Thurman#1

For teams with later draft picks I'd argue it's less feasible than theoretically possible. You generally have to get very lucky with a draft pick that far overperforms his draft spot. And even then the teams with two #1s don't see a ton of high level success. Some. But it's not that common and the list of SB champs, as you know, tells a story about how well getting two #1s generally turns out.

No, James Lofton was still a really good player, but he was not a true #1 by that time, he just wasn't. The Bills got him when he was 33 years old. He did have one really good year when it is arguable he played like a #1 with us. The other three it just is not. His four years here he put up 166, 712, 1072 and 786 yards. Even at the time, except for that one year, those were good solid #2 numbers. Generally speaking if you want to get two #1s, the way to do it is to suck and get a nice high draft pick when you've already got one #1 on your team. There are certainly exceptions, but overall that's the way to go about it. Most true #1s are high draft picks. Now, name a team with two #1s who have won a Super Bowl in the last few years. The 2022 Chiefs? Nope. The 2021 Rams? Nope. The 2020 Bucs? Nope. The 2019 Chiefs? Nope. Hill missed a lot of games and racked up 860 and was still far better than their #2 WR, Sammy W. The 2006 Colts, definitely. Where is another team since then? What you more often see is a really excellent QB making up for not having two #1s by spreading it around, and including TEs and RBs and #2s and #3s. He is not agreeing with you at all. Ah, thank you, Mango. You put it far better and more succinctly than I did.

Less than Gabe will get. The 60th highest AAV WR salary is $3.4M. The 50th highest AAV WR is$4.75M. Gave will more than double that 50th highest.

Yup. And it doesn't make anymore sense from Simms than from the armchair folks.

Performance is inconsequential? Um, no it isn't. Those are performance indicators. 4 - 2 is a better one. But that's not great either against the schedule we've played. We had no control over the record of the Chiefs or Bengals. Just over our own. Which is not good, because of some performances well below our capabilities.

They didn't do it because they chose to because they got a check. But yeah, the Bills should have won both of those games. They're a significantly better team than either of those two. If they'd lost to the Fins, that wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much as bowing to those two stiffs. Nonsense. Their coaching is good. And thinking that Josh Allen's legacy is already estabilished or known is flat-out nuts.

You know what it means if you lost the two games by a total of 11 points? It means you lost two games. Wouldn't have been better or worse if we'd lost by more. That's a pure justification, pure spin. 4 - 2 isn't awful. But with the schedule we have played so far, it is not good enough. We have played the Jets (3-3), the Raiders (3-3), the Commanders (3-3), the Dolphins (5-1), the Jaguars(4-2) and the Giants (1-5). This was an easy part of the schedule. We should be 5-1. Possibly even 6-0. The hard part of the schedule is not here yet. You have to make hay against the schedule we had. Having said that, the situation isn't that bad. We're a good team, a team that is likely to contend for a Super Bowl. But of course we're disappointed a bit. Well we should be.

Perhaps in our imaginations. Yup. Small cap differences between these two teams. Next year, the Eagles have $20.2M left under the cap. Whereas the Bills are $33.5M OVER the cap. For next year. (Spotrac) Under those circumstances, the chance to bring in a guy who had 299 yards and a 55% catch percentage last year look quite different to each of these teams. Surprised you realized this.

I hear you. But again, when Josh was having those sensational years, two or three other (great) QBs were too. Defenses were bamboozled. That's not happening nearly as much this year. So far, this looks like a bit of a sea change rather than just one QB having a bit of a down year because he's changing tactics.

It isn't all about the coaching. Defenses have made changes. They're using those two-high shells better and better. They're doing it not just to Josh and to us, but to all the teams with great QBs. AFC teams in particular have had to understand that learning to play good defense against excellent QBs is going to be required to get to a Super Bowl. Look at Mahomes. His TD percentage is the lowest it's ever been. His yardage is on pace for his lowest since his second year starting when he only played 14 games. His YPA and AYPA are career lows so far. His QB rating is lowest since his rookie year when he threw 35 passes. Look at Burrow. Look at everyone. An awful lot of this about defenses stepping it up bigtime and forcing QBs, even the best of them, to play differently. They're working hard to take away the big plays and they're doing a damn good job.

That's one possibility. Otherwise, though, he could be signed. Basically, we just don't really know, either way.

Where are all the teams with the highly productive #3 WRs you folks are talking about? Beckham with the Ravens with 113 yards? Miami with Berrios with 179 yards? The Jets with Cobb at 20 yards? The Pats with DaVante Parker with 136 yards? The Browns with People's-Jones at 75 yards? The Steelers with Allen Robinson with 137? The Bengals with Tee Higgins with 149? I was actually pretty surprised there, expected that to be higher. The Jags with Zay Jones at 78? The Colts with Alec Pierce at 149? The Texans with Robert Woods at 227? The Titans with Chris Moore with 140? The Raiders with Hunter Renfrow at 59 yards? The Chiefs with Skyy Moore with 145? The Raiders with Hunter Renfrow with 59? The Broncos with Jerry Jeudy with 222? That's all of the high-powered AFC, folks!! Who stands out there beyond Bobby Trees with 227 and Jerry Jeudy with 222? Wanna throw in Berrios at 179? You're living in a fantasy universe where all the #3 receivers are these wildly productive creatures. When you add in the TEs and RBs beyond each team's top two receivers, there just aren't that many balls to go around. Particularly for a team making a move towards running two TEs so much.

What offensive issues is he getting a pass for? A lack of perfection? The inconsistency which every team in NFL history shares? Or is it the being in the top five in points and yards every year since 2020? Including this year? Is that the thing that's the responsibility of the head coach?

Um, no. wrong for many reasons. First, he's not a one-trick pony, the idea's dumb. He does a lot with deep and intermediate routes, with sideline routes, and with getting open when Allen extends plays. Second, this isn't an offense that wants to play dink and dunk, it's an offense that wants to be multi-faceted, and having a deep threat is useful in any offense except an offense that never throws deep. We are not an offense that never throws deep. They certainly want to be able to dink and dunk, and having a deep threat helps that by opening things up underneath on plays when they want to go there. Third, he's not a deep ball specialist. He catches quite a few more intermediate routes than deep ones.

Take a look at his passing location chart for this game. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/charts/single/all/team/2023/week/tyrod-taylor/TAY764868 This is just the kind of thing we'd see with the Bills. Tons of short stuff. A bunch of longer stuff to the outside. And very little to the intermediate or deep middle. This predictable pattern made it easier for teams to defend him. He's a great person, and he gave his all to this team. But nobody should want him as a starter.

It may have a small part, but IMO this isn't the issue, as it's not something new. Teams have been platooning on defense and playing as one unit on offense for years. Offensive lines have never had a lot of depth, particularly since the rules on practice have limited time on the field together. These absolutely are issues but I don't see anything new this year, really.

Not the Bills. This O-line is looking good, and our sacks allowed are way down.

I know, our problems are just huge. We're one of the best offenses in the league and have been for years. Clearly we need to make huge changes. And clearly it's all on Gabe. Except it's not. Gabe had more yards for the Bills than anyone but Diggs. And you blame Gabe? Lots of TDs compared to other receivers. And you blame him? Doesn't make sense. The problem is we're not perfect, but we're really good. Not as good this year as we were last year, at least so far, but blaming the guy who is having a better year this year makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You're right, Gabe isn't bad. He's also not a #1. But for a #2, he's solid.

I know, totally. And it's only Gabe facing the lesser coverage players, all the other #2s in the league always face the #1 CB that the other team ... Oh, wait, they actually don't. He runs a lot of routes well, but not all of them, like, you know the other #2s. And yeah, he doesn't face the best CB. Neither do the other #2s most of the time.

Again, this simply doesn't correspond with reality. If his big plays were "occasional," he wouldn't get so many TDs and his yards per target wouldn't be so high. Dumb also to say he's not a chain mover. Over 70% of his catches were 1st downs. Yes, if you compare him with Diggs, he comes off more poorly. Are you seeing people arguing Davis is better than Diggs? If you are, you'd really have a point here. But nobody makes that argument. Diggs is a clear #1. Compare any #2 in the league with Diggs and they won't measure up. Doesn't mean they aren't solid #2s. The reason #2s are #2s is that they can't do absolutely everything at a high level the way that someone like Diggs can. If they could, they'd be #1s. Gabe is definitely not a #1. He's a #2.

Sorry, man, that's nonsense. First, sometimes he does get open and convert in that kind of a situation. Also nonsense that only one specific kind of receiver is eligible to be a #2. Davis is very productive. That's what makes him a #2. It's absolute and complete nonsense that Davis is the reason we're so high variance. We have a lot of reasons for that. Gabe certainly bears some responsibility for it. So does Josh. So does everyone, really. Again, the idea that someone isn't a #2 without running a full route tree is nonsense. Plenty of guys in the top 50 have limitations and high variance. And 3rd and medium to long is a reason why EVERY TEAM is up and down. It's a situation where every team has a harder time. That's the nature of football and the nature of probability. Just some quick examples from looking at highlights from last year: His TD to open the scoring against the Rams last year at 10:04 in the first came on third and one On 3rd and 2 against the Rams at 11:44 in the 2nd he converted the 1st with a nice little eight yard catch. On 3rd and 7, also against the Rams, with 14:47 left in the 4th quarter he put up an extremely long play, well over 40 yards. His 98 yarder last year against the Steelers came on 3rd and 10. On 3rd and 13 against the Chiefs with 1:13 left in the 2nd, he pulled down a 16 yarder. Against Detroit at 12:54 in the 3rd, Gabe converted a 3rd and 13 And in the same game, with 12:15 to go in the 4th he converted a 3rd and 2 with a 5 yard catch. Against the Pats he converted a 3rd and goal a the Pats 8 with a TD at 5:34 in the 2nd, a highlight of the whole season. He converted a 3rd and 17 against Miami at 13:08 in the 2nd. Against the Pats in Buffalo, at 0:35 of the 1st quarter he converted a 3rd and 7 with a catch of roughly 16 yards. Against Miami in Buffalo with 0:18 in the 2nd, he converted a 3rd and 6 with an 18 yarder.

If catches were the only qualification, that would be important. Production is what makes you good. Davis produces, and well within the level of the top 50 guys. TDs and yards produced are the type of things you look at. James Lofton didn't have a ton of catches either. But he got a lot of big plays and production. Other guys are more possession guys. It's still about production. They can still be terrific receivers depending how good they are and how important to their team. Production. Davis is absolutely a #2. It's not even a question. He's in a 5-way tie for 4th in TDs. That will change once today's games are counted, but he'll be easily within the range you'd expect of a #2. He's 27th in yards. That also will change with the new numbers, but again, very easily within the expectations for a #2. This ain't rocket science.

It's not about position or specific skill sets. Those are about slots and Ys and Xs and deep threats and so on. There is no specific definition of skills required by a #2. a guy who gets better can become a #1 or a #2 without changing position or skill set. Equally a guy who regresses can be said to no longer be a #1 or a #2, also without changing skill sets. A #3 isn't among the top 50 or so receivers in the game. #3s and #2s are just general terms referring to how good a receiver is. Since most folks use the term #1 not to refer to among the top 32 or so guys in the league but instead to refer to "true #1" types who are generally considered to be among the best fifteen or so in the league, #2s are about the next 30 - 40 best. #3s are the next 30 - 40 or so after that. And Davis absolutely is a #2. Not among the best of them, although he's trending up and may get there. But he's a solid #2.

Athleticism has nothing to do with response to jet lag. The idea is ridiculous.

Please. Fan expectations have very very little effect on this team or any team.