Thurman#1

That's the situation. There are a lot of guys who might be able to fill in. This is an offense that has had smaller guys as their #3 receiver the last two years. If none of them work out, (my guess is they pepper them all in and out in case of an injury) the coaching staff will surely let Beane know. They could bring Sanders back. Sanders greatly outproduced Julio Jones last year despite not having a great year. If not Sanders, someone else decent, cheap and smart. Some people seem to want excellent players at every position. And it doesn't work that way. Even before the salary cap every team had weaknesses. It's just the way things work in complicated systems. When they fix the weakest position, then people complain about what used to be the second-weakest position which has now fallen to worst. Fix the weakest two positions and people will complain about the third-weakest which has now fallen to weakest. It never ends.

Not sure you understand the word "inevitably."

Precisely. That's exactly the question.

It's not the political views themselves. I really don't think that's it at all. It's the fact he's showed he's willing to take fines for ignoring league and team rules he doesn't like. It's that he feels the need to talk about his views even during camp, and even during the season. Teams want their guys focused. Beasley has showed he feels comfortable starting distractions during the season. There are several guys on the Bills who are anti-vax and are still on the team today. Not Beasley. And while part of that is absolutely that he's lost a step, a lot more of it is that he won't shut up and focus. And speaking of "lost a step," you ask if he can get a first down for the Bills when needed, and the answer appears to be that he's pretty likely to be able to do that if the defense is kind enough to play zone for him, but if they're in man his odds drop a lot. That certainly factors in, here and around the league.

Yeah, no. You can't even begin to guarantee that anymore than you can guarantee snow on Christmas Day this year. He didn't even come close to confirming that he's a lock. He did very clearly confirm that he thinks highly of Allen and Edmunds. But that's not the only factor. There's the cap. There's who else they sign. There's his performance this year. If Edmunds is asking to top the market he's unlikely to be here. If he's willing to take a good but not outstanding offer, he likely will, IMO. Not a sure thing, though. I see Roquan Smith isn't coming to camp. If Edmunds had pulled that, he'd be gone if we go by their regular M.O.

Oh, Golly, I hope he's OK. I'll send some good wishes his way.

Me too, but not for the Bears.

People have probably already answered, but he's writing a ton at the Athletic. EDIT: Sorry to pile on. Joe's coverage is thoughtful and good. He puts in a ton of time watching and dissecting the tape, and it shows.

The reason being that the News were wusses. This column is totally reasonable, particularly as he points out that he picked 'em for the SB last year. That could make you a little gunshy the year after. Jerry's never believed in the Bills? Despite picking them to make the Super Bowl last year? Despite having Cam as the leader for Coach of the Year seven games into the Trent season? Nonsense. He has covered them through a truly awful period. He is indeed skeptical and a pessimist. Call him a curmudgeon as well. But when they have looked good, he has had no problem acknowledging it. Oh, so Jerry predicted missing the playoffs? Oh, wait, he didn't. Yet another of the constant stream of straw man arguments we see on here so often.

Whatever they think is best.

Hope you're right. I highly doubt it. He isn't a wildly sudden guy. And he was not really getting doubled much last year I feel good about him this year too. I'd be pretty happy if he gets maybe 6 - 8, which I think is quite possible.

Yup, you'll catch a lot of flack, and for very good reason. Peters was underpaid from the instant they switched him from RT to LT which was within a few games of signing the contract. He sat and took it for a couple of years. Pretty much any player in that situation who is one of the top two or three best players at his position, being paid around the 30th highest AAV at that position would protest. It would only make sense to do so.

That's the thing. It would have to be quite cheap. And wanting a guarantee he'd start should be a deal-breaker also. Didn't watch him last year so I have no idea if he's any good anymore anyway. The only people mentioning that an LT was "the only thing holding this team from an SB" were the people who hated Peters and had to resort to pretending that the people who thought we should have kept him were saying this. It was a classic straw man argument, an argument that nobody had ever made and yet about half the board kept pretending someone had made the argument so they could shout it down and act like they'd accomplished something. Don't want him now, though? Fair enough, totally.

Agreed.

When I go through this, I see photos of Settle, Quessenberry, Emili, lots of others and I think there's a really good reason that OLs and interior DLs don't generally take their shirts off in public. They have to eat huge, they're expected to be really large. None of them are cut or slender. I don't say this doesn't worry me at all. But unless there's specific problems going forward about this, it will worry me no more than the other dozens of small worries. These guys generally look a lot like this.

Thanks, but you're perfectly backing up my point. I said I thought he had taken responsibility as a good CEO should, but had not said it was his fault. And I challenged you to come back and find somewhere where he said it was his fault, that he had made the mistake. And you come back and find another spot where he again took responsibility as any good leader should. Thanks for finding that, it helps make my point. Cracked me up, by the way, where you found his quote, "Again, I'm going to put it on the execution at this point and myself," and you then bolded the "and myself." Again, this says far more about you and what you want to believe than about McDermott. It would have been every bit as legitimate to bold it like this: ""Again, I'm going to put it on the execution at this point and myself." You said, "Looks at facts…..how about the fact that McD said it’s his fault." But you can't back that up. He didn't say it was his fault. He didn't say he made a mistake. He took responsibility. It's not the same thing. What he did poorly was that he didn't take responsibility well enough. It doesn't appear to have been his fault, but that's beside the point. When a leader takes responsibility he ought to do it wholeheartedly, even if he actually doesn't deserve any of the blame. McDermott didn't do that. I suspect this loss eats at him like acid and he can't bring himself to do what he knows he should do, take the responsibility regardless even if it's not your fault. Wholeheartedly and completely. That's his mistake here. This also doesn't support your point. It definitely shows something went wrong, not that anyone could doubt that. But the problem Kelce is talking about is precisely the one that Wallace is saying he blames himself for, and that the defense the coaches had called was good if they'd communicated the way they usually did. And the whole thing wouldn't have been relevant if it hadn't been for not squibbing it, and McDermott called for the squib. Yes, he's responsible as head coach for everything and he should take responsibility and did (though again I'd argue not strongly enough). But you haven't found anything that puts the actual blame on the coaching staff.

Yeah, I literally said, "There is no reason to think they won't win a Super Bowl or two." And that is still reasonable and correct. I also said, "I never said it wasn't possible that he might not make an SB. Of course it is." Also true. It's possible. But there's no reason to think it will happen that way. Marino isn't a reason to think Allen won't win a Super Bowl any more than Brady is a reason to think Allen will win seven. The fact that a guy in a different situation did something doesn't mean a different guy in a different situation will do the same thing. If you're really only saying that it might happen, I guess we don't have anything to argue about. It might happen and it might not. I guess we can agree on that, and that Allen had a terrific game and the Bills should've won. And further (I assume) that there are plenty of QBs who started out losing good Super Bowl shots and winning one or more later. It can easily happen if your team puts you in the right situation for the future, which this FO seems to have done. Still have to prove it of course.

Correct. However, the only one who insists that that's the only kind of vet who can take the job from Kumerow is you. We have several guys who might take the job from Kumerow. The fact that they don't meet some internet schmo's qualifications means absolutely nothing. What you've got there is proof only that you - personally - have qualifications and some guys don't meet them. Doesn't prove squat about who'll be the #3. How sad should I feel for you that you don't know a guess from a fact. Again, what you've got there is a guess. They've already specifically said that Shakir is not just a slot. The fact that you disagree is not going to be a concern for them. And again, more nonsense. There have been plenty of shorter guys who've played outside without being wildly fast. Golden Tate was about the same as Shakir and McKenzie and while Tate has played plenty of slot he's also played very successfully outside. Which is the point. Plenty of guys can do both. You're kidding yourself if you don't admit that. Manny Sanders isn't big and while he once ran a 4.41, that was a long long time ago. Sanders wasn't "beating anyone on the outside" unless he did it by outfaking them, which is one of many ways to play outside when you're not all that tall. You consistently play this game, the "Let's move the goalpost" game. You say small guys can't play outside. I point out some small guys who play outside. You move the goalposts and say, "No, that guy was small but super fast." I point out some guys who played outside despite being small and not superfast. And your next move is to move the goalposts again. It's bull####. What's next, their last names don't start with vowels? Guys like these have played outside in the NFL successfully, The fact that they don't meet some guy on the internet's qualifications is entirely, completely and utterly beside the point. Simply wrong. Crowder played a lot of snaps outside in Washington and before. Not the majority, but he's already done it successfully. That's far more important than that you don't think he can do it. What you have there is an opinion. I don't think it's even an especially good one. That you've mistaken it for a fact is your problem, not ours.

A lot of that "slot depth" might easily also play outside and very well. They know far more about that than we do, but it's certainly very possible. Where's your proof that he is? Has McDermott said so? Kumerow? Anyone except a few loudmouths on this board? I'd love to see the links. And anyone who thinks that there aren't some very fine short and short-armed WRs playing boundary in this league is clueless. Khalil Shakir, as just one example, is the same height and arm length as John Brown. I remember well how they used to howl like wolves at night about how they wished they could play Brown outside, but they just couldn't because he was too small. "Oh, woe, they used to scream, if only we could play Brown outside ... but we can't because of the 'press coverage by the long-limbed athletes that occupy the boundary CB positions in the NFL!!!' Oh woe, oh misery, oh the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." Then, if I remember correctly there was a lot of teeth-gnashing and wailing. Oh, wait. Crowder has also lined up wide regularly, though not in the majority of his snaps. You've got a guess there that's completely without foundation and you're insisting it's a fact. It ain't.

Please. If you want to respond, read what I write and answer what I actually said. Don't be answering stuff I never said. I never said it wasn't possible that he might not make an SB. Of course it is. I said, "there is no reason to think they won't win a Super Bowl or two." And there isn't. You on the other hand said, "I'd say last years 13 second debacle was at least step one in a long series of mishaps that would lead a player to become the next Dan Marino or Aaron Rodgers." And that makes no sense at all. It's not step one of anything, it's step - I don't know - step 400, maybe. Is that how many days of practice and games the Bills have had? And it's not any step in "a long series of mishaps". That's completely and totally imaginary, something you made up out of whole cloth. Marino (not Rodgers, whose team won one) is proof that it is possible for a great QB to not win a Super Bowl. Which I never denied. Yes they could win one soon and could also fail to even make one. But there is no reason to think they will never win one. That they theoretically could? Yeah, OK. Lots of things are theoretically possible. But that they will? No. Just no.

Oh, did McD say it was his fault? Did McD say that he had made a mistake? Did he explain the mistake he'd made? Must've missed that. Just real quick give me a link. I promise I'll check back in case I had missed that. I thought he said , "We need to execute better and that starts with me and goes all the way down." And that is NOT "McD said it's his fault." Leaders should take responsibility for everything that goes wrong. McD was right to say it started with him. But that's not the same as saying a specific mistake was his fault. I actually wish he had taken a bit more responsibility there. I'd have liked that better. I hope he learns from that. But I didn't see him say it was his fault. Leaders should take responsibility because them doing that is the best way for the organization to work smoothly and maximize organizational results. That doesn't mean anyone with sense should think that taking responsibility means that it was you who made a given mistake. It's not me blaming Levi Wallace. It's he himself. Unlike McDermott, though, Levi specifically laid out the mistake that he made. "We had a good play called." - Levi Wallace Levi explained carefully that they called the right play, that Poyer and Milano and Wallace usually looked at each other, that Wallace didn't, that they hadn't taken communication for granted for four years but they did on that play, that if he'd looked as he always had to see where Poyer was, he'd have moved to cover inside. I do have to agree with you, though dying on this hill is pretty bizarre of you. There's not much evidence out there, but what is out there says they called a squib kick and that Every single piece. But again, choosing to go against the evidence may not make sense if you want to correctly understand things, but there are plenty of times it plays in perfectly to someone's confirmation bias. But again, if "McD said it's his fault," as you claim, please link to it. His explaining how it was his fault would probably go a long way to convincing me. Would I give McDermott (and the whole defense, really) a share of the responsibility? Yeah. But putting all of the blame on the coaches doesn't make sense.

Yeah, well, if you call a guy delusional because he looks at the facts and assumes that's what you should operate off of, yup, I'm indeed delusional. If instead you go by confirmation bias and blame the guy you decided was guilty before the evidence came in, then yeah, you'd maybe blame McD here. Again, Wallace says it, thereby assuming blame. But you know better? Again, the return team were throwing up their hands as they were running down the field, furious that the kick went into the end zone. And an STs coach was let go. Blaming McD entirely without evidence against that is entirely on you.

I don't think anyone does. And since he's maybe the #5 or #6, if he becomes the #2 we will probably have had the sort of rash of injuries any team would have a hard time with.

Nah. You may believe it's McD's fault, but there's no particular reason to think that's the reality. In fact, there's good reason to think that's NOT so. It's been made clear that McDermott wanted the squib kick and the message didn't get to the kicker. The other members of the kick team clearly knew it, as they're shocked by the long kick. And Levi Wallace said that the mistake on those two plays was poor communication between him and the safeties which resulted in bad spacing, allowing the longer YAC on the plays. Blaming McD at this point says more about you than about him. I suppose you can blame McDermott in the buck stops here sense. He should accept blame. But us blaming him at this point doesn't make much sense. You said, "regarding the bolded," but I can't find anything bolded. So I don't know what you're referring to. But the past really does NOT show that bad coaching was the problem, nor that this was their best shot at a ring (last year we made the AFC championship, this year we had a ways to go, and the future could provide many more). Not Josh Allen's shot, that was the Buffalo Bills on that field. The past doesn't show that bad coaching cost them a shot. Your post shows it's your opinion that's what cost them, but again, that's you. The past shows they had a chance and lost, is what it shows. The Steelers had a great chance to win one in Roetlisberger's first year. Lots of good teams have had great chances and not managed it. Some followed that up quickly or even quite a bit later (Elway) with SB wins. There's no reason to think this team won't win one or more, perhaps very soon.

Two? Yeah, maybe. They had a real shot in the 1st and 4th games. Three? No way in hell. They were completely and totally outclassed in the two games in the middle. Just came up against much better teams.