Thurman#1

Great point that since he's been out our defense has given up 16 points per game. Weirdly, though, you forgot to include the fact that before he was out, our defense had given up 8.5 points per game. Meaning scoring against the defense has nearly doubled since Hyde is out. What a bizarre coincidence that you only mentioned the numbers afterwards. Can't think of any reason you might have left out those numbers from when he was playing.

There are two types of people who go on and on about groupthink. The first group are those who have dumb arguments and refuse to understand that that's the reason everyone disagrees with them. And that's your group.

Loved watching him play. He is what football is all about. Best wishes to him. Hope he stays healthy and has a long and happy life.

It might have been worth watching but the evidence is increasingly in. Despite a much better pass rush, the Bills are allowing long passes at a higher rate. Hyde's injury has been compared to that of Eric Wood. There's a chance he may not ever play again. But sour grapes thinking isn't encompassed in clear thought. Losing him hurts a lot. The guys who are replacing him are doing so at replacement value, which is a good thing, but we're losing a lot here. A lot. If he can return next year, and return at the same level, the Bills will likely be thrilled and keep him. 1st two games, with Hyde: 10 and 7 points allowed, 191 and 107 yards passing allowed, and 5 INTs filched by the Bills Next four games, without him: 21, 20, 3 and 20 points allowed, 171, 134, 310 and 319 pass yards allowed, and 5 more INTs, in twice as many games Is all that down to Hyde? No, of course not. But is he surely a factor? Hell, yeah.

Nonsense. The worst part of sports discussion forums isn't groupthink. It's the sad individuals suffering from cancerous confirmation bias, dead wrong and totally incapable of understanding why, who think they're battling groupthink when they're actually just making an ass of themselves. Those people you're talking about didn't change their mind because they were intimidated by groupthink. They looked at both sides, realized they'd originally been wrong, and adjusted their position. This is something people who think well and productively do. They noticed that your argument had virtually no merit.

Wrong, which is habitual for you. They targeted him five years ago by bringing him in. Then they again targeted him before the 2021 season by giving him a big new contract extension through 2023. At age 30, they made it very clear that they wanted him through 2023 in the most obvious and public way, by giving him a contract that even in the last year, 2023, would have cost $7M in dead cap money to get rid of him. You ignore this because it doesn't suit your dumb argument. But it's obvious as the headlight of an oncoming train in a dark tunnel to anyone looking to see what is rather than to advance a pathetic pre-conception.

An awful lot. That is the answer, whether or not you want to hear it. A great deal. If you instead have someone at replacement value, you won't notice a massive lack, because the guy will be doing what needs to be done. The stuff you will never see because it doesn't happen can't be seen. But it is missed.

I hear you, but I don't really agree. There are usually just a few really good teams. Seems to me there's more mediocrity. The middle 60%, the center of the bell curve, is just wider, now more like the middle 80%. No absolutely horrible teams or great ones outside the Chiefs and Bills. It's parity squared. Teams like the Giants, Vikes and Cowboys and such aren't up with the Bills but they're playing good ball.

Yup. This.

How are you going to trade a guy who may never play again due to injury? And he's very very valuable at safety, though the replacements are doing a very solid job. This defense as a whole is doing a terrific job. They're getting by without Hyde because the rest of them are so terrific, particularly the front seven this year. And they're getting by without White for the same reason. Both White and Hyde are terrific, both very valuable. 5 INTs in 2021. Tied with Poyer for the lead among all safeties. Ridiculous question.

I really doubt it. They gave him a five-year $90M extension in July, after the surgery. There would have been zero reason to do that if they were tanking. They thought he was going to get better.

Nothing happening with the Bills right now.

He says he does everything that makes sense to upgrade the roster. He also says his goal is to be in contention every year. Not to do everything possible for this year and screw the future. The Rams did indeed get lucky enough to win last year and wouldn't have without Miller and OBJ. But they also put themselves in the position they're in now. They are not good enough to be in contention this year, IMO, and the reason has a lot to do with valuing the short-term over the long-term.

No, I think Burns is worth a 1st. A very talented guy who could still be growing, I think. I like him and he's really young. But that it would put us into serious cap problems. Force us into much more uncomfortable decisions down the road. Maybe we're talking past each other a bit, here. Anyway, best of luck to you, and see you round the boards. Go Bills!

What? Where did I say "keeping our own would be wildly reckless"? Or anything like it. Spending a ton of extra on Burns, a complementary piece but nothing even close to a need ... that is what I think would be reckless.

You're damn right I don't want to move on from Edmunds, Oliver or Singletary. Edmunds and Oliver in particular would leave massive holes. Oliver and Edmunds particularly. And yet they may have to say goodbye to one next year, already. Possibly even two, though my guess is only one. But we've got no backups for Edmunds or Oliver (they don't see Bernard at MLB, I believe) and would have to bring in high-priced FA replacements or use a high pick to switch in and suffer the mistakes a young guy makes and the lack of veteran savvy. It would be creating holes that would then have to be filled. Burns - assuming we could get him, and I know you've already said you're aware they don't want to let him go - or someone like him amounts to putting ourselves into a situation where we get more and more cap squeeze and have to create more and more holes. Burns would help, but he's not needed. And there are guys who would help but are not needed at every position on the field outside starting QB and Von's position. We're already the #1 defense, a scary group, because they are getting pressure with the front four without having to blitz. If you can get someone who could help for cheap, great. No need to start spending like a sailor. Beane is conservative and yet still able to field a terrific roster with significant future flexibility. That's a very very good thing.

That's just not true. Nobody says we have no money. Nor is it true that there is no suffering if the players are still good. If every player were still good, that would only mean Beane wouldn't be forced to incur dead money. Dead money is not the only problem when your cap is in crappy shape. Far from it. Beane probably did overspend his original intentions a bit when Von Miller became available. But we didn't pick up CMC, or any of the many other high-priced guys still available after that. Beane still left plenty of re-structures and other ways to kick the can on the table. For good reason. We shouldn't use the money we have in a wildly reckless way. This team is built so that their excellence is sustainable. That's because Beane left those restructures/extensions on the table. He's financially conservative. And that's a good thing because it means we'll be able to react nimbly in the future.

Yeah, theoretically we could do that. And it would theoretically be possible for me to buy a Lamborghini if I was willing to put myself into the most extreme types of debt. But it would mortgage my future. Just because something is possible does not mean it's a good idea. Doing any of what you're suggesting is not a good idea.

Without considering money, that's a fair offer. But I don't see us bringing in any high-dollar guys at this point. He wouldn't be worth that as a one-year loaner, and we've already got a financial quandary coming up with us likely having to let someone go we'd rather keep. I don't think we could extend him when we're already paying Von Miller to be our standout rusher.

Remind me, did you say "The bolded is legitimately the worst team building strategy ever"? Or did you say, in total .... Exactly. And for the second time, you seriously think he meant "every other year," literally? That he really meant only exactly every two years, whether you needed an RB or not? Seriously, that's what you thought? If that's the core of your argument, I feel even sorrier for you.

Yeah, could be. I worry about that. A league with a functional Wilson is a more exciting league. It would also mean a tougher AFC, though, so perhaps I should root against him, but I can't. I like the way he has played when at his best.

Yeah, I took issue with you calling not drafting any RBs in the top 20 and not giving any big second contracts a terrible strategy. DUH!! It's a terrible strategy. As for picking guys late in the first, again, go back and read what I wrote about drafting in the late 1st round in the post just above, the one, the one you just responded to. Again, you seem to have this inability to successfully read before you respond. Being strict about his exact words, no, it's not a good idea to decide to draft something precisely every two years. I'd have thought that was obvious. You seriously think he meant "every other year," literally? If that's the core of your argument, I feel even sorrier for you. But drafting an RB around the 2nd to 4th round when you need one? Yeah, that's good strategy. I'd allow the 5th as well, probably, but yeah. I wouldn't mind picking up the occasional low to mid-priced FA (Yeldon and Antonio Williams, for example) to fill in the cracks either. Yeah, good strategy.

So, you can't read either? I guess about all I can do here is give a double facepalm and move on. It's like trying to argue with my seven year-old daughter. Four years ago.

This may be one of those arguments about what elite means. For most, it's top three or four in the league. "Elite by any definition"? Nah. Not by that one. I don't think Russell Wilson has been elite. Maybe brushing it for a year or three, but not elite. Terrific? Yeah, absolutely. Top eight or so his entire career? I think so, though if someone wanted to argue he was only top 11 or 12 his first year, I wouldn't fight too hard. But not elite. Oh, and wins are not a QB stat, they are a team stat. That's what the difference between Wilson in Seattle and Wilson in Denver shows, and particularly the difference between Wilson's win percentage in Seattle from 2012 to 2020 vs. Wilson's win percentage in Seattle in 2021, 6-8, when he was playing almost as well as he'd always been.

I'd say you keep topping yourself, but it's really bottoming. You just get worse and worse. Why are you so desperate to look bad? You say, "BB is not some mastermind 'team builder' because he won a lot." Do you have any idea how stupid that is. You apparently think that the way to show you're a team builder is losing? Good lord, dude. Yeah, he is a team builder, a spectacular one. And it is exactly the fact that he won more than anyone else that shows it. And who drafted Tom Brady? Oh, yeah, Bill Belichick did. While he was building a team. Dude, I didn't say "top 20." Are you drunk? Seriously! Remember the post by DJP about which you said, "That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever," remember that one? He said top 20. And you bashed him for it. That's why I responded. Get a clue. He insulted teams that pick RBs in the top 20 and that you should expect us to keep picking an RB in the late 1st to 4th. Again, you told him "That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever." Which is both wrong and dumb. The only thing wrong about what he said is that the Bills haven't picked an RB in the late 1st and there's no evidence they ever will.