Thurman#1

Yup. Not important either way, IMO. Indeed. And this does not reflect badly on that. So ... you grew up in a nudist colony?

Mahomes. Josh gets a ton more yards downfield, but Mahomes is just as good moving in the pocket and is just as threatening at throwing the ball. As many have correctly said, nobody, really, but I'd put Mahomes among the very closest.

That's not true. Plenty of guys have improved a ton while on the bench.

Well, you're definitely right or wrong about that.

If they trade him this offseason, it'll only be about $7M more in dead cap than we had on Diggs this year.

Reid really is one of the best coaches in the business. But he got good QB play from Donovan McNabb because Donovan McNabb was a very good QB. Same with Vick as well, he was a good QB, though far more dangerous as a runner than a passer, but he was tough to play against. And by the end of his career, after they stopped running him through the cement grinder with a new OC every year, so was Alex Smith, till the injury anyway. Did he make them better? Probably, he's a damn good coach and particularly so on offense. But those three were good. Vick least so, but still scary when young and athletic, but it's true his most dangerous year was that one year when Reid got him to start thinking like a passing QB rather than a running QB. But it only lasted a year, even though Reid was still there Vick just couldn't maintain that level. Agreed there's more to the Chiefs than Mahomes but without him (no, I don't think they'll be without him for much time if any, but ...) they're a decent team not a deeply dangerous team. Same with us without Allen, same as just about any team losing an elite QB.

Polite disagreement. He hasn't been himself throughout games but when they needed a drive they've been able to get it, and that's because of Mahomes.

He's really good at football "proves" that he deserves the taxpayers to fork out for a dome? You need to grab yourself a course in logic. Yeah, he's terrific. But that doesn't show what you think it does. That's true. And he's never lost any games in good conditions.

Yeah, that's probably why they missed Josh's game. Still pretty funny, though.

Yeah, but to create a list that allows those guys on and keeps McDermott off, you have to unnaturally eliminate nearly all the other options. You've squashed the list of great coaches down to a tiny little sample size of four or five. That fact is more a testament to your excellent job of carefully crafting your sample so it allows the guys you like and doesn't allow McDermott than saying anything important. Again, Belichick didn't win one till his seventh year and Reid his 20th. McDermott has a ton of time to haul himself up among that list, and shows every sign of being able to do so. He still has something to prove, no question. But so did Belichick and Reid. Till they did it.That's how it works for everyone. You haven't proved it till you prove it. For some it comes quick. For some, Reid most particularly, it takes a long time. And again, Sean hasn't had awful playoff defenses. They've been pretty excellent, except at stopping the Chiefs. And a lot of defenses have looked awful at stopping the Chiefs offense from scoring what they needed. But your take is more nuanced and sensible than many of the folks on here.

Couldn't agree more.

That's arguable, but nah, I don't think so. Top four or five, though. Gimme Payton and Brown as top two.

As spectacular as Josh, and OJ for that matter, is, for me it's Bruce. Top two at his position all time. Josh has years to catch him, and might. But right now it's Bruce.

I see an opinion that's pretty arguable. Even great coaches have bad games. What McDermott does seem to have is a bunch of fans who tag every loss as being his fault.

Dungy won one. Clearly he was good enough to win a Super Bowl. Dungy's good proof that a lot of times it's about situation and fit. That it's more complex than just this guy's good enough and this guy ain't. As is Reid proof of that. And Belichick, really. How many did Gruden win after that? Guy had six more years in Tampa and got more than nine wins one time. Belichick, Reid and Dungy were fantastic coaches, though. I'm not really certain about Gruden. It sure looked like it for a while but now ...?

It isn't the board. It's a certain segment of it. They disappear when things are good and reappear when we lose one. They're dopey, but entertaining. That's the way to look at it.

Yes, but also heavily coach dependent, you'll notice. You need a very good coach and a very good QB to have consistent excellent success. Super Bowl wins, right? Reid's first came in his 20th year as an HC, Belichick's in his seventh. This is McDermott's eighth. Anyone who thinks we've got enough data on McDermott yet is simply not thinking clearly.

Cooks has had a terrific career. Landry less so, but still good. Lee looked to be a good pick as well till that severe knee injury.

Yeah, that's the way it looks to me. Shame. Man, was he fun to watch at his peak.

Yes, it fits your narrative. You want to stress everything negative about this D and ignore positive things. So yeah, you feel free and happy reminding everyone about the Bengals injuries, but reminding anyone about the Bills injuries, no, no, we shouldn't do that. Let's not talk about it. And yeah, both of those perfectly fit your narrative. Again, you are the one who brought up those Bengals OL injuries. And the one criticizing people for bringing up the Bills DL injuries. Saying both is a logical contradiction. But a guy with a narrative often doesn't let logical contradictions hold him back. Oh, and of course we talk more about Bills injuries than Bengals injuries. This is a Bills board. Of course we talk about the Bills more.

Ah, we shouldn't talk about defensive injuries because it doesn't fit your narrative, right? Sorry, I forgot. But, um, just remind me, who took a whole post just to remind us of Cincy's OL injuries? That was, um, you, wasn't it? About two posts above? So we should avoid talking about injuries when it's the Bills and doesn't fit your narrative, but talking about opponent injuries is totally OK and should be encouraged? Have I got that right?

Somehow the people who always bring that up manage conveniently to forget that the Bills D-line was also ripped to shreds. Von was out. That was the year the D looked absolutely ferocious at the beginning of the year with a healthy Von, until his injury. DaQuan, out. Our two best DLs, by far. Out. This allowed them to double Oliver all game long. After Rousseau and Oliver the rest of the DL snaps looked like this: Tim Settle 53% Shaq Lawson 48% Epenesa 43% Eli Ankou 37% Boogie Basham 31% Jordan Phillips 25% Kingsley Jonathan 16% That's not murderer's row. So enough with how bad the Bengals OL had it. We had it just as bad. And again, when healthy at the beginning of the year, that DL was playing absolutely dominant. When a pressure was needed they seemed to get one.

First, John is a terrific poster, even when I disagree with him, which is pretty often. Your attack here is complete nonsense. And second, like it or not, that Bengals game was a Bills team that wasn't at the end of their rope, they'd gone beyond the end. Both sides of the ball played OK but not nearly up their normal standard. You look at the quotes after that game and you see multiple guy saying we just didn't have any juice and that the energy just wasn't there. Which made sense. That season was wildly bizarre. One of their players died on the field. Another (Knox), had a college age brother die. They had a situation happen to a team for the first time in NFL history, three away games in a row in a total of twelve days. A mass shooter in the city with a racial motive. Dozens of people killed by the weather in Buffalo. And there was plenty more. It wasn't a normal season. They had reached the end of their emotional reserves. And it showed. Having said that, the offense had far less reason to play badly than the defense. The D had been devastated by injuries, with plenty out and plenty playing through injuries that simply didn't allow them to play up to their own standards. The offense was pretty healthy. Neither played well, but again the defense had far better reason for not doing so.

There isn't a defense in the world that is better against good teams than bad teams. That's the way it works. That's why you want your team to be a good team, so that they can operate better against the units they face. DaQuan, when playing well, is a mountain in the middle and plays terrific against the run. In any case, the Bills D is consistently excellent. With one major problem. They can't rush the passer as well as they should. That's not a scheme thing. They don't have that one guy. Only about 5 - 10 teams do, but the Bills are not among them. And it's hard to get those guys when you're consistently drafting 25th or later.

Injuries were more than a factor, they were a huge reason. And the word is "could." "Might," maybe. Not "will." We don't need to "face" anything. We should probably understand that that's your opinion. It's an opinion with some evidence behind it, but that evidence is very far from conclusive.