GunnerBill

It was the type of OPI that is never called though. If it was DeAndre Hopkins never has a career.

Watching the all22 I thought his run defense was what stood out. I thought he was pretty good vs the run. His pass rush was still inconsistent and a bit one paced. But I will concede his play against the run was better than I appreciated watching the game live.

No I'm not arguing that. The lack of volume was about what they were asked to do and that is outside of their control. If you have 10 special plays in that 14 low volume doesn't matter. But if its 3 and the rest are routine that isn't a huge volume of doing the routine well to get excited by. So that is why to some it caps the ceiling for performance grading. Whatever system one uses.

That play is a perfectly executed play. That is the only A+ play I'd give our receivers from Sunday though. I think Coleman's boundary catch and Hollins route for his TD are B+/A- type plays. I think beneath those 3 plays was just some solid routine receiver play (and not enough of it because we threw the ball to them so little to qualify on volume alone). But sure, there is no argument the Shakir touchdown play from design to execution to effort from Shakir was top drawer all the way around. Nobody should dispute that.

My view was less that the Bills would use him as a big slot but that there is where he suits best.

I agree the ***** outta this.

The Bills - Cardinals game was false start central too that went uncalled. The Cards had three blatant false starts on their first two drives and then the Bills had one on their own first scoring drive. I get it, not the same as illegal formation, but the overall consistency on procedural penalties in the NFL is pitiful.

Either the SNF or the MNF said 22 were called this weekend, which was about double the week 1 number last year.

Of course it isn't. But that is the discussion here... some people look at letter grading (which again, I am not particularly a fan of) and say "they did everything they were asked A+" and some people say "sure they did, but you have to consider how much was asked of them in the way you grade." I'll give you a comparison - when you do your end of high school exams here in the UK there are certain subjects (languages and math) where you can choose the paper you do. If you want to get an A or A+ you have to do the advanced paper. You can get up to a B doing the intermediate paper, even if you get 100% on the paper it's a B because it asks less of you. I think @Kirby Jackson would say that is a metaphor for a game where the receivers did almost everything right but only had 12 receptions between them (and only 14 targets).

Maybe but my suspicion is we will see more of it as the year goes on. It as windy, no dispute. But I think it is mainly about who they have at receiver. Fair enough. I tend to look and say how many plays did the receiver really make the play happen. I think Shakir, Coleman and Hollins (once each) did. The other 9 receiver catches were to me a case of just doing the basics well. And while I accept there is merit in just doing the basics well consistently. It needs more volume in order for me to get excited about it The receivers didn't make many, if any, mistakes. I agree. But the volume was low. It's why I wouldn't obsess over letter grades. To me it was a performance with some encouragement, but some reasons the retain a healthy scepticism as they head to week 2 as well. If we start to get that sort of performance as the "floor" for this receiver group going forward then I'll be less concerned about whether the ceiling is capped by their lack of difference makers on the boundary.

Dawson Knox to catch two touchdowns.

In terms of new money the only new money in 2024 is the $6.4m signing bonus. Then there is $19.7m new money next year and $15m in new money in 2026. I make that $41.1m in new money across the first three years (including this one which is technically from the old deal) at about $13.7m per year. While not all of that new money is guaranteed the reality is it will all have to be paid because the structure of the deal means he will be here for the next three seasons. It is then a further $15.5m and $17.65m in new money the final two years, but none of that is guaranteed and it might never be paid because there is an out after 2026 that would leave $12m (that's $12m of the $41.1m that will have been paid but not accounted for) in dead cap but could be spread across two years.

I they will do what they do to the Ravens and dare Lamar to beat them outside. They do that to him because he is a limitation to throwing the ball down the field outside (in fairness the Ravens receiver are too but that is because they built the receiving corps to suit Lamar). They will do it to Josh because they don't fear any of the Bills boundary receivers. So they will clog up the middle try and take Kincaid and Shakir away just by flooding those intermediate zones which also gives them people in position to play Josh's legs. We will see how the Bills respond. There are definitely tougher tests to come.

Yea I think you are using grades the way I'd traditionally use them. You don't start with an A+ then get marked gradually down each mistake. You start with a middle C and build up (or reduce down) from there. The receivers caught 12 balls. Taking them play by play I'd give Shakir an A for his catch and run touchdown. I'd give Coleman's boundary catch and the route Hollins run for his touchdown both B+/A- every other catch by a receiver was what I'd call a standard catch that they go the standard out of. It takes a lot of those plays stacked together to get me to an A. But the reality is I'm not especially bothered about what letter grade people want to assign. I'm bothered about performance and result. It was an encouraging first day. But only 4 balls thrown to the outside beyond the line of scrimmage all day is an indication of where some of the limitations are and my worry remains that as the season goes along those things will come to the fore more. Hopefully not. Because really the only thing that stopped the Bills on offense Sunday was the Bills.

What will be interesting to see is who the league thinks our number 1 guy is. The Cardinals clearly thought it was Kincaid and played to take him out of the game. That is always my litmus test for who is a real #1 and who isn't. It was the Diggs - Thielen point in Minnesota. A lot of the media were happy to call Thielen the #1 but when you watched the games the league was telling you who it thought the #1 was there by the way Diggs almost always attracted extra coverage attention. Will that continue on Kincaid? My guess is it will until someone else shows that they are the guy to worry about. The problem with your #1 that teams are planning to take away being a tight end rather than a receiver is that it is easier to get multiple guys around your tight end in the middle of the field without needing to disrupt the integrity of your defensive scheme too much. It's why we really have to hope Coleman as he develops or Samuel as he gets more healthy can demonstrate they are that guy. The receivers played well Sunday and the spreading seemed to work. Question is what happens when they play less well?

You're just wrong.

I have watched the all22 back now. I don't think he was very impressive. He was fine (maybe fine is an upgrade from "meh" but I don't particularly intend it to be). He is definitely moving better than last year - I said that right at the start. But did he really impact the game? No I don't think he did. Others can think differently. I have no issue with that. But I have watched the game back. It isn't an agenda it is my actual conclusion. I think his performance is being exagerrated some. To me clear case of the eye test not supporting some of the data. I don't mind people thinking I am wrong. I do mind people presuming that is because I have an agenda. I don't.

Except I have a history here of admitting when I'm wrong. I have eaten some crow today on a Bills player performance on Sunday in Mack Hollins. The problem here is I simply don't think I am.

I am saying you are wrong. Disagree with me all you want. You are entitled to. It won't change the reality. But I have explained my perspective and all you do is say "ah you just don't like Von". Nothing is further from the truth. I disagree. I see that same play as you and I see it very differently. You want everyone to agree with you. I don't. Not because I have agenda. But because I really believe you are wrong.

Oh look you can use emojis. Go you. Just give it up. I know you only want to hear opinions that agree with you. And you will run any straw man argument you can to try and make them.

Good for Harry getting an extension. He not sure I'd wanna pay $9.5m AAV for him. But fair play.

Ha. You talking about sensitivity. Seriously? This is comedy gold. I have not backtracked at all. You should work on your skills of interpretation. They suck.

Throw your pom poms in the bin. They are useless. The fact is that is a gimme sack. 3 players won their assignment, including Von (never disputed) and then he was the one who benefitted from the QB tripping over and touched him down. The rest is just pom pom waving and to try and take a victory lap on the back of it is royally ***** ridiculous. But you do you.

I think as teams got tape on him they have exploited his weaknesses more as its gone on.

There was definitely one where he slipped and whiffed as a result. He slid past the play.