Thurman#1

Yeah, it was a great video. I just came here to post it if it hadn't been posted here. Didn't know much about him, to be honest. I wish Cover1 had posted a few run reps, but he showed a lot of protection reps against some really strong defenders and McGovern looked good.

This is pretty close to all nonsense. Yeah, Allen is hugely important to this team, and without him we wouldn't be nearly as good. But the rest of the team, without so many injuries, is also very good. It's not a mistake that we were generally considered one of the top two or three complete rosters in the league. It's also not a mistake that even when Allen was injured and considerably worse than he normally was, we still won two out of the next three games, despite Allen's very average 84.67 passer rating in those games. And frankly, if we hadn't lost Edmunds in the second half, it would probably have been three out of three. With Edmunds in in the first half the D looked excellent, and in the second half with him out, we looked awful. We have a good team even without Allen. Allen makes it a great team. With a replacement-level QB we'd still win a bunch. Probably not enough to make the playoffs, though maybe we would have, seeing two teams with only nine wins made the playoffs in the AFC. "The other 21 starting positions are weak," you say? That's frankly stupid thinking. You don't get the 4th ranked defense in DVOA, 6th in yards allowed and 2nd in points allowed, and that's with massive amounts of injuries, not with a weak roster. It's just stupid. We've got a bunch of good players on offense as well, though we certainly also have areas where improvement was absolutely needed, particularly at LG, RT though that may have been due to an injury, and slot.

I doubt that even entered their thoughts. More like, does Josh want to play? Can he? OK, we'll play him. I'm not going to miss him either, but replacing his ability to take over, and doing it as cheaply as possible, will become an important consideration.

Not convinced by Jeudy. I'd give a 3rd. Maybe if I got a 5th back, I'd up that to a 2nd. That might not get it done. I'd be fine with that.

Yup. Exactly. Also had to do with what Milano got on the open market. And may well have had to do with Milano giving us a bit of a home town discount, though there's no real way to be sure.

He's worth it. But not when the Bills are in cap trouble. He's a blue-chipper. That's why he's getting that salary. They'll fill the spot, but it'll hurt us more than many here think. There's been very little throwing to the middle against this defense. Lose Edmunds, and Poyer at the same time, and we'll see more. But that's life.

As I understand it, Allen's injury made it harder for him to throw short with accuracy. I think that explains it. I'd expect to see more of it next year. Assuming that's the explanation.

They were well over, had to happen.

AJ Klein isn't half the LB that Edmunds is. Not a third. And the idea that you should dominate every week to make big money is nonsense. Everyone has bad games. Everyone. Edmunds has very few, but he does have them. Again, everyone does. Believe it or not, the idea that if someone is not a special player you shouldn't pay him big money does not originate with you. And it shows how wrong you are. There are teams dying to pay him money. Because he is special. Perhaps not in the way that you and many want. But that rush to pay him shows precisely that he is special, if you couldn't get that just from the Minnesota game. Oh, yes, please. Would anybody not? I suspect that's why he's not on the ballot.

Yes, precisely.

We've seen his ceiling? He's a guy who's gotten better consistently, including a major jump again this year. He's 24 years old. There is zero reason to think we've seen his ceiling.

Virgil, if he really didn't make big plays, why do so many GMs want him so bad? Sorry, man, that argument has never made a bit of sense. His big plays aren't as visible or as exciting as some, and many can't get past this. But all you have to know is how very much better the D is when he's out there. There's a reason for that, and the reason is that he's affecting play, particularly in the pass game, all the damn time, making the QB's decisions a lot harder consistently. Go back and look at the Minnesota game. He played the first half and was out for the second. That was the only difference in personnel, but our D looks like two completely different groups, and the one on the field when Edmunds was out was vastly worse. Again, #4 against the pass when he was playing this year, and #27 when he was not. That is a guy who is affecting play a great deal, even if it's not in an obvious, visible way.

London Fletcher was really really good. He is still under-appreciated here. He was as good or better at run defense than Edmunds, IMO. But Edmunds is significantly better at pass defense. With the rules today so favoring the pass, I take Edmunds. It's only a seeming certainty in the heads of yourself and a few others, most of whom seem desperate for that outcome. What you've got there is wishful thinking. And imprecise thinking. The reality is that it could easily go either way. If it showed on the field, he wouldn't be getting the offers he is going to be getting. The argument is simply stupid. There is one place where it shows up, though. I have to admit that. It definitely shows up in the heads of a significant number of Bills fans.

No, he, like every other human on earth, should be judged, even in specific contexts like how good he is as an NFL head coach, based on many things. Yeah, wins and losses might be the biggest thing, but there's plenty more. And Sean in in wins and losses is very good.

Squandering the QB on a rookie contract doesn't mean you blew it. Sometimes you make enough right moves and things go wrong. If Von Miller hadn't been injured, Miller particularly but also Hyde and all the others, and if we hadn't had that bizarre season with Hamlin and a mass shooter and blizzards and so on, leading to that weird game where the Bills just seemed like they just didn't play like the Bills we know, IMO we'd have won it. No way to know that. Oh, and Josh injuring his elbow. But while we missed out, there's no particular reason to think we blew it. Sometimes, stuff happens. That is a universal truth.

While not absolutely everybody thinks the Bills are well run, yes people have said the Bills are well run. In fact, that's what the huge majority of people around the league say. Not that they were well-run between Polian and the current regime, but now, certainly yes. Um, yes. Yes, I do think Josh will end up with more rings than Rodgers or Favre. Not a sure thing, but it's a pretty decent bet. He's got easily 10 - 12 years to try.

Totally disagree. I see where you're coming from. But if by doing this, they significantly improve the odds of getting a QB who's legitimately one of the top QBs in the league, it's completely worth having given up those low-cost years. Now, if Love isn't one of those QBs, they've magnified the damage they've done that team, but they weren't going to be winning any SBs anyway if he's not good enough. In that case, they missed out on the ideal situation, but landed (assuming he's what they think he is) in a situation that is not ideal but is still the second-best situation, a situation that probably 25 of the 32 teams would sell their left hand find themselves in. And if Love isn't that guy, trying their best to get every year out of their prima donna was their best chance to pick up a Lombardi anyway. The last three SBs in a row have been won by QBs not on rookie contracts. The key factor in KC's two SBs was having Mahomes. In only one of their two SB victories did they have him on a rookie contract. The key factor in their future success will be whether or not Love is a great QB. If they increased the chances of their having a great QB, they done good.

You're blaming Oliver - or desperately trying, anyway - for the fact that the Chiefs scored on the drive that he got his sack? That says far more about you than about Oliver. It says you don't like the guy and you're willing to use even illogical arguments to attack him. Oliver's been one of the Bills top five or six players this year. He's also gotten better each year. Certainly not impossible, almost nothing is, but if it happens it will leave a massive hole they can't fill right now.

"Definitely," in the sense of "it's possible, but probably not"? Yeah, maybe in that sense.

Yup, very solid chance of that, as there's room for improvement right now at guard, safety if Poyer is gone, MLB if Tremaine is gone and maybe slot. Could be done without spending a ton.

Aw, come on. Yes, it's flexible. And for owners who don't mind mortgaging the future, very flexible. But no, you really can't have as much space as you want this year, much less in the future. Real quick, can you point out the way to get us, say $100M on the cap this year? Can't be done. If you turn over every rock and twig, you could get to around $80M, but it would leave us with very little flexibility next year. The credit card analogy is right on target. Yeah, I could use my cards and apply for a bunch more and stretch them all to the limit and get myself a Lambo. But doing that would mean I'd better get used to major lifestyle cuts elsewhere, and at some point it might become necessary to sell that Lambo used to handle some more urgent needs. The reason Jalen Ramsey (and possibly Bobby Wags as well) is available is the Rams are having to throw the life jackets and the seats out the doors to try to save fuel. They cut Floyd at the cost of $19M in dead cap, even though it only saves them $3M on the cap. Why? Because they were well above the cap in 2024 as well as 2023. Taking all the dead money this year means Floyd won't cost them money in 2024, but Floyd was really good for them.

Of course they'll be players. They are every year. Expect them to pick up some mid- and low-level guys to fill holes so that their needs are no longer desperate for the draft. I wouldn't expect them to be headline players, though.

We do go after assets like this. Every year. Da'Quan, for instance. Lawson. Those were FAs, but we do trades too. Diggs. Keen. Hines. Marlowe. It goes on and on. They might not be the assets you want, but we go after assets. And assuming that because we don't get something that we didn't go after it is ridiculous. And we absolutely are a contender. Ask Vegas. People always assume that because we didn't get someone that we must not have tried. Doesn't make sense. Maybe the Ravens (and other teams) didn't make the same offer to us that they did to the Jets or whoever. They might feel much happier trading an asset to the Jets, who aren't as much of an AFC threat, than the Bills. The Bills might feel that they have better uses for that cap money. They might feel that the guy doesn't fit here. They might be working on another move to acquire by trade or FA a safety they like better. I could go on and on.

Sure looked to me more like the heat beat the Bills than the Dolphins. How many guys were out with cramps and getting I.V.s?

Yeah, I get it. You've got something you want and you look at all the data through that lens. It's a really good way to make your thinking inaccurate. I mean, you're simply wrong if you think that's a fact. It's not. It's an opinion. Unless you're actually Tremaine or his agent operating under cover, it's an opinion. Certainly could happen, though. Definitely a possibility.