GoBills808

So that's it to you Never mind that Diggs was an actual top NFL wr...anybody younger and faster is going to be able to produce better in that role

Can you explain how you expect Shakira/Samuel to excel in a role that Stefon Diggs couldn't last year?

Until further notice the AFCE is a very winnable division so yes

No not really Lower end

He typically drew the amount of attention commensurate w other wr1s, yes

I don't want to be in this conversation anymore

you cant help yourself lol i literally only dropped in this thread to say the statement 'whatever team Mahomes is playing for would have the best SB odds' is categorically false btw the better question would be which team would have the better preseason SB odds- Mahomes on the Bills on Allen on the Chiefs?

Yes, being in/winning SBs tends to better your odds😂😂unless you think Brock purdy is the best QB

guess who had shortest SB odds as recently as two preseasons ago

you people clearly arent gamblers lol

yeah no thats not how it works

Agree, I thought he was insightful

No DE in the top10 of salaries has a Super Bowl, so don't pay DEs No corner in the top10 of salaries has a Super Bowl so don't pay DBs No QB in the top 10 salaries has a Super Bowl so don't pay quarterbacks Can you not see how bad this argument you're making is

don't go too far LBs dont move the line like that

so first off im hesitant to agree that ROI=contract size/Superbowls...i think that needs more work secondly- if your point is that signing bigger contracts (outside QB) limits your ability to improve the roster elsewhere the answer is yes, obviously. but singling out WR is pointless if you're trying to argue that it's not an important position. go look at the top 10 or 20 or whatever highest contracts at ANY of the important positions- LT, CB...not a lot of Super Bowl rings there either. that is because there are not a lot of Super Bowl rings to go around what it doesn't mean is that you shouldn't invest at those positions

yes, and we could delve deeper into how both contracts were structured to almost ensure they remained underpaid relative to their peers but my point was- using lack of SBs w highest paid wideouts to determine their value is very shallow analysis

bump

no its meaningless if zero of the top 10 highest paid QBs (by far the most important position) have SB rings, what it tells you is that using lack of SB rings amongst highest-paid players to suggest they're not important to winning super bowls is bad analysis

we won a couple of ugly games down the stretch last yr tbh beat the patriots and bailey zappe w under 300 yards of offense

and of the top 20 highest paid QBs only 3 have SB rings it doesnt mean anything except there arent a lot of super bowl rings to go around

I can probably quote this verbatim from people saying the same thing about Claypool as recently as last week

I agree w this I'm not trying to bash anyone... I'm trying to explain that I think this particular not-totally-useful stat is probably correlated to a larger and previously existing issue

K Not sure where you're going w this

We just keep getting deeper at wr

The Chiefs pass because they tried a sneak that turned Mahomes kneecap upside down and decided it wasn't worth it, plus they can scheme short yardage situations effectively