMO. Diggs or Davis might not get hurt, for one thing. If Diggs or Davis gets injured, my guess is we'll see them use a lot of different formations and personnel groups and a lot of different guys outside seeing what works. And that the later in the season it is, the more Shakir would be used. Or that in case of an injury they bring someone else in, Sanders, perhaps.