Thurman#1

Glad you're satisfied with an argument as stupid as that one. 👍 Every team has bad games. That's a fact. Pretending that loss shows how good we are says far more about your judgment than it does about the Bills. You're talking about a team with a QB with an arm injury that was affecting his throwing, a team that saw one of their members die on the field, that had one of their teammates have a college-age brother die on the field, that had a home game turned to an away game at last minute, that had two blizzards produce multiple tragedies in the city and a racially motivated mass killer kill even more, that had three away games in closer succession than any other team in NFL history had ... and it goes on and on. They simply weren't playing up to their level. They said it at the time in case anyone was somehow unable to see it for themselves. Dumb argument. Nobody's satisfied with it. Pretty much everyone with half a brain understood it, even if it did hurt like hell for a long time afterwards.

This is not good for the Bills. I wish Brandon the best. VandeMark played pretty well at LT but I hear he was not good at RT. Quesenberry hasn't shown himself so far as being anywhere above replacement level from what I've seen. Perhaps even a bit below. So far, Brown has looked pretty good this camp overall, or so it has been written. If he gets injured, things don't look nearly as good without Shell.

Yes, tragic. Very much so. But no, the car turning into the path of another vehicle does not have the right of way and shouldn't make the turn if it will force a car going straight to be put into a dangerous situation where any sort of fast stop should be called for. Obviously if the car going straight is speeding, that changes things as it makes it much harder for the turning driver to decide what will be safe. If the driver going straight is not speeding, though, the car turning does not have the right of way and should not make that turn if it might cause an accident. And there's no evidence he was speeding from the little we've seen. I say that having made a left turn as a lad when I shouldn't have. Sounds like almost exactly the same situation as happened in this accident. It was my fault. I was thinking too much about the girl whose house I was headed towards, saw the lady heading towards me unable to stop in time only after I had entered the turn. I hit the gas and almost made it but not quite. And I was driving the family car. Sheer dumbness on my part. I'll never forget how forgiving my parents were, knowing it was my fault, making it clear that they knew I was to blame, but not completely losing it or holding onto their anger for very long.

Let's not pretend that number of guys still on the team is a good way to judge draft classes. It isn't. Is a class with one guy remaining on your team out of seven picks but that guy is a superstar better than a class with six guys remaining on your team out of seven picks with two borderline starters two STs guys and one second teamer and one third teamer? No, the idea's outright ridiculous. In any case, under Beane the Bills have drafted well. Not spectacularly, but solidly. And this year so far looks really good, although it's too early to say, as it generally is for the first three years or so when in question.

If you're a saintly man, an absolute paragon of zen-like acceptance of life, I can see this would be possible. For those who did not qualify for the top millionth of a percentage of humans, we would be angry to some degree. Their treatment of me would/should absolutely be a factor, of course. But when wronged, people get frustrated and angry. It's not the best of human characteristics, but it's pretty universal. People who have a few million dollars are not exempt from this human weakness. Take a look at Elon Musk, for example. Does he seem generally calm, zen-like and accepting of small grievances? I'd have to hear the details of the adoption part of the story, but I can imagine that causing great pain depending on circumstances and motives.

Shaw, that bit about Beane just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If we know one thing about Beane it's that he doesn't feel the need to lie. If he doesn't want to answer something, he does what people who don't lie do, he refuses to answer, or he replies in platitudes that don't strictly answer the question or he changes the subject. What he doesn't do is repeatedly lie. And again and again he's said that he wanted to keep Edmunds. "We love him. Didn't want to lose him." But knew they wouldn't be able to afford him. And similar things at other times. He didn't say this once. He said it repeatedly and consistently. He didn't have to say that, but he did. Could've gone with, "Tremaine is a warrior. I want him next to me in a foxhole. But the NFL is a business." Instead he said at every opportunity that he wanted him back but that it would probably be impossible to afford. The idea that not paying him means he didn't want him simply doesn't make sense. It means what he said it means, that they can't pay him that much money right now without doing more damage to the team. You say that Tremaine isn't "ideal"? Well fair enough, but how many guys on this team are ideal? Two, maybe, who are damn close? He would have easily been the best option for this year - at the absolute least - if finances weren't involved. But they are. He makes financial disqualifications on guys he'd rather keep/bring in all of the time. So does every GM. Agreed that Beane is doing a terrific job. And I think it's really a reasonable argument that this is his strongest roster in his term, and he's put together some excellent rosters. Agreed about most of the rest of your post. This is a really good-looking team, and I think they can scheme to cover up and support the MLB spot and still put together a really really good D this year. That's my best guess and I think it's a very reasonable one.

As to the bolded, oh, puh-leeze. Good Lord! that's absolute and complete nonsense. Yes, you're right, there are some people who claim otherwise. But you can find dolts on here claiming all kinds of complete horse puckey. Thing is, it's not just anyone "claiming" that they wanted to keep Tremaine Edmunds. It's Brandon Beane. In case you weren't sure, he's the GM of the Bills, the one who makes the decisions. And he didn't say so once. He said it again and again and again. They wanted to keep him. They didn't have the money, as he has told us not once but repeatedly. The fact that some keyboard warriors say different is completely irrelevant. It's not even slightly difficult to have an honest discussion about this. It may indeed be difficult for some people who would like reality to be different to swallow the facts. Your claim is that some GMs aren't good at "the replacement-planning aspect of it," and your way of backing that up is that you want to claim that your way of attacking the same situation would have been to pick Dean by trading up in the third round of 2022 to get an MLB rather than do what Beane did in picking an MLB in the third round of 2022? When both MLBs have played a bunch of STs and a similar handful of defensive snaps as rookies, with Bernard having played 110 to Dean's 34? Seriously? The idea's a bit dopey. That's not a planning problem. Might turn out to be the wrong pick, certainly. Or not. We'll see down the road.

Like it or not, those circumstances are a huge part of the decision-making process. Huge. Yeah, every team has to deal with the cap and the draft and so on. But that doesn't make it any less of a factor. It's a huge They may well have chosen it ... but not as an absolute the way you're painting it here. When they make these choices they're doing so knowing that if you get what you want at one position that you are limiting your funds for use at other positions, that you can only draft what's available when your pick comes up, and so on. They have made it very clear, again and again and again, that they wanted to keep Edmunds. That was their best option in terms specifically of maximizing their MLB. But they couldn't do it and have their cap be what they want it to be. Of course there were other options. But not unlimited other options. There isn't a team in the league that doesn't have major concerns at one position or more that they wouldn't have liked to handle differently in an ideal world. Bottom line, even if it works out that MLB is manned this year at a replacement level, or even slightly below that, they look like they have one of the top two or three rosters in the league. Being a fan, I'll likely be fretting at MLB play this year. Wondering if they'll try to use Dorian Williams there next year. And enjoying a season watching a terrific team perform.

I have an address in the states I can use to sign up for the US version of GamePass, three sisters have US residences. I can almost certainly sign up with them at one of those addresses and then use my VPN, $10 a month, to access that. Wonder how some of you without U.S. addresses would do in signing up for US GamePass? Could you use a real address that you don't actually belong at? The Empire State Building, for instance? Or a mail forwarding service or something? Or can you actually sign up even without a US address? Good luck to all. Wonder if I would do better with one of those fire sticks some of you are mentioning. Sounds like they are illegal? EDIT: ah, with a bit of research it seems that it just allows you to join streaming services? Not access them without paying? Hmm. I generally watch TV on my computer which has a fairly big screen. The quality for NFL GamePass was very nice maybe 99.8% of the time. Wonder how US GamePass will look over the VPN. Haven't had quality problems with overseas Netflix streaming. Hopefully it will work out OK for me. I know with the overseas GamePass I always had Coaches Film three days or so after the game. Have heard that last year US GamePass had greatly limited some stuff like this. But that it was about 1/3 of the price for International. Anyway, thanks for the legwork, Bill.

Thanks. I had spent a bunch of time on there and they wouldn't give me specific answers. You must be better with people than I. Oh, and damn.

I gave them chance after chance to say they would. They got back to me over and over again and never said so. Further, I went back and looked at last year's archived games on DAZN, and they were ABSOLUTELY NOT full game replays. I'd love to be wrong on this, but I really don't think I am.

Awful for me. Totally unacceptable. Here in Japan, most of the games, when watched live, start at 3:00 a.m late Sunday night, or else 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. on Monday or Tuesday morning. So I can't watch them live, basically. I watch them archived after work. But their archived games are not the whole broadcast. They show nearly every play, though not all, but nearly all. But you get 8 or 9 second clips of each play, starting two seconds or so before the play starts and ending 5 or 6 seconds after the play ends. Ends up being a 25 minute long horrible viewing experience. I sent them a bunch of emails telling them I was not going to sign up if this is what I got. They said they'd look into it. I asked them to get back to me. The next thing I heard they took the payment from my credit card. I told them I wanted the money back. They're returning it, but still won't tell me what the archived games will look like. IMO a VPN and the American NFL Game Pass might be the way to go for me. DAZN sucks.

In his time here he made a lot of guys miss. He was consistently among the league leaders in forcing missed tackles. He was a good player, a good blocker for Josh as well, consistently an asset here. Cook seems to be better, but Devin was good. He just wasn't as explosive as we'd have liked him to be. That's good to hear. Haven't seen the game yet, and it's always good hearing backup OLs doing well.

Have to disagree with this, though. Not getting any help doesn't mean they didn't think they needed any more help. Might easily mean instead that they didn't think circumstances / available players were right to pick up anyone else. Or it could mean they have a couple of guys in mind who are still out there in case things go bad. They might have hoped to draft Jack Campbell by trading up in the 2nd or back in the first (if Kincaid had been gone) if Campbell was still available, which he very much wasn't. Or they might have had discussions with a free agent or two they thought might fit nicely and found they wanted too much money and ended up getting it. And there's no way to say that we always got help where we needed it. None of us know where Beane might have wanted to get help at various positions over the years and decided circumstances weren't right. They're between $25.5M and $41M above next year's cap right now according to OvertheCap versus Spotrac. That might easily have made them feel like they couldn't bring in guys they otherwise would like to have had. Also, though I agree with you about Williams, as noted above, Beane might feel that he did address MLB by bringing in Willams even if he doesn't play this year. Not inconceivable. Beane is a sensational GM. Doesn't mean he hasn't had to leave some fairly weak spots at various places over the years. Damn strong rosters after the first couple of years but there have been a few weak spots. See you around the boards. Today is going to be a busy day.

From what I can see Dodson had three starts last year, against Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit. Detroit's decent, but that was not Murderer's Row. Against Pit, he had 84% of defensive snaps. Against Cle, 100%. And against Detroit 14%, which is just not much. He only played more than 20% of snaps against three teams, including Minnesota, and the Bills looked like a different and much worse defense with Edmunds out after his injury. So when Dotson played more than 20% of snaps, it looked like this: Pittsburgh 9-8 W (84% Dotson) Minnesota 13-4 L (64% Dotson) Cleveland 7-10 W (100% Dotson) Also worth noting that they easily handled the Steeler offense, allowing only three points, but that the Vikes scored the most points of any one against our defense last year and the Browns tied for 5th highest points against us and the Vikes ran up the most yards against our D and the Browns the 4th highest. And the Steelers the 6th highest. And that in the first half of the Minny game, they scored 10 points, and 20 in the second half with Edmunds out plus the 3 in OT. 151 yards in the first half on six drives and 273 yards in the 2nd half on six drives and 60 on the one drive in OT. They were a different defense with Dodson in. Not saying we're doomed. Not at all. But the change in MLB will have a real impact. Can they make it up elsewhere? That seems a very reasonable guess.

It's not bad business in all cases. Not at all. Trading away really important pieces, 1sts and 2nds for instance, is bad business if you're not trading up for a QB. That's the standard rule that the academics have made clear that the data supports. If trading up for a future franchise QB, it makes sense because there is often no other way to get a franchise QB candidate and without one it's nearly impossible to put yourself in good position to win a title. Beane has not traded away big pieces, except when he was trading up to put himself in position to get Josh Allen. If you look at the studies, Massey-Thaler and so on, that's the argument that they believe their studies bear out. Not that it's never a good decision to trade up. But that there are limited circumstances when it's a good decision. Beane gets this, and he so far has never made moves the statisticians would have called obviously bad business. He's not the guy who gave up a 1st the next year for Sammy Watkins.

Yeah, and it's clear that he wanted Kincaid more than any of the receivers that went in the early 20s. I don't see anything new in the Giants story, myself, at least not from the Bills perspective. He's gone over this in Imbedded and a few other places. Surprised me, earlier, that he would've traded back rather than pick Nolan Smith. I liked him. But Beane is smarter and better at this than I would be, though that doesn't make him right every time. So far, picking Kincaid looks like a terrific decision.

Huge dropoff, no. Real dropoff, yes. As you say, the Bills averaged 397 for the year. The Jets game in Week 9 was when Allen was injured and if you look at that game and every one after it, 5 out of 9 are below 357 yards. And the other four games, the four games where they went over their average of 397, were against the #32, #31, #29 and #18 ranked defenses. The #18 (Fins) defense is a decent ranking, but the other three, well, they weren't good. That's not an average group, all told. I'm with you that I think they're likely to be very good this year, particularly if Josh and the OL stay healthy.

Here's another, from about four or five days ago: Greg Tompsett (1:02) "Up until that moment [when the reports about his stiff back that day] we had had really positive updates on Spencer Brown. AJ Cybulski, who's doing great work over at Buffalo Rumblings now, was at camp and talking about back to back really good reps, where Spencer Brown was winning against Gregory Rousseau and Leonard Floyd, two very good defensive ends. We had seen really good movement while I was there with Erik and the rest of the guys, we were talking about how fluid his footwork looked, how explosive he looked, all the one-on-one time he was getting with Aaron Kromer, so I had legitimately written up notes for tonight's show about positives and things I was pleased about with Spencer Brown." (5:04) "Right now (with the last report being Marino's injury tweet early in the week), I'm gonna hope for the best. Everything prior to that post-practice tweet from Joe Marino had been very positive. Everyone that I had talked to, all the people that I had talked to, Chris Trapasso, Joe Marino himself, Pat Moran, lots of different people that we knew, all talking about how well Spencer Brown was moving and encouragement about what that could end up meaning." He also said he thought Shell was passable, OK, not good, but better than Q or the other options. But he's been playing since that injury.

Here, for one. Matt Parrino (7:44) "Spencer Brown was the best offensive lineman on the field today. And I thought he kind of set the tone for the offense, from a physical perspective. By the time they got halfway through practice, I think Tyrel Dodson was absolutely sick of him, 'cause the two of them got in a little skirmish and ripped each others helmets off. ... Ryan Talbot (8:26) "But Spencer Brown, specifically. He is another player that we get a lot of questions about in the subtext. Can he hold up and are the Bills going to be OK with him? He has been solid throughout training camp. He had one down day thus far. Spencer Brown is a mauler, he is a large large tackle and he's had some ups and downs ... but this year he's come in focused, looks ready to play, and that right side could have two big big guys on it, depending on how that guard battle turns out.

Nothing much to be concerned about there, IMO, except Bieniemy talking about himself consistently in the 3rd person.

It's the team that's 47 - 17. It's a team stat. Having said that, I question that coach. I wonder how it's possible he hasn't seen enough at this point. IMO the only explanation is recency bias and heavily weighting the injured Josh of his last 5-8 games.

You seriously misunderstand - or misuse - the word "prove." It doesn't come anywhere even vaguely close to proving that getting them on the field helps their progression. That is probably what you'd like it to prove, and so it's the first and only explanation that occurs to you. But that only shows your confirmation bias. Just as likely, probably more so, is that the guys who they considered ready to start were in fact more ready to start and that that had a ton to do with why many of them are still playing and well. They were better players (several, such as Allen, Edmunds and Oliver, were picked much earlier than the folks we are now choosing around the mid-twenties) and were further competing against a less competitive roster with weaker players in their first year or two. You also happily ignore the counter-examples like Cody Ford and Zay Jones, who played a lot early but are very much not the backbone of the team now. Lately guys are getting on the field a bit less. But still getting on the field. Whether some fans are frustrated about this is completely unimportant. Irrelevant, really. The important thing is the futures those players put up. Pre ... cisely.

My gratification is not instant enough here. Seriously, you're doing an awesome job, Hap. Thanks a great deal for all the time you must be putting in. It benefits us all, a lot.

It's not a matter of disagreeing. You've got a fantasy there. And you can talk about imaginary target demographics all you want. It's not a rich area. Yes, there are plenty of people in the area that have disposable income. Not $500M of it in a year that nobody will miss, though. Not in less than quite a few years and probably not completely even then. And plenty of those people with disposable income have other things they would like to use the disposable income on. I'm sure they will pop the prices up. Some will be willing to pay, particularly a certain richer group, and for the best seats. There will be grumbling, but up to a certain point it won't be important or impactful. But there would be a limit when we would start to see seats not sell and bad publicity be generated that starts to sting ears and raise hackles. And that $500M will come out of the Pegulas pocket when the invoices come due. As make-up money comes in year-by-year, the unmade ROI on the money they were forced to pay will make the actual money lost amount to more and more every year. This hurts the Pegulas. Thinking otherwise is kidding yourself.