Thurman#1

Oh, please! Last year by the time the playoffs rolled around, the D was starting - what? - four to five of the guys they wanted to start? And the injured included probably four of their best five defenders. And at least two of those who still played- Poyer and DaQuan - were not close to their usual selves due to injury.

No reason to think he didn't ask more. This seems to have taken a while to develop. Thing is, he's older and appeared dissatisfied in Buffalo (IMO). Neither of those factors increase value. If I was a GM and Beane had called me asking about Diggs, I'd have low-balled him. I'd guess that's what happened.

This is really possible. Diggs doesn't seem like he has an attitude that would lend itself towards again well. Is this sour grapes? It is for me. I won't be supporting this guy anymore.

O'Cyrus Torrence says hi. Tre White too. Zay Jones was in for 79% of snaps. Terrel Bernard played 93% of snaps in game he wasn't injured in, 999 snaps. If you're good enough right off, he'll put you in. And it'll be easier still in years when the roster has some real holes, which this group does right now.

Yes, Beane has stocked the O side. Consistently, and not just last year. With FAs and with draft picks. But just look at top three rounds, your most important picks. Firsts: Offense: Kincaid, Diggs, Allen Defense: Elam, Rousseau, Oliver, Edmunds, Seconds: Offense: Torrence, Cook, Cody Ford, Defense: Basham, Epenesa Thirds: Offense: Spencer Brown, Moss, Singletary, Knox Defense: Dorian Williams, Terrel Bernard, Harrison Phillips That's pretty even overall. And I very much agree with you about trading up for a WR. Trading up a bit? Sure. Trading up and giving up two firsts and a second? Borderline nuts. The studies have said so again and again. And again. Look at Massey-Thaler, the Harvard Sports Collective and every other study out there. The only smart trade-up where you give up so much is for a QB you think will be your franchise guy. Otherwise, the odds are stacked against you with that kind of move. You decrease your chances of success. It's not one or two studies that say that, It's about all of them.

Wow!! Just saw this online and came here. First thing for me is that I said again and again that it wouldn't happen, that there were way too many negatives for the Bills to cut him. But also that trading was at least possible, but really unlikely, unless he forced his way out. So, first, I was wrong. I did put in the caveat, but I just didn't think it would happen. So, how wrong I was isn't possible to say exactly yet, but wrong. Significantly wrong. Second, I have to fight my confirmation bias. Because I added the caveat, I have to fight an automatic belief that I know why this happened, that he did force his way out. I will try, for that reason, not to comment too much on the reasons it happened. My opinion is compromised. It still seems like the most likely reason for this. But perhaps it wasn't quite that he forced his way out, but that it just began to look like if we kept going with him, it was going to become uncomfortable. Just hear Anthony Prohaska from Cover1 say this, "Because of the financial implications, you don't make a move like this unless it's absolutely necessary from a roster perspective. from a team perspective, from a culture perspective." Yup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lK64gxxwMU He continued, "The Bills right now, without Stefon Diggs on the field, are not a better football team than they were in 2023. Even a diminished version of Stefon Diggs is still a very very very good football player, and as we talked about, early in the season he was on a historic pace, another record-setting year for a #1 WR who had previous record-setting years here." And, "No matter how you slice it, the Bills are not a better football team for moving Stefon Diggs, jettisoning him to the Houston Texans. And especially considering what they got back in that package, also having to give some picks themselves, it really just seems like a 'we've gotta get rid of this guy' kind of move, even though schematically and on the field it hurts you, in addition to the financial implications." Yeah, that. Jettisoning appears to be the right word. Jeez. And I'm so depressed that that second rounder is from 2025, although I've seen at least one source say it was 2024. But nearly everyone says 2025. Man, depressing. They have taken a major step back for this year.

Please. Terrible comparison. White had five and a half extremely healthy effective seasons. Is? Or was? We have yet to see. But it really was there originally, I'd agree with that much.

Yeah, I think that's right. People were too focused on WR early. It's the Josh Allen effect. They naturally want help specifically for Josh, every year. He's the best player and the one people identify with. It's a natural thing for fans, but it does make clear thinking harder. Some people are still there and always will be. Man, I'd love it if Latu was still there. But I think even if he's generally there in the draft engines right now, he'll be long gone in real life. I think people are under-rating Chop, though. He could be the pick, as could Legette at #28, IMO.

Of course you said "a sixth." We don't know which receiver will be the choice, if receiver is indeed the choice. That lack of specificity requires the indefinite article. And if that's what you meant, he won't be a sixth, he'll be a ninth option, as I pointed out above. And that's only if you don't include the folks unlikely to make the team. Well, whatever, beside the point. With the explanation, I see what you meant. So, letting that go, of course we're not just a receiver away from the Super Bowl. Same can be said of any position. We're also not a safety away, a DE away, a DL away. We're a long, grinding season away, and improvement from most of the players on the roster. Same as every year. Oh, and the first two of our last three playoff meetings are at this point irrelevant. Less than a third of our team is the same from thirteen that 2020 loss. Same with Kansas City. They didn't score 35.6 when we played them two months ago. The league has changed since then. Defenses have figured out how to do a much better job against the high-flying Chiefs than they had two years ago. Same with the Bills offense as well. In 2020, the Chiefs were simply a good deal better. The last two have been one score games. We were a play or two away. One play on defense, or one play on offense. Those were two very close games. There is an extremely realistic pathway to beat KC with a first round receiver, same as there was an extremely realilstic path to beat them in both of the past two playoff games. BPA at a position of need will be the way to go. With the large number of very good WRs, that could be the smart play.

Nobody said there weren't five other pass catchers. There are more than that, Diggs, Hollins, Samuel, Shakir, Kincaid, Knox, Cook and Ty Johnson. That's eight and it's ignoring the ones further back on the depth chart. You said he'd be "a sixth passing option." The question is whether there are five others who will be ahead of the first round draft pick. And that is unlikely, though possible. There's zero reason to think he won't be ahead of one or more of those five. If he is the sixth option, behind five others, it will look like a bad first year for that first rounder.

A key reason? No, probably not. The injuries in the D-backfield and the D-line were bigger reasons. Part of the problem? Yeah, fair enough. Our LB depth were JAGs. As is the LB depth on most teams. While I agree the D was the major factor, any team with the amount of injuries we had last year would have had huge problems, as we did. And there's absolutely ZERO reason whatsoever to think that a WR we choose in the first would be our sixth passing option. Nor to believe that choosing a WR is such a bad decision in the first that it would keep us from being competitive. The idea's ridiculous. On the other hand, if there is some good defender available in the first, picking him might make a ton of sense.

I like him. I don't see it happening.

Just saw that. What a shame. Far far too young.

Yeah, I haven't heard it either, and I do listen to some sports shows. You're right on target. He's sensational, and he could be even better, particularly at just executing the plays as they're drawn up. This is stupid. Like Allen wasn't good enough in the 13 seconds game? Nonsense.

And your evidence that the reason they were defending the sideline and giving that cushion was on the coaches? You're saying that it has to be the coaches and can't be the players because .... that's what feels right to you. In other words, more confirmation bias. The fact is, Levi Wallace has said in public and carefully explained that they called the right play on that second pass, but that Poyer and he mis-communicated, Poyer playing deep and Wallace not looking at him, assuming that Poyer would play up, so that Wallace could play further to the side. Look up the John Fina podcast with Levi Wallace. It's not clear what happened the first play. But that doesn't mean you can blame the coaches. It means we don't know who is to blame. It certainly could be the coaches, But it also might be players mis-playing the play that was called. And again, the kick appears to have been some kind of miscommunication. The rest of the STs players clearly expected a squib, while the kicker kicked deep. But who was responsible for that miscommunication? We don't know. Most likely it was the STs coach, as he was let go. But that's educated guesswork. So that's the way to bet, but there's no way to know. Nah. That's both sides. Anyone who thinks they know for sure ... doesn't. Thinking you know for sure says more about a person't ability to understand the difference between knowing and having an opinion than it does about anything else.

Again, flat-out nonsense. What he was saying is that several mistakes were made. If you take that for him blaming the coaches, it just tells what you want to believe. You came in wanting to blame the coaches, so if nobody is blamed you figure it must be the way you see it. Confirmation bias. Classic stuff. The evidence we have isn't conclusive, but best guess on the kick is that it's on the STs coach, because he was let go. And Levi Wallace has said it was on him and his communication with Poyer on the second offensive play. Nobody's really made it clear about the Tyreek play. The coaches are certainly due for their share, though it's not clear they get all of it. Yeah, this really is part of it. How come the Chiefs D couldn't even begin to shut Allen down the last four or five drives? He was simply playing too well, out of his mind. Same with the Chiefs as well. Still, you'd think they could have gotten a kick squibbed. How come the kicking team clearly thought it was a squib and were shocked when it went in the end zone. But both offenses were simply playing offense as well as it could be played. If we'd won that coin flip, we'd have won that game.

That's nonsense. And very convenient nonsense for someone who wants to blame the coaches. By that logic, no mistake could ever be blamed on the players. By that logic, if the coach said "In situation A, take action B," and he said it many times, but the player still didn't do it, well, "everything falls at the feet of coaching." That's just nonsense.

This totally makes sense, though I'd add in a 10 - 20% chance that he likes someone other than Brian Thomas enough to wait till #28 and have that guy as his best player there but not enough better to feel he needs to trade up, maybe Adonai Mitchell or Troy Franklin, someone like that. I think your three scenarios are all more likely, though.

Yeah, it's really important that your third teamers and bubble guys on one-year contracts are young. Well, not really. Nothing there to get really angry about. Or thrilled either. We'll see, but it looks OK.

Clearly you could be right. I'd put the odds of that closer to 20 - 30%, myself. We'll see. But I'd put the odds of moving into the top ten at just about zero. Trading up far enough to require giving up high round picks the next year is just not best practices unless you're trying to acquire a franchise quarterback. Doing it for another position works out badly more often than not. And that's not me, that's what all of the studies say. https://www.bruinsportsanalytics.com/post/nfl_trading_down https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/opinion/nfl-draft.html Massey and Thaler https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/massey---thaler---losers-curse---management-science-july-2013.pdf Harvard Sports Analysis Collective https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/dont-trade-up-in-the-nfl-draft/ There are plenty more and they all say much the same thing. Not that you should never trade up. But that you shouldn't be overpaying by using such strategies as trading next year's 1st rounders because of your faith in one player you have targeted. You lower your chance of success. Beane has said he knows this. And IMO he'd be even likelier not to do that in a year where we're already lacking a 3rd round pick.

I do get your point, and it's true. But while you could say that Diggs was a 5th rounder, you could also say that we gave up a 1st for him. But I agree that they love for their mid-to-late-round guys to make contributions if possible, and for the right guys they make it possible. And I think people may be forgetting how good Shakir was getting near the end. In the last ten games he put up 536 yards, 53.6 YPG. If he manages that rate per game, 17 games would be 911 yards. And he was trending up.

I doubt they go with him. But I would understand. If the WRs and DEs, and maybe DTs that they like as first-rounders are gone, I'd expect them to try to trade down. If they couldn't do that effectively, I'd expect him to be near the top of their options at that point.

I think having the two of them doesn't double the chances of having a good QB on the roster. But it increases them. A smart move, I think, but not a great one. I think they know that.

Yeah, it's not yet plainly obvious that there will be a group of 6 - 10 solid but older DEs available late into the offseason the way there was last year. But it could still easily happen, perhaps in smaller numbers this year. Or not. Not yet clear.

That's nuts in many ways. But just the financial costs of trading him are enough to rule this out unless he starts making himself absolutely radioactive to force himself out and leaves us no choice. Next year would be the first year it would be reasonable. IMO he's most likely here two years or more.