Thurman#1

Your being "pretty sure" amounts to you having an opinion. And everybody does. You might end up being right. Equally, though, you might not. And yeah, buyer beware. Which is true whenever you get a QB, regardless who he is or how much you give up.

No, for many reasons. Got one in Edmunds, and he's not an OLB. Kuechly's retired, and it would be expensive at a position where we have no real need besides.

Well, yes, but they didn't disagree. Cosell said he played fast right from the start, that he moved unnecessarily, that "he was anticipating and perceiving pressure even when it was not there," (a very common symptom of QBs who are pressured a lot in a game, by the way), "and he missed about three or four plays, including what would have been a touchdown to Tyreek Hill because he moved when he did not have to." Kimes said that Mahomes wasn't in the top ten of reasons they lost. Both of those things could easily be true. They are not logically contradictory. I think Kimes was exaggerating, myself. He probably was among the top ten, but not among the top five, IMO. I don't think he was in a position to get them to a win even if he'd played the best possible game under the conditions.

Regardless of how you consider it, it's speculation. Either way. He didn't say anything that would make anyone think that. Reading his "attitude," which is where you said the problem was, that's speculation.

Gotta disagree with you about the turf toe. I was really hoping to see him limp against us. He didn't. It looked like he'd recovered. Then against Tampa he was limping a lot. Maybe someone stepped on him or he kicked the turf or something but it was immediately clear that he was suffering from it much more against Tampa than he had against us. And I wouldn't say his worst game as a pro. That's significant exaggeration. But yeah, the pressure really did affect him, but it will affect any QB, really. Still, not his best game, but I agree that he was not one of the major reasons they lost.

Yes, he's saying don't anticipate things because they're not going to happen. He doesn't "keep expectations low." Or high or anything else. He's always been open and honest. You're right that if the price is right, he'd be willing to pick up spectacular bargains that fell in his laps. But the odds on it happening are miniscule. What we'll do, we'll bring in a bunch of guys to fill holes, low- and maybe a few mid-priced guys. The money isn't there for more.

"This is not going to be a free agency that we can be as aggressive. We've been aggressive with that because we've built up the resources and you can only have so many drafts. At the end of the day, we still want to draft, develop and sign our own, and we're getting to that point where now we don't have to go out and add pieces from free agency, we've got to see how many of the guys we can retain. "We'll fill in here and there some holes, but I would not anticipate any blockbuster moves of Stef(on) Diggs type, or some of the moves we made the year before in free agency. It's really gonna be plugging some holes depending on who we lose, and then the onus is on us to really to have a strong draft." Who was it who said this again? Oh, yeah. Brandon Beane.

First, when we move a little money around and change some contracts ... that will allow us to sign our rookie draft class, to re-sign whoever we re-sign of Milano, Feliciano and Darryl Williams and the others we'll have to re-sign such as Bojorquez, Barkley or a replacement, Levi Wallace, Taiwan Jones, Yeldon or a replacement, Marlowe or a replacement, McKenzie or a replacement and Boettger or a replacement. Enough with the idea that a few wiggles and we'll be rolling in it. We won't. But will we bring in a few low-level FAs? Bet on it. Maybe even a mid-level guy or two. Absolutely. But they won't be fighting for the expensive guys. Even less so than normal. Beane has already said so. But yeah, worth talking about which bargain guys to bring in. There will be a ton of them out there this year.

Yes, this looks like it precisely.

Yup. It's deliberately related to whether (pass) blocks are won within 2.5 seconds or not. You can win or lose and it might not mean a sack, or everyone could win but if they're rushing six a guy could be unblocked and get a sack. It's a stat with a specific context. It's interesting, and it lines up reasonably well with what I saw. Yes you did. You didn't get a sack, but you may well have done a terrific job. If you beat your guy but the QB gets it out in under two seconds to a guy running a slant that's not the pass rusher's fault. This one is a bit misleading as it's a raw number, not a measure of efficiency. If you get 250 pressures, that can have a totally different meaning if you faced 300 passes or 700 passes.

Not on his own, no. But he's a lot better than you're saying here, and it shows. The whole defense is elevated when Milano's playing. He doesn't deserve top pass rushing LB $, but he absolutely deserves to be in the $11 - $13M a year range, and I'm hoping they can sign him with a smaller hit this year and more guaranteed money down the road. IMO they'd love to get him back, but injuries are a legit concern with him.

Coming to Buffalo ... from Tampa Bay ... is going to make him bigger as a brand? Um, OK. Too expensive this year. Can't see him leaving Brady.

Where a guy fits in the rankings at his position in any given year matters not at all. Being the 5th best WR last year (according to draft position) meant you were Justin Jefferson. The year before it meant you were Mecole Hardman at #56. The year before that, Christian Kirk. The year before that Curtis Samuel. That's some major variation, and that's how it goes. There are good years and bad years for position groups. Being the 5th best DE last year meant you were AJ Epenesa (again going by where they were drafted). The year before, Montez Sweat was 4th. Frank Clark was #10 his year and Arik Armstead was #4 the same year. What matters is how good a guy is compared to all players in positions of reasonable need that year. I'd answer yes to your question in a second because I don't think RB is a position of reasonable need. Now, if they think Harris is a top ten player and that he sticks out way above everyone else at #30, I'd expect them to grab him. But I don't think they'll feel that way even if he's available.

IMO wildly unlikely. Never say never but IMO we won't pick an RB on the first two days. First round would shock me. That's not poor depth, it's a poor top end. From what I'm hearing (not an expert, nor much of a college fan) the depth at pass rusher is really good this year, but with no Chase Youngs up top, which wouldn't matter to us anyway at #30.

Again, I'm not arguing that we were really good the whole year. Clearly we weren't. But the last ten games they really were. Certainly not elite. But very good. Also not arguing we don't need improvements on D, and on the DL even with Lotulelei coming back which alone should really help us. We do need a pass rush. We may well see a guy or two go that didn't really live up to his salary this year creating an opening or two. Anyway, I've clearly assisted in thread-napping -shame on me - and I've said enough here.

Very true. Matchups matter. And good teams have bad games and bad teams good games sometimes.

Yeah, you didn't see it. That's obvious. Thing is, everybody else did. You formed an opinion. It's not a reasonable one, but you're not changing. Confirmation bias. I fight against it, constantly, in myself. And I still occasionally find myself sitting on a position that's become unreasonable. It's a very human thing. You certainly seem to be correct that the conversation is going nowhere. Fair enough. But the facts don't change. After the Chiefs game the D became a lot better. They allowed 20.7 PPG after that, in a season where 24.8 PPG was the average allowed. That would have put them 5th in the league, after LA, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Washington. You don't see it, as you admit, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And yet again, you made the claim that "the better offenses destroy this defense," and three times now I've pointed out how wildly untrue that is, and you still haven't addressed the point. So for the fourth time, the Colts certainly can't be said to have destroyed that defense, holding them well below their scoring average. Nor did Arizona. Nor did Baltimore. Simply wrong. And again, that doesn't mean they don't need to improve. They do. They need to find ways to improve the pass rush, hopefully bringing in a pass rusher in some way. They could definitely use a big nickel, which they've been trying to get for a couple of years now, to improve their performance against TEs and to make them harder to read, and they could use upgrades at second corner and maybe another D line guy to add to the rotation beyond the pass rusher. All true. Still, after about the first six games they got a lot better. Everyone saw it, from Romo, to the national pundits to ... well, everyone. Not absolutely everyone of course. You can find people who'll argue anything. But it's the consensus and for good reason.

You asked. They gave you the correct answer. Not worth exploring, particularly if he wants to be an LT.

We do have a really good defense, though it's equally obvious theirs is better. Also equally obvious that Tampa's offense was vastly better than ours against KC. Our whole team was flat against KC, STs excepted. But it's a lot more understandable to perform poorly against KC's offense than against its defense. But yeah, you're right, Tampa's run game isn't good.

Very good is zero stretch at all. It's what happened in the last half of the season. You want to say "terrific" is a stretch ... mmm, okay fair enough, maybe a bit. But a "gigantic stretch." No, Scott. That's a major stretch by you. They were really really good. Not elite, and they'd been elite the year before, so they fell back a bit, but really good in the last half. That's what happened. Now, as for your rather desperate concentration on the Colts game (I used the word "terrific" about the half of the season, not about the Colts game), you say, "That's not the whole story ... if not for Josh Allen they don't advance from that game." Pot, meet kettle. That's not the whole story, Scott. Yeah, if not for Josh, they don't advance. Same with the defense also, though. Allen didn't have a terrific game. The offense was solid. But they needed the defense to play well against an excellent Colts offense, an offense that scored 28.2 points per game and was held by this defense to 24. And your desperate attempt at sarcasm here, even though you threw in an emoji for stress, falls flat because what you're saying is true. Yes, the Bills defense did an absolutely terrific job there. The Colts had 1st and goal at the 4. The Bills D turned that into 4th and goal at the 4, and then on 4th they covered very well making Rivers hold the ball longer than he wanted to, and then Poyer covered pretty well, forcing Rivers to have to make a tough throw over him, and the DL pressured Rivers making him throw off his back foot. Clearly you didn't believe what you were saying, but equally clearly you were right. That turnover on downs was indeed an excellent job by the defense, excellent. If Rivers makes a perfect throw there they score but you can say that on pretty much any throw near the end zone. It's the defense's responsibility to make the throw tough and to bother the QB while he's making it. The Bills did both there. A really nice goal line stand. As was that terrific job they did on the Colts last drive. Terrific isn't a stretch at all on those two drives. The defense played well that game against a really good offense. Held up their end. And to repeat for what is now the third time with no previous response from you ... You said "the better offenses destroy this defense." And that is obviously false. The Colts certainly can't be said to have destroyed that defense. Nor did Arizona. Nor did Baltimore. Simply wrong. Now, did KC make our defense look bad? Yup. And our offense just as bad.

"Useless" is wild exaggeration. No, they were not useless. It's fair enough to say that they didn't play at the level they'd hoped, though. How much of that was down to the lack of beef after Lotulelei opted out? And how much early in the season due to the fact that they were new and there was no offseason? Jerry Hughes is anything but expendable. He had a very good season. There's no reason whatsoever to think this will be Star's last season. He could very very easily last another two after that, and even that's assuming they don't extend him at that point. No way to know, really. Could go either way depending on many factors. Yes, we certainly need a pass rusher, no question. Fair enough that they weren't the top 5 D we'd seen the past couple of years. The last half of the season they were pretty close, but yeah, not quite there. I'd agree with most of this. But I think part of the reason KC couldn't get to Brady was that his inclination was to throw quickly, inside the design of the play, where Allen's natural bent is to be tempted to extend the play and look longer.

Sorry, I said "They held the Colts to 24," correct? Could you point out where that is wrong? No, didn't think so. If they'd been completely outclassed, the Colts would have scored about 35 or 40 points. They didn't. Oh, and I love how you point to the Colts punting only twice ,,, and remearkably forget the two drives where the Bills D held them on downs, stopping them on 4th down in the first half and 4th down and 11 in the second half, when the Colts got the ball back with 2:30 and the Bills forced them into a 13 play time-drainer of a drive allowing no big plays and strangling them slowly when all they needed was a field goal. So, yes, they held the Colts to 24 and the Colts were a fine offense this year. And as I pointed out (and yet you strangely didn't address in your post ... who could figure that one?) your contention that "the better offenses destroyed it" was utterly and obviously wrong. That was far from the only good defense they played well against. As I said: Arguing that the Bills D wasn't very good the last half of the year shows only shows confirmation bias, a poor opinion petrified, polished and worshipped.

Oh, puh-leeze. That's ridiculous. The last half of the season our D was terrific. Not quite as good as last year, but very very good. As for "the better offenses destroy it," that's wrong on the face of it. Seattle was ripping up the league on offense till the Bills absolutely stonewalled them, and at the same time provided a blueprint for the rest of the league on how to do that. They handled the Cards very well till they got lucky at the end, the Chargers, and they held teh Colts to 24 and the Ravens to 3 So, that contention is balderdash. The Bills D needs a pass rusher, and certainly this year they needed beef in the middle, but Lotulelei will provide a lot of that next year. They were very good. They do need to get better, but they were very good.

It's one way to win. Not the only way. Out of pass offense, pass defense, run offense and run defense, run offense is the least important phase. Still, there are times when a bit of balance absolutely helps. But it doesn't need to be feared. If it's simply effective, that's totally fine. And it's worth pointing out that this year Tampa was 29th in run yards, far behind the Bills, and 25th in YPC, again behind the Bills. Fournette averaged 3.8 YPC this year, behind Singletary and Moss. Nobody "feared" Tampa's run game any more than ours.

You guys are absolutely going to the playoffs next year, injuries aside. And your QB isn't overrated the slightest bit.