Thurman#1

That's nonsense. Benford, Taron, Milano, sorry, man, that's just dumb. Tre, Cook, Spencer Brown, Von Miller before the injury. Just dumb. Any on the level of Josh? No. But there are only about 5 - 7 players in the league, if that many, on Josh's level.

Agreed, not that much. But some. Hell, we make those tush pushes we win the game. But drafting upside is what you're generally left with when you're drafting 29th. It's the way of the world, unfortunately. As for drafting rotational linemen, that battle's long lost. Everyone rotates these days. To different extents, but that's what the league looks like. And IMO this defense needs LBs who can run like crazy. And guys who are big and can run are generally long gone by slot 29. Probably. Could we also have won with the same coaching decisions and better execution? Maybe the TE holds onto that pass as one of several examples? Probably. It was damn close.

I'm not buying that the Chiefs D shows up all the time. Did they keep us down yesterday? How about the 13 seconds game? They generally can't stop Allen, but they slow him down a bit. But we can't stop Mahomes, we slow him down in many, but not enough, damn it. Look, you asked us to show one game they were elite. I did that. You didn't say, "Show me a game where they were elite, but only against an elite QB, not counting times when we were behind, oh, and don't count pick sixes or turnovers." Sure, throw enough qualifiers against the wall and you can eliminate any games. But that's not because the defense wasn't elite. It's because you threw up qualifiers to avoid considering those games. Oh, and we were never behind in that Ravens game. The Ravens scored a total of three points, and we kicked the first field goal of the game. And even if we had been behind, that has nothing to do with anything we're arguing about. Our offense only scored 10 points, but that's not on our defense. What our defense was responsible for was holding the Ravens to three and then scoring seven for us on the pick six. They were elite in those two games. Those two teams made the playoffs, and our D was elite in those two games, which is pretty damn good when they haven't had that many playoff games. The Pats had the sixth highest scoring offense that year. The Ravens were 7th that year we held them to three points. To be elite in two is impressive. The Bills D has been a bend but not break D that overall does the fundamentals brilliantly. You wanna argue that the D in that Miami game wasn't good? I wouldn't argue too hard. But it's not eking out a win when the Fins on their last two drive are absolutely choked out by the Bills defense. The defense hasn't been able to hold down the Chiefs in the playoffs. That's been their problem. And as three championships shows, very few teams have. Not that that makes this damn game hurt any less. Two-time and possibly three-time MVP Lamar Jackson says hi. He's a quarteback, isn't he? The defense has done quite well overall in the playoffs against QBs not named Mahomes. You can argue the Bengals game, but that was a defense playing with both hands behind their back in terms of both injuries and the whole team just playing like their emotional reserves were utterly and completely drained.

Elite, not many. But how many elite games does any team have when you give only a small playoff sample. Was the Chiefs D elite yesterday? Good to very good? Pretty much all of them except the Chiefs games and that Bengals game. As for elite ... the Pats game in the 2021 playoffs. It was 33-3 late in the third quarter. The Pats had scored 10 points till they scored another in garbage time after the two minute warning which made the score 47 - 17. Micah Hyde had that insane interception early. That and the 17 - 3 victory against the Ravens where Taron Johnson had the 103 yard pick six.

"Grossly" overstates it, but we had deficiencies there, no doubt about it. Also deficiencies in execution. We didn't play or coach well enough. We were good, very good. But you have to be absolutely excellent to beat the Chiefs. We weren't. In the playoffs we've learned to expect so much from Josh. He played very well, sometimes incredibly. That throw to Kincaid was just unbelievable. But he also ruined the first drive and hurt a few others. But he didn't have a great game that went from start to finish. Nor did anyone else on the team.

Till Allen leaves. This year was a transition year when we shouldn't have been as good as we were. If we can get this far this year, we can do it every year Allen plays to his standard. That's not to say that we can get past the Chiefs. Jesus, that stung. And we didn't deserve to win. Your last sentence, if not trolling, is dumb.

Well, fine. You're not using the term correctly in that case. But that's up to you. YAC is a statistic. It's a number. That's how it was conceived. It's not a subjective term. It just isn't. Again, you want to find out who's good at YAC? All you have to do is ... find out who's good at YAC. There is a list. The good ones are near the top. The bad ones are at the bottom. The elite ones are the top few. Again, it's not a subjective term. You want to value something different, and there's nothing wrong with that. At this point we're talking past each other. You value something else. What you are valuing isn't YAC. I think you've got a perfect right to value that more. But what you're valuing more isn't YAC. It's something you're creating in your mind. The point is made. He's elite at YAC. He's not elite at whatever you're valuing. I think it's reasonable for you to personally value someone like Brian Thomas more, either in general or in terms of some standard you have. But it ain't YAC. There's a list. That's YAC. It's Yards After Catch, an objective value that can be quantified into a number, and is. 'Nuff said for me.

You're trying to pretend that YAC means something other than YAC. There's a reason they call YAC YAC. That being that YAC is YAC. A yard is a yard in football. You get ten of them you've got a first down. A receiver who can take a short pass, a pass putting very little pressure on the QB, and turn it into a really nice gain on the play is wildly valuable to his QB. That's what Shakir does consistently. By being terrific at getting YAC. You personally value one kind of YAC over another? OK, fine, very reasonable. You don't think that Shakir is elite at YAC? That's kinda nuts. He is. YAC is a stat. It's not an opinion-based word. It's real easy to tell who's good at YAC. Look a the YAC list. He might not be good at the kind of YAC you value most. Again, reasonable. But he's elite at YAC.

Heh heh.

The thing is, we've got a QB on a second contract, a very highly paid QB. I agree with you that that keeping the salary cap squarely in mind when deciding what FAs to bring in is a strategy, one that is sensible in the situation. And one of the best ways teams with that situation cope is by not breaking the bank for a Justin Jefferson type. Not all of them do it that way, but many do, Belichick and the Pats included. TEs are cheaper, so they use TEs. They do fill in with FA WRs if they don't have to pay too much. Maybe you're right that they would break the bank if they could, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal, the salary cap is a factor. And most SB winners and dynasties in the salary cap era have had great QBs and managed to get really good production with good receivers (and sometimes great TEs) and generally avoided breaking the bank at that position, particularly to bring in FAs from other teams. Tyreek is the most recent example of not breaking the bank at WR paying off very well for a team that wins Super Bowls. Oh, and efficient is a lot better than nice. It's what everyone is striving for. I'd guess they'll be striving for upgrades at WR as they always do and should do. But that we won't see any top ten WR salaries unless it's someone they drafted working out spectacularly well.

Elite YAC guys are guys who get an elite amount of YAC. That's Shakir. Glad we can agree that he's "one of the best in the NFL when it comes to turning a 2 yard pass into a 8 - 12 yard play." I think you're right about that. YAC isn't hard to understand or a difficult interpretation. It's all in the initials, Yards After Catch. He's elite. Fair enough that you'd like to see him get more big gainers but a lot of that is simply that against the Bills most Ds are playing Cover2 or Cover 3 and have more guys over the top of most plays. Anyway, I love having him on the team as you obviously do.

They'll acknowledge that he's a legit #1 when it happens. It hasn't yet. It's no insult.

Equally silly is pretending all .500 records are the same. It's idiocy. Again, you have to go way the hell out of your way into Wackytown to suggest that the 2017 Jax game and the 2019 Houston game should be held against McDermott. Is there anyone here - anyone at all - who thinks that if the 2017 Jags or the 2019 Texans played any of the 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 or for that matter the 2024 Bills either of them wins? Of course not. We lost those games because they rebuilt and hadn't yet put together the team we know today.

He's go Wildly irrational, no. Pretty unreasonable, yes. It's essentially the Chiefs. We haven't been able to get past them. In McDermott's first three years he hadn't gotten a good team together yet. Nor had Josh really become Josh yet. The Sugar Rush Josh who fell apart against the Texans wasn't the Josh Allen we know. Nor was the Tyrod Taylor team in Year one in any way a team anyone would suspect would beat a good team in the playoffs. After that, when we had a real competitive team, it's the Chiefs. You can say what about the Bengals, and if you want to count that also, it's not unfair. But the whole team had a horrible off day, something that has never really happened otherwise in the playoffs. Saw today's Buffalo Plus episode and they mentioned this, that that day in the locker room they saw a team that was absolutely exhausted, that their tank was empty, and that they've never seen anything like it. It was the year of Hamlin's death, Knox's brother's death and all the rest of it. The players themselves said the same thing in the locker room, that they simply didn't have any juice. If you want to count that, I guess go ahead. But basically, it's the Chiefs. Adding in the games in his first three years when we simply did not have a team that anyone thought should be seriously competitive is not reasonable in evaluating McDermott. He'll be back the next couple of years, win or lose. Which is as it should be. Unless he loses the locker room or something like that.

So, you think there's a possibility that they don't even interview Sanders? I just get sick of hearing every interview of a black coach being called a Rooney Rule interview. Pretty much every interview, at least any interview conducted by a competent organization, is about more than the Rooney Rule. There's a ton you can learn from anyone even if they're not one of the top candidates. And every once in a while a guy will surprise and get a job he's not expected to get.

With $15.4M in dead cap, cutting Von saves us about $2M. If he's still our best pass rusher, which appears possible, Von may well be here another year, particularly if he goes along with some kind of renegotiation. He could easily be gone - he's old - but it's still not a foregone conclusion. Wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them go DL in the first, if the right guy is available at the right pick.

They don't need a Rooney Rule interview. Sanders is the main candidate.

I'm guessing 25 - 40%. If I had to get more specific, 30 - 33%. Hard to predict, though. If our offense plays good, maybe less.

Yup. Not to mention that we're drafting in the mid to late twenties consistently.

Ya figure if somebody saw something they wouldn't post it. Kinda keep it a secret?

Who's John?

Yup, it's real. Among nuts, particularly. There should be fear out there. For every team. In the playoffs you're up against the best of the best. Every team can lose. Every team's fans should feel fear. KC could lose to Houston. Odds are against it, but you can bet that while there's confidence in KC, there's fear underlying it. There's always a chance. But the nuts are so focused in on the Bills defense that it's really pretty sad. There is reason for concern, but it's a lot worse than that among the fruitcakes. They're not great, not even very good. They're not as good as they were in past years. But as they get healthy again, they're getting better. For a team that lost Hyde and Poyer and Leonard Floyd and has had to juggle LBs all year, I think they have exceeded expectations. And again, they're getting healthier.

Yup. Tells you there are some serious wackos out there when it comes to McDermott hate. It was obvious that the OP was being sarcastic. The fact that many took it as real ... that's what tells you all you need to know. TBH. The OP was a bit over the top but there really are people who are not that far from what he was pretending to be. Yup, it's real. Among nuts, particularly. There should be fear out there. For every team. In the playoffs you're up against the best of the best. Every team can lose. Every team's fans should feel fear. KC could lose to Houston. Odds are against it, but you can bet that while there's confidence in KC, there's fear underlying it. There's always a chance. But the nuts are so focused in on the Bills defense that it's really pretty sad. There is reason for concern, but it's a lot worse than that among the fruitcakes. It's obsession and some kinky form of hatred. They're not great, not even very good. They're not as good as they were in past years. But as they get healthy again, they're getting better. For a team that lost Hyde and Poyer and Leonard Floyd and has had to juggle LBs all year, I think they have exceeded expectations. And again, they're getting healthier.

No comparison. But Herbert is better than many on this thread are saying, IMO. Awful game, yes. He's been in crappy situations. If Harbaugh can make that team tougher, I think we'll see Herbert miraculously get better. Many thought Stafford wasn't good enough till he got put in a situation where he could win. Many many many people used to talk about how excuses were being made for Stafford, how he was overrated and how he needed to take a step upwards. It was more that he needed to step onto a good team. I don't know that Herbert can be a Stafford in a good situation. But I think it's a very reasonable possibility.

I don't doubt he will work like a maniac at whatever job or jobs he picks. But he's handicapped as an announcer if he stays with team ownership, which I think is a very safe bet. I see him reaching very good but not great as an announcer. Not being able to criticize refs or visit locker rooms really is a big blow in that role. But I agree with you that I think quitting after this year is unlikely. We'll see. Good stuff, as usual from you. Me too.