Thurman#1

You don't think I understand that figure of speech, sour grapes? Well, you're wrong about that. That's a stone fact. It's a stone fact that defenders don't always tell the truth about how they covered a guy. Diggs had safeties coming over the top of him all year long, even if it wasn't man to man. And why not? He was by far our best WR. In this year's playoff game against the Chiefs, it's a fact that on the play with 5:47 in the 4th quarter he had two guys within a step or to of him and Josh threw it to him anyway, that on the 4th down completion to Shakir on the left at 4:45, Diggs is the only guy on the right side or going there and when Shakir cuts back the guy who ran with him is staring right at Diggs, the only guy on that side and he doesn't notice Shakir cut back until way too late. Man-to-man coverage and Diggs ends up with two guys around him, Shakir none. It's a fact that on the next pass play, at 3:19 and 3rd and 4 Diggs is alone on the right side, tight to the line and they've got trips on the left. The safety on the left comes down to cover one of the trips, leaving one safety deep. Diggs collects his CB, an LB who heads towards him despite him being the only guy on that side, and the deep safety stays in the middle, leaving a ton of room for Sherfield to convert. Here: And those four around him don't include the safety still on Diggs' side behind all these guys. I mean, I guess the Chiefs don't consider this double teaming, since they didn't do that? Again, Diggs was the only receiver on that side. I went to watch the crucial drive at the end, the one that ended with the missed field goal. I watched specifically the first few plays and described above. The coverage was absolutely focused on Diggs. That's a fact.

"as most attest"? Jeez, I should be in bed. What is wrong with me. Josh has been the leader from about halfway through his first season. He's been one of the five or six best players in the league for three or four years. There has always been plenty of oxygen for him. Beane has made it very clear for years now that he asks Josh's opinions on major moves. Might he have had to walk on eggshells - as I saw someone else say above - a bit around Diggs? Yeah, maybe. But this has been Josh's team - he's been the unquestioned leader - for a very long time.

All that appears to be true. It doesn't prove what you said it does. But again, nothing wrong with an opinion. It certainly could be true. It seems likely that he forced himself out, but there are other facts that seem to point the other way. For example, how the switch from productive to less so came almost precisely when the OC switch happened. Cover1 has said that in their film study of the last half of the season they still saw Diggs open a lot but not getting thrown to much. I do believe Diggs is a diva and I haven't liked many of the things he did last year that you pointed out. But I don't think that comes anywhere close to proving that his lack of productivity late was on him. Must go to bed.

Yaaaargh!! That's what I get for writing so late at night here in Asia. Thanks for pointing that out for me. I appreciate it. Dumb stuff, and a good signal to me that I need to go to bed now. I do think the rest of the post still holds up, though.

I think that message was out there about three years ago.

Your first paragraph here is more of the same. Could happen. Might not. The first sentence in particular is an opinion that might very easily not come true, particularly if Beane doesn't put Thomas as high as many do. But I'm absolutely right there with you on the second paragraph. This is a wonderful time to be a Bills fan.

You say you can tell me right now what caused the free fall. In fact, you can't. What you're telling me there is what you think caused the free fall. Nothing wrong with having an opinion till you start looking at it and saying, "You know, now that I look harder at that opinion, it's obviously a fact." That's where the bad thinking starts. You might be right. Or not.

I do think this makes bringing in another FA WR quite a bit more likely. IMO it'll be another $4 - $6M guy. And it also I think makes it more likely we pick our second WR in the draft a round or two higher than they would have before.

Yeah, I think so. Still a shame it came to this.

Totally unfair. We still don't know what caused that freefall. Was it that with the playbook from an old OC and the playcalling of a new OC they couldn't find a good way to use him? Nobody can say for sure, but that is very likely a large part of the problem, if not most of it. You can pretend that it was all on Diggs. But there's no reason to think that's right. Could easily have been on others to a large extent. Now we'll never know. Pretending we do know, and putting it all on Diggs, is just sour grapes. And it's a stone fact that he was drawing the vast bulk of the coverage and making things much easier for the other WRs. Certain kinds of WRs tend to start going downhill early. Diggs' type, the exceptional route-runners not dependent of top end speed, tend to last longer. Every reason to think he'll still be very very productive for several more years. Unfortunately. We are going to pay him in the high $20M range to watch him on TV catching passes in Texas. This was a horrendous time to let him go. But it doesn't seem like we had any better choices, with how relations with him were proceeding.

It's really not. It'll likely look better as we move towards the season. But this was a huge hit, particularly for this year's team and future cap status. And to remind you, Diggs was 6th in the league in receptions, 13th in yards, 10th in first downs and tied for 7th in TDs last year. It's not fair to only look at his worst section of the season and pretend they sum up his year. Not even close. That production absolutely can NOT "be replaced quite easily."

Yeah. So in other words, cap space. It was wildly obvious one of the main goals they had this year was to get future cap space back into reasonable shape, so we didn't have to go through another year like this one where we start out so far underwater. That goal just took a huge hit.

Yes, doing very well. How many are producing at a Diggs level. Even the kind of level Diggs was at in a bad year?

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.