Thurman#1

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.

Yeah, this is for real. Hard to get them at #32, though. Draft should be interesting but Josh has proven he can make extremely good things happen without a true #1. Just by throwing to the right guy, the one who comes open. It's amazing that Josh is still improving, but he is. My guess is they don't go WR in the 1st. But we'll see.

They were questioning him as far as whether he should be brought back next year depending on how much he would cost. I didn't see anyone questioning him as to whether he should be brought back this year at the extremely affordable rate we're paying him this year.

I wanna describe it the way absolutely everyone who was there described it, then and since. He wanted to go.

The Taron Johnson Pick Six says hello. Again, we really have seen some excellent D in the playoffs and a bunch of pretty damn solid. Except against the Chiefs. And just about nobody has stopped the Chiefs offense in the playoffs from getting whatever amount of points they needed to get the win. Except the Bengals that one time, and that looked more like partly a good job on defense by Cincy but also partly just a crappy day from Mahomes. Just sayin'.

I do indeed say nonsense. Asking him to miss? Absolutely no way. Doing so would have lowered his value on the open market, which is very possibly where he'll end up. Are they happy he missed? Hmm, yeah and no, I think. This is a group that's got wanting to win in their DNA. But yeah, they know that losing that pick hurt their division rivals.

Yeah, wouldn't want anyone to be happy watching good football. Unhappiness makes much more sense and stands as a clearly superior way to live your life. Content? No. Completely satisfied? No. There's more we'd like. But happy? Um, YEAH!!! We could be the Patriots. Or the Giants. Or the Jaguars, who get to watch Trevor Lawrence.

Damn, you're right about yards, my bad. Wonder how I screwed that up. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. But again, 11th in points. First in turnovers. First. That's huge. IMO they've been up and down, up for most of the early part of the season, then down and up (did well against KC and for a game or two there), then down (pretty awful against Detroit and LA), then a bit better. Fair enough to point out that the last two teams were bad, but if you do that you also have to notice that Detroit and LA are really good offenses. They're getting healthy again. I'm reasonably hopeful.

Dude, it's been like fifteen times I've told you that you are correct on that, that the Chiefs offense has played very well against the Bills. What I've also told you is that it isn't just the Bills, that the Chiefs for years now have been a team with an identity of hibernating on offense against teams that don't put up many points, just putting up enough points to win? Can you disagree? Is that something you don't see about the Chiefs? Of course they've been that way. Again, what other teams are 75% in games where their opponent scored 30 or more. Yes, the Super Bowl was close. But low-scoring. (I presume you're talking about the last one.) In low-scoring games they tend to score enough to win but not to act like the prolific scoring monsters they are capable of being. Yeah, I do point out that the last two years they've been injured. Is it even possible you don't understand why? I said that because it's true. It wasn't just a lot of injuries, it was a lot of injuries to key players. Yeah, I said it. Denying it is nuts. Pretending it didn't happen and trying to ignore it equally so. And yeah, I also said that the Bills were running on empty in that Cincy game. Again, is that wrong? The players don't think so. Many of them mentioned a total lack of juice after the game. They know better than us. And they said it. And again, was it NOT a historically awful season, with Damar dying on the field, with Knox's brother dying, with a racially motivated mass shooter in the city and all the rest? Yeah, I said it. Saying it's not so appears to me to be more nuts than pointing out the obvious. Again, the players said it. And we haven't heard that from them otherwise.

Good defenses are 11th in the league in yards. Good defenses are 11th in the league in yards. Good defenses are 1st in the league in turnovers. That's a mighty niche stat you've got there, Bill. And it's one stat. Nobody's saying they're excellent. They're not. But simply denying that they're good, especially on the basis of one stat, is facile. They're definitely not as good as past years. That's very clear. And they've had a bad stretch or two as well. But that doesn't mean they're not good. And seemingly getting a bit better. Wait, the Ravens played the Ravens? Neither the Steelers nor the Eagles is a bad offense. You could be right. I hope you are. I'd pick us, over anyone at home, but I wouldn't have a ton of confidence against the Ravens. I think their D is pretty dang good. But our offense is kicking butt as well.

Well, if Hell No is the answer to the question, then it was a dumb question. You're the one who asked it. You said, "Are you sure?" after he said, "Sean brought him Allen and a winning culture. That's a fact. Sean brought him Beane, and the two of them brought him Allen. The correct answer is yes, unless your "are you sure" was twisting his words to pretend that he meant that Beane and nobody else brought him Allen. And if that's what you asked, it was a dumb question. Nobody with the slightest bit of sense is saying that McDermott was the only person made that decision. Everyone with the slightest bit of sense, particularly after reading that article knows Sean was behind it, that Sean knew he wasn't ready to pick a QB the year before with the limited time he had available after having to spend so much time that year that laying the foundation for the whole team. (And Sean has never said this, nor would he, but why would he trust Whaley to choose a QB when Whaley had been so wildly in EJ Manuel's corner the previous time that he was tasked with QB choice. So Sean traded and got an extra 1st the next year. Without that, probably no Josh Allen. He then brought in Beane, who clearly he trusts. So teh answer to that question, unless it's the genuinely stupid variation of that question, is Absolutely Yes.

Yeah, per play has the same vital importance as EP. Very little. Points and yards are what result in wins and field position gains and losses. Points and yards. Plenty of other stats can give you some interesting niche data that has some interesting niche meaning. It's not without meaning. But it has far less meaning than points and yards. Want to look at productivity? Yards. And points. Wanna see who ran a higher percentage of the time? Check out who who got higher yards per play. It's usually them. It's not all that specific to productivity to have higher yards per play. What is? Points. And yards. Could you show me where I said "these were all back and forth shootouts"? Or anything really like it? I don't believe I did. I said that scoring a bunch of points in the playoffs against the Chiefs is overall a good way to make sure that the KC offense also scores a bunch of points. The Bills have, I would guess, averaged more points than anyone else, and the Chiefs feel very reasonably that a team with Josh Allen can score a lot and it keeps them on their toes. And their 75% win percentage when the opponent scores more than 30 in the playoffs in the Mahomes era shows that's correct. IMO that year the Chiefs saw the Bills as a serious threat, even though the offense just wasn't good enough that year in the playoffs. But the Bills had not just beaten them in the regular season but held them to 17 offensive points. I think their offense took that personally. And dude, how many times do I have to say this before you get it? Another dozen? Yeah, they scored a lot against the Bills, yeah their offense played well against the Bills. We all get it. You can produce stats that show they didn't do as well against other teams. Remind me, did they beat the Dolphins when they got 5.5 whatevers? Yeah? Exactly. Did they beat the Ravens who yadda yadda? Yeah? Exactly. Their offense has mostly scored what they need to score to win. They tend to relax when not pushed, when they feel safe. For whatever reason, that's their personality. That's their recent history. If your team doesn't score much, then not every time but more often than expected they won't perform like an offensive machine, they'll just score enough to win. You say three of their best were against the Bills? First, that's YPP, a dumb measure. And second, as I've said the Bills have pushed them hard more often than most teams. They tend to score more when that happens. Your data does not refute my point, in any way. The Chiefs have been better against the Bills ... and against anyone who scores a lot against them and scares them. When the Niners only scored 22, the Chiefs only scored enough to win, 25. On the other hand, when Houston got up 24-7 early in the 2nd Q, they saw them as a threat and turned on the afterburners. When Philly got 35 the Chiefs got what they needed, 38. Again, they have freakishly won 3/4 games when the opponent scores more than 30. That flies in the face of normal results. It speaks to the fact that they are not a normal team.

Wouldn't go that far, Bill. This is IMO a good defense, especially as they get healthier. But not as good, certainly. How much less will have me on the end of my seat. But you're right that there isn't a firm connection. The Chiefs also don't seem to be the same team this year that they were in the past, though the last game looked pretty good. And Josh seems to be even better than he's been. Ought to be an interesting post-season. I'm exhilarated but terrified. Same as every year, really.

Thanks, GoBills808. Couldn't manage any words that would actually impact my points, could you? Fair enough to limit yourself to a smile. That's a nice compliment.

Sorry, man, but you are wrong. There's a reason I said the phrase you bolded, "What would the odds be against any other defense in the league? Yup, also pretty high." It's simply true. Your attempt to use a bunch of stats didn't even address my point, much less successfully disprove it. I was saying that IF other teams had scored high, the odds are the Chiefs would have scored higher. To (poorly) attempt to rebut me you produced games where teams DID NOT score high. It's not clear whether you missed my point or are just trying to shoehorn evidence into an argument that they don't fit. But your evidence doesn't go towards what I said. It just doesn't. What is the average win percentage through the whole league, when your opponent scores 30 or more? Damn low, is what it is. Now as for games where the opponent actually DID score high in the playoffs against the Chiefs ... in the Mahomes era, in the playoffs, the Chiefs are 3/4 in games where their opponent scores 30 or more. That is absolutely nuts. It's sensational. And it speaks to the fact that when the other team scores big, the Chiefs have done better - way way better - at putting their pedal to the metal and responding than most teams can manage. That is a fact. Oh, and your argument that the Chiefs offense played their best postseason game against the Bills in 2023 is at best very questionable and frankly approaches nuts. What is your insistence on using EP? EP is excellent at picking out future odds. And poor at examining the past. The Chiefs put up 409 yards and 26 points against the Fins and 455 yards and 25 points against the 9ers in those same playoffs. Compared to the 355 yards and 27 they managed against the Bills it's clear that was certainly not their best. And again, those teams did NOT hold the Chiefs feet to the fire, score a ton of points and force them to score late to win. And unfortunately, neither did the Bills last year. The Bills last three offensive drives were turnover on downs, punt and missed FG. That was at least as much to blame for that loss as the D was. Zero points on their last three drives, gave the ball to the Chiefs at the Bills 32 which the D did a terrific job getting a turnover on, and then the Missed FG on the drive they couldn't maintain. Ordinarily the Bills offense is good enough to keep drives going in cases like that. Not that day. That was every bit as much to blame as the defense. The offense wasn't good enough to put the Chiefs under pressure again there at the end, due to Diggs' drop, a couple of bad decisions by Allen, a few small problems here and there despite a lucky fumble recovery by Spencer Brown on that Allen fumble. Just not good enough.

Yes, you're repeating yourself. But what you've got there at the bottom is reasonable. But very far from strong. Which is why it's reasonable. You don't think that argument bears out. Well, I certainly can't prove that you're wrong. You can't prove me wrong either. But three out of four SB wins is a very very strong indicator that the Chiefs offense kept doing, again and again, just what it needed to win. And no, I am not saying that they bring their best offensive game only against the Bills. I'm saying they bring their best offensive game mostly only to any team that forces them to do so. The Eagles in the Super Bowl, for instance, scored 35 points. That forced the Chiefs to do what? Put up 38 and win the game. The Texans scored 31 and the Chiefs absolutely wiped them out. They don't manage this perfectly, they do lose a playoff game every once in a while. They lost the Super Bowl to a team that scored 31 if I remember correctly. But less than any other playoff team the past few years. And that is their M.O. They do seem to take it up a notch when pushed. Um, they DID win the game. They did do what they needed to do. You're right that he had plenty of incentive to dial it in. Which he did.