What a Tuel

should be a 3rd option about waiting to see what comes of it today.

So you refuse to see the potential for it to work out ok for the Bills and even be a gain because you perceive the risk to make the chiefs better too great but you also refuse to consider how the Chiefs would have gotten the player they wanted anyway. Ok.

Why? Because it hurts your feelings? You haven't given a single other reason, nor have you explained how the Chiefs don't end up with Worthy either way. Unless you suggest we took Worthy despite not wanting him? That does not sound like a great strategy.

Explain how the Chiefs don't get a WR at 32? The Bills clearly didnt want Worthy. They extorted a pick out of the Chiefs for the privilege of moving up for him. If the Bills dont trade and take a WR, the chiefs get Worthy. If the Bills dont trade and take a CB, the chiefs get Worthy. If the Bills trade with another team and that team takes Worthy - Chiefs pick one of the other WR options at 32 The chiefs dont have a great history of picking WRs either so some people nominating this guy Hill 2.0 is crazy. I remember when Skye Moore was selected this place was annoyed as well.

Who says this guy is the next Tyreek hill? 🤣

I came to see what he said that was so cryptic bc i dont want to feed the media, and this has got to be the most ridiculous "cryptic" tweet to go on lmao. "ready for whatever" gets fans to say "IM DONE WITH THIS DRAMA QUEEN" "TRADE HIM" "GET RID OF HIM" Like honestly at this point he is trolling the media, and the media is trolling you.

Do the texans take him instead of watson? 110Kansas City ChiefsPatrick Mahomes †QBTexas TechBig 12 from Buffalo [R1 - 4] 112Houston TexansDeshaun Watson †QBClemsonACC from Philadelphia via Cleveland [R1 - 5] Either way he is likely in the AFC.

I am assuming the below isn't true then? Honestly asking as I am not an expert on the cap.

Out of thin air? No. There is plenty to talk about given his lack of usage in the last half of the season. What is being done is put his comments under a magnifying glass to add an air of excitement and speculation. For all Diggs knows is he could be traded, who knows? All he knows is his part and he will be ready. There is no better answer that would stop the speculation. Edit: and to also pretend that the media isnt writing constantly about Diggs (both national and local) and that I myself just "curated" this media because of my internet history is straight up dishonest lmao.

Last year he said all the right things after the drama with the coaching staff and the media still took jabs at him wanting to be here. So sorry, I do not believe the media would let up. They know what generates clicks and run with it. The idea that Diggs can answer with something that they can't write about assumes the Media is bad at what they do.

The amount of notifications from articles writing about this even before his comments says you are wrong. The media is very eager to write about a top WR possibly switching teams. It generates views for them. We saw this all year long. And all offseason long bc he was angry about the pathetic performance against the bengals. They certainly aren't writing about it because there is legitimate news on this. The media loves speculation and were going to talk about Diggs moving on regardless of whether or not he says "I'm looking forward to coming back next year" or "I can't tell you what the future holds, but ill be ready". If you really think the media would stop because he said the former and is only writing about it because he said the latter, then I am sorry, that's just silly.

This is silly. "I look forward to being a Bill next year" would have undoubtedly led to a follow up of whether he thinks he will be here. Then he'd say "I can't tell you what the future holds, I just know I'll be ready..." and the media would run with it. You can't take the "power" out of the media's hands because they aren't looking for the truth. They are looking for whatever will generate readership and will spin the story to that end.

Guy fumbles at the goal line and the Bills go on to win, and people say it was rigged the other way. The NFL isnt stupid enough to get into bed while gambling and also fix games at the same time. There isnt an incentive to do so. The only time I'd come close to it is the NFL eyeballing all the interest in Taylor Swift and nudging officials to give the chiefs the edge and get them there. Other than that, what would possibly be worth it it to fix games?

I thought it was pretty hilarious. Poor Tua though 😂

Thats why it is so amusing that they throw 13 seconds in our faces as if they didn't go on the next week to score 3 points in 40 minutes against the Bengals and blow a 21 to 3 lead. I find that more humiliating than allowing a fg in 13 seconds when a team has 2 timeouts on the 25 yard line. Or to not score a touchdown in a super bowl after beating us in the conference championship.

Sounds like OP might be a drama queen. There is nothing to say. He dropped the ball. Would have liked to catch it. Literally nothing left to say. The constant wanting commentary from the players on losing is nothing but dramatic. But sure call Diggs the drama queen.

27-24 - Josh Allen and offense 4 plays 7 yards (fake punt) 27-24 - Defense causes fumble - touchback 27-24 - Josh Allen and offense 3 plays -2 yards 27-24 - Defense forces Chiefs punt 27-24 - Josh Allen and offense drive down the field and come away with zero points 27-24 - Defense allows first down to end the game These 3 series are about as bad as the defense was.

Talk about dumb stuff? 27-24 - Josh Allen and offense 4 plays 7 yards (fake punt) 27-24 - Defense causes fumble - touchback 27-24 - Josh Allen and offense 3 plays -2 yards 27-24 - Defense forces Chiefs punt 27-24 - Josh Allen and offense drive down the field and come away with zero points 27-24 - Defense allows first down to end the game But sure. The defense lost us the game. So many opportunities for Josh to put this one away. He fell short. He will get back up and we will be in the thick of it next year.

Not nearly enough injuries? Are you kidding? I am actually impressed McDermott did what he did with what he had the last 6 weeks. This game was not going to be a defensive battle given the QB we were facing. Allen had the ball and game in his hands and I am not saying he is not good or can't do it or anything, but he botched it as bad as Bass botched the field goal. He had the opportunity and missed. That's not on the defense, they gave us the opportunity with two huge stops at the end.

Josh Allen played a fantastic game, but he had the ball in his hands at the end and botched it as bad as Bass botched the field goal. This wasn't on the decimated defense who gave us an opportunity to win with two huge stops and put the ball in Josh's hands to end the game. The fire McDermott stuff is so dumb.

Again this is not the case when a db who is out of bounds defends a pass from an inbounds wr. The db touching the ball in this scenario does not make the ball dead. It is all about possession.

If a defensive back is stepping out of bounds as they try to stop a WR from catching a ball and they graze the ball, no one would ever call that an incomplete catch. It is always about the WR and possession inbounds. If a player fumbles the ball, and in trying to recover ball they graze it but their body is out of bounds, for some reason the ball is "out of bounds" through contact. Makes no sense. It should be about when possession is gained, is the player with possession in or out of bounds? I'm open to hearing what type of cans of worms would be opened by allowing that to be the rule? What scenario would occur that would make it so terrible to allow an inbounds player to get possession even though someone out of bounds may have grazed the ball (with their helmet no less)?

The difference is a WR does not have to worry about a defender out of bounds touching a catch making the catch "recovered out of bounds" even though the WR is in bounds and the defender never has possession.

Its a dumb rule. It should be possession unless its the player themselves. isnt there also some version in which you are touching a player who is out of bounds so therefore you are out of bounds too when you touch the ball? This should be something that should be clear for once. Player who possesses the ball must not be touching out of bounds when gaining possession.

@ZerovoltzIf Josh was a fake slide, then this was one too...