Rochesterfan
-
Posts
4,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rochesterfan
-
-
9 hours ago, PoundingDog said:
Sorry I don't see the Bills pay any receiver north of $35 million a year. Especially when Allen's cap hit is going to be around $60 million next year and beyond. That's the reality for teams like the Chiefs, the Ravens, or you will be looking at the roster structure of the Bengals -- cheap players on defense MUST work.
The best route is drafting WRs, and I think we should take Rams model: numbers. I'd like McDermott and Beane to take some chances on "non-process" characters like Antonio Brown, George Pickens types so that we get them in the years they work to establish themselves and then trade them away. Not every player you draft that shows talent, even great talent, should be retained thru an extension. To me, that strategy needs to change or you will miss out some talent that could push us over the top.
I just want to know what this LA Rams model is with numbers. You do know the Bills have drafted more and higher wr than the rams over the last 4 years. The Bills have drafted 4 WRs since 2022 with a 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 7th versus the Rams 3 7th, 6th, and 5th.
The Bills have also drafted multiple TEs in Kincaid and Hawes to supplement the WR class.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:
Please give me an example of a NON QB who commanded more than 2 first rounders and a 2nd ?
Nobody and i repeat NOBODY is giving the Vikings a 1, 1, and a 2 for Jefferson. Late or not. That’s an insane overpay.
Beane doesn’t know how to draft Wide Receivers. It’s by far his weakest area when it comes to evaluation. I am much more comfortable going out and buying a WR1 with this regime. We don’t have the time to wait for someone to develop only for them to bust.
Jamal Adams went for 2 1sts and a 3rd. If Jefferson is the best WR it would have to beat what Sauce Gardner went for - again 2 1sts for middling CB.
Parsons went for 2 1sts and a ProBowl player just last year.
I am just saying - I don’t see Minnesota making a trade for as you said - a Top WR with little personal issues - unless it is a huge overpay. They have the money and the need for him what are they getting for letting him go.
To me starting is 2 1sts from a top 10-15 team looking to jump with a young QB and then it goes up as you get later and later. For Buffalo - 2 1sts would not even be listened to for a late round pick and probably a SB level team next year.
-
30 minutes ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:
If Justin Jefferson is available then Beane needs to offer the Vikings 2 firsts. And before people say that’s too much… Who would you rather have ? Justin Jefferson or Kair Elam & Dalton Kincaid? It’ll never happen, but a man can dream.
Why do you think 2 late first round picks would get a trade done.
There is almost no world I see that working and if that was acceptable- there are 10 other teams in front of us that would make the trade with higher capital.
JJ is not available for Buffalo without an additional overpay. Think 2 firsts and a 2nd to cover what people lower are offering or 2 1sts and a legitimate young player.
-
2
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Walking Tall said:
https://larrybrownsports.com/football/joe-burrow-bengals-comments-have-fun/730644
“If I want to keep doing this, I have to have fun doing it,” Burrow said. “I have been through a lot. If it’s not fun, then what am I doing it for? That is the mind set I am trying to bring to the table.”
I’m not surprised to be honest. Some interesting comments from Joe.
The Quote 100% reads Andrew Luck to me. When being a QB is more work than fun - it may be time to re-evaluate.Luck had so much rehab and time away - it became no fun and he needed the break.
I can totally see Burrow the same way - he has been injured multiple times and missed the playoffs when healthy.
Sometimes you need a change - even if minor to refresh and get you back into the mindset and sometimes you need to step away.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BillsfaninSB said:
Coleman and Worthy may not have differentiated themselves head to head this season, but I firmly believe Buffalo would be a marginally better team with Worthy on the roster. I think there is no debate. He has a unique skill set that other teams can’t ignore. Coleman brings what to the table again?
In fact, I would argue that the Bills go to the Superbowl last year with Worthy on this team instead of Coleman.
I don’t agree - Worthy is fast, but his catch radius and routes are really bad making it hard to hit him downfield.
At least Coleman was run blocking before we got Gabe back and that helped a big part of our offense.
I honestly don’t think Worthy gets hardly any snaps in Buffalo because his 1 trick doesn’t really fit with what we do offensively. He can’t block and doesn’t make plays for a guy with his speed. He becomes a lesser version of Elijah Moore when he was here.
-
4 hours ago, uninja said:
I feel like Coleman only runs two routes, a go route down the sideline or a shallow inside crossing route and it's pretty obvious which one it's going to be before the snap depending on down/distance. I feel like the org doesn't trust Coleman with a complete route tree.
I don’t know - he ran multiple slant routes against Cincinnati- 1 that was almost a TD.
He is limited and needs to learn to use his body better, but when they play off - the slant has been there for him.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, FireChans said:
If the Bills pass on Coleman and the Pats take them, are the Pats still leading the division today?
Depends - They took Polk who has done less than Colman and is gone - so my guess is probably. Especially if we did what the majority of fans wanted and took Worthy or Legette. That entire area was littered with wasted WR picks and 1 diamond in McConkey.That section of the draft had 10 picks - 6 WRs went and only 1 has been worth the pick. They all had positives and negatives and all were projected in that area based on what teams wanted.
You can go through that entire draft and even at the top - the class has not lived up to the hype, but people wanted 2 or 3 WRs drafted.
-
1
-
3
-
-
15 hours ago, BillsFan130 said:
I'll have to re watch that first 3rd down as maybe I missed that.
Ya I am saying it loosely. Essentially what I mean is they are playing zone coverage with lots of space off the receivers and are playing over the top.
correct me if I'm wrong of course but that's what it looked like to me and Olsen mentioned that 2-3x on the opening drive also
The Bills did play several 3rd downs at the sticks, but they also mentioned several times how Burrow does not like to throw short of the sticks - the Bills played tendencies and Burrow did throw short because of it and the Bills did a poor job of tackling at the catch point.-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, BillsFan130 said:
Yep I did, I think Houston had 5 plays their opening drive? Pretty hard to judge from that.
I would almost guarantee that Spags would send pressure if there was a big 3rd down on the plus side of the field on that opening drive
Like the Bills did on the Bengals first 3rd down - where we brought an extra LB and rushed 5, while simulating a 6 man rush?
15 hours ago, BillsFan130 said:When did we send a pressure on the opening drive? I honestly don't remember that at all.
Looked like they played some man coverage with 2 safeties on the first 3rd down when Higgins converted.
Everything after that looked like soft zone. Greg Olsen even called them out on it , especially on that 3rd and 7 around the 20-25 yard line.
First 3rd down of the game - had 4 down and 2 LBs on the LOS - the announcer mentioned the Bills rarely blitz, but they brought 5 and 1 LB dropped into coverage.
-
1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:
Totally reasonable. All of it. My view was based on sitting (standing) there for three hours and being wet (snow melts on you after awhile) and a little cold. But your “math” is just as fair on this one.
I totally get it also and if he had tried the onside kick that would be fine also. I just don’t see why fans think it was the only choice and Taylor messed up.
The old school thinking would always be to onside because no one went for it on forth down if they were ahead and old style onside kicks had a higher recovery percentage.
Modern thinking looks at teams and where the line of demarcation is for going versus punting and the rules have neutered the on side kicks - which to me is fine - you should not have a good chance to get the ball back just because you are losing.
The killer is the Bengals played it perfectly on the first 2 and then came after Josh with man behind - giving him a lane toward the 1st down.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
It worked out for Taylor on that one. Or it least it should have, but for a Superman scramble by Allen. But I'm with the other guy. They had to go three and out, anyways. There's snow all over the place, the balls have been freezing for three hours, and the game was already crazy. I would have taken the shot at the onsides and sacrificed the 30 +/- yards if I didn't get it knowing that I was in three and out territory anyways.
I hear you - I just believe the onside kick puts you in having to stop the Bills on 4 plays rather than 3.
McDermott had already showed you he was willing to go for it on your side of the 50 multiple times. I don’t think McD pulls a Reid at his 30 and goes for it.
So for the very slim chance you recover - your defense the weak link - would have had to come up with 4 big stop against the run as I think they go into heavy run mode.
To me if it had been under 2 minutes or you had 0 timeouts - onside kick 100%, but you had 2 stops of the clock out of 3 potential plays - I want yardage to give me at minimum a Hail Mary to the endzone and potentially multiple shots.
I get it - it’s slippery and the ball is hard, but that is also true on the punt return - so potential of a short punt or if the Bengals player catches it on the run of a nice return versus a high punt that the Bills can try to angle out of bounds or let bounce around.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Kelly to Allen said:
The bills were going to get a delay penalty from celebrating and McDermott used it to save the 5 yds
It's debatable if the timeout was more valuable. The extra point makes Cincy have to go for 2 to get within 3....
Regardless, setting aside the xp vs the TO, the responsibility still falls on McDermott to not get to that point
After Cincinnati scored late I have no idea why they didn't go onside kick. Even if you hold buffalo to a fg, it's still only an 8 point game. There was no real downside for going onside, especially with your season on the line
I get why you don’t onside kick - it is about yardage - it was never about points as it was very doubtful the Bills attempt a long FG in those conditions.
The onside kick with a 3% recovery gives the Bills the ball on your side of the 50. The kickoff put the ball on the Bills 25.
Either way you still need the stop - 1 first down finishes the game. If you onside kick and get the stop - the Bills are punting from midfield to pin you deep with little chance for return - so 30 seconds to go 90+ yards. Plus if it gets to 4th and 1 or 2 the Bills are more likely to go for it to seal the game - just like at the end of the first half.
By kicking off - you have the Bills punting from deeper in their own end and potentially open up a return as the punter has to try and kick it for distance not height. The Bills are also more likely to punt on 4th and short rather than go for it.
So if you assume a 3% recovery chance, but then either 90 yards with 30 seconds and no timeouts or a chance at getting the ball at the 30 or 40 with 30 seconds left- the yardage is more important to me. It also changes the Bills approach to getting the 1st down.
-
2
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, No_Matter_What said:
Virgil's OPs have become too negative for me, but we've already discussed that so no point in doing it again.
I'd just like to add one thought. I already said in post game thread that McDermott gets a lot of heat for being too conservative, but he was as aggressive as needed in this game (apart from kicking the first FG, which was a good decision imo). After that, we went for each 4th down.
He especially deserves credit for going for it on 4&goal with 3.09 min to go up 32-28 from 3 yard line. It required some Allen magic (with help from OL and Hawes), but it was bold and good decision anyway.
100% - the entire post!
The fact that after this long and the number of 4th downs and other aggressive calls the Bills make - how people consider him a conservative coach - I just do not get.
The fact that year over year he seems to be one of the top coaches in aggressive index and typically at the top of the analytics charts for going for it at the correct time and when to go for TD versus FG versus punt.
People just go back and think he coaches like he did with Tyrod, but he hasn’t in 7-8 years.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, MJS said:
I agree, but there also just needs to be common sense. The refs should have seen that and stopped the game and required him to leave to get further evaluations. And there needs to be space in the protocols for the evaluators to have discretion to hold them out regardless of the way they are answering questions.
He grabbed his head in pain multiple times. Aren't the refs supposed to stop the game and force him off the field in those situations?
I don’t disagree, but they pulled him out after the first one and he passed the tests. At some point it is on the player to say wait this is an issue because he knows what he feels.The refs can barely handle the game and fans/players go crazy right now when they get a call to have someone checked - the number of this ref is fixed would be insane - so not really their job.
The coaches and Bengals doctors should be the ones, but if the player clears the protocols even if he has gamed the system - and he says he is fine - it is difficult to keep him out.
Everything you say is correct, but rather than being advocates for Player safety - the NFLPA has not worked to advance that and therefore the teams are working under the agreed to rules. Why the NFLPA supports things that are actually worse for their players I don’t get, but they do.
-
25 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:
I don’t think this would be from lack of talent. They lost their QB for a significant amount of time. The Bills would be similarly worse off if we lost Josh for that amount of time.
Except they missed last year with Burrow 100% healthy and the year before with that talent.They have had all this talent and have not won double digits or made the playoffs since 2022.
Some is injury, but a lot is talent does not trump teamwork over the long term.
They would be a better team allowing some talent to go and building more mid tier players to compete.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:
This is right on the money. And there's more to it than just that. It's an integrated team-building approach. They don't do anything except by design.
Two things happen when you get the right quarterback. One is you win a lot, so you're never in line for premium draft picks. The other is you pay him a fortune, so you never have cap room to buy much premium talent. It's just a given. (The exception is if your QB blossoms early, when you have a two- or three-year window with cap room.) The result is that it's very difficult come up with stud players to add to your roster. You have to get lucky with a Pucua or a Benford.
McDermott's and Beane's approach to this problem always has been the same - build depth. That has two benefits. One is that instead of chasing after high-price talent and leaving yourself exposed at some positions, you have guys at every position that you can afford. It also means that your bench players are nearly as good as most of your starters, so when injuries happen, you usually have a guy on your bench who can fill in quite well.
It also means that you platoon some positions, particularly the receiver room and the defensive line. That keeps your players fresher throughout the game, and it also means you can survive injuries with guys who have been playing a lot, anyway. Just about all of the Bills receivers have missed time, and so have many of the d linemen. The team moves on without missing them too much, because the replacements are all starter quality.
Now, I know a bunch of people reading this are screaming, "That's nonsense. The Bills receivers are terrible, and their dline is a sieve." Well, the Bills are 11th in yards per game passing, 7th in passing touchdowns, and 6th in passer rating, and that's with a team that has one of the top rushing attacks in the league - first in yards per game and second in rushing touchdowns. That means they have a very good passing attack, despite the absence of a high-end receiver. Then people will say, that's because they have Allen. Of course, but if you don't have your QB, we aren't having this question. Sure, the Bills have Allen - he's what makes it possible to save money by having a receiver by committee approach and he's also the reason the Bills have to save money. And yes, the Bills give up a lot of yards rushing, but they're near the top of the league in yards passing allowed and they're 8th in defensive passer rating.
The defense is 10th in yards per game and 14th in points per game, not great but not a disaster. So, the total defense is holding up, despite the absence of a stud dlineman.
This personnel philosophy is also complementary to the Bills' approach to offense and defense generally, which is that teamwork can produce greater advantages than marginally better talent. They believe that eight talented guys rotating on the dline will produce better results than four guys, one of whom is Watt or a Chris Jones. You can argue with that, but that's what they believe. (And, as noted above, those eight guys rotating almost certainly are better than a team that relies on a Watt or a Jones when that guy is injured and out of the lineup).
So, it isn't simply that Beane prioritizes depth because he likes depth. They value depth over a few highly talented players and a bunch of other guys, because it fits better with their payroll, their draft status, and their ability to deal with injuries. And we see it working this season. Depth at receiver is working. Depth at o line has helped. And as much as people whine about it, Beane signing retread depth like White, Poyer, Philips, and Shaq Thompson has helped the Bills get to where they stand now.
I love this and I will add that a huge issue the Bills had is timing. Beane is very calculating and is drafting not for this year, but typically the following FA class.
Where things fell apart in his plan was when Josh got good and needed his extension. It was COVID years and Beane had to pay Josh, but the overall Cap went down rather than going up as was planned. They lost a ton of available Cap space that he had planned to use.
The 2 Covid years coincided with the timing that they would of had some extra money before the big part of Josh’s extension kicked in and instead of having the money like NE will with Maye - the Bills had to kick some money down the road with the drop in salary cap. They have been fighting that ever since just to retain their talent and bring in help.
The Bills could have done the Eagles approach and get rid of a ton of talent - fall apart and miss the playoffs a couple of times and then hope the higher draft picks in the top 10 then increase your talent, but everyone would flip out missing the playoffs.
Teams like SF, LA, Cincinnati, Houston, NE all had to be really bad to get better - the Bills are maintaining their excellent level, but it comes with a talent drain that they have to overcome. You see the same thing in KC right now. It happens to consistently good teams over time.
-
1
-
-
This is a huge nothing - he was holding out hope for. Potential playoff push and now they are done and he can get the surgery and be ready to be a FA this off season and get away.
The Bengals did nothing wrong - this is the team admitting they are done and trying to find players for the future.
-
5
-
-
8 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:
Outside of a few players (Benford, Josh, Cook), this roster is what I would call high floor, low ceiling.
You could be Cincinnati- a high high high ceiling team that is going to miss the playoffs again.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, MJS said:
I'm shocked!
At least, not coming off a concussion. You see healthy players smack their head on the ground like that. Sometimes they are completely fine and the helmet does its job, and sometimes they are concussed. But a guy who suffered a concussion so recently, there is no way a smack like that does not concuss him.
And he should have been wearing a guardian cap. The league needs to mandate those for any player coming off of a concussion. Those players should wear them for the rest of the season.
The difficulty is the NFLPA needs to agree and they have fought for choice over mandate as the NFL has tried with things like OLine/DLine in preseason.
In this case - I really don’t get it - multiple times he held his head after plays - the NFL has a protocol, but it is also up to the players. The questions asked aren’t hard and the players have talked about gaming them by answering slowly during offseason testing - so they look better during a game and can pass the testing.
The players need to be honest and help themselves and that should be driven by the NFLPA.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:
San Francisco is the only team where I feel almost as confident in their starting QB than i do their back up. Weird how they are able to plug & play at (one of ) the hardest positions in pro sports
This year that may be true, but the years before when missing their starter the back-up had 0 wins and were significantly worse. This year they brought in the guy they should have drafted over Lance and even then his record is not as good as Purdy’s. -
3 minutes ago, PoundingDog said:
They were going to be a delay of the game 5 yard penalty of the extra point. You can argue what matters of 5 yards for a kicker. I'm with McDermott that for Prater, it matters and 4 point lead vs 3 point lead is huge.
Someone pointed out on the TO for the 3rd and short, the defense alignment was going to have Chase uncovered. Ultimately it resulted #39 on Chase to the sideline, but you'd never want to leave Chase uncovered fora potential TD.
There is really no good choice when you know your defense can't stop the other team. But the onside kick chance is so low, it is really not worth it. taylor almost got what he's hoping for which is getting Bills to 3rd and 15... I actually was hoping for play-action on the 1st down. and Kudos to Josh holding onto the ball on the 2nd down sack (not throwing the ball away to stop the clock). I'm pretty sure had Josh not getting the 1st but close, McD might go for it.
I agree - people going after Taylor for not onside kicking is wrong. The onside kick is so lo percentage and even if you stop the Bills it is near the Cincinnati 40 and therefore in potential 4th down area.
By kicking off - you still need the same stop, but as it will be deeper in Bills territory- less chance for a 4th down attempt and you have a chance to get the ball significantly closer to the winning TD.
-
17 minutes ago, SunDSolar said:
The 49ers have been to two super bowls with average to below average QB play.
The Eagles have been to a few with average to above average QBs
We have a HOF QB but we couldn't figure out how to stop the Chiefs or Bengals offense in the playoffs.
And when Allen balls out and beats the Chiefs our inept coaching staff doesn't even know you have to force a kick return with 13 seconds left in the game
I guess Allen will have to score 50+ to make it to a super bowl with us, because time and time again in the playoffs McDermott has yet to put a gameplan together that stops the opposing offense
I hope I eat my words this year and Mcdermott proves me wrong. I'm crossing my fingers his defense dominates the playoffs.
Lets hope
Interesting to pick those teams.
1st: SF and Philly have been to several superbowls, but guess who beat them in the Super Bowl until last year. That pesky KC team we couldn’t get by. That means if those teams had been in the AFC neither makes the SB until last year. They have a combined record against KC that is worse than Buffalo.
2nd: Both SF and Philly have routinely drafted higher including have top 10 ( and top 3 in SF case) picks and missed the playoffs several times. And overall their win % and playoff % is worse than Buffalo.
The same goes for the Rams (multiple playoff failures under McVay with 2 QBs drafted #1 overall), or Detroit with Campbell. The NFL is not easy and to get the type of consistent play year over year with only 1 team - KC having a higher win % shows we have a good team and a good coaching staff and even trying to adjust for Allen is difficult because this staff has allowed him to grow and develop in ways many other staffs would not.
Look at the job SF did trying to develop Trey Lance or how Philly treats Hurts - McDermott has allowed Josh to be himself and grow and make mistakes, but mostly get better.
-
2
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Ramza86 said:
We didnt get a blitz in until the Bengals score 3 TDs back to back to back.
The blitz comes and it starts to work.
Then we keep blitzing and then Burrow sees it coming and starts to torch us again. We got lucky with drops.
Then we somehow let WRs get behind our defense up 2 scores at the end of the game and Burrow scores in 30 seconds to make it almost a FG game.
Why are we never ahead of the curve and trying to confuse these good QBs?
What are you going on about - they brought extra guys starting with the very first 3rd down - just 1 minute into the game. They brought 5 guys including a LB.
Then they got burned by Higgins - so they played off to come up and tackle and gave up 2 third downs with guys breaking tackles in the first drive.
Then they brought extra guys a couple of times on drive 2 and Cincinnati threw a quick pass out to Chase and hit Gesicki - so again they backed off and Higgins went over the top.
They tried simulating pressure with 5 and 6 guys on the line and people dropping back. Just like when Allen or Mahomes is on fire - when Burrow is hot there is little you can do and he was pinpointing passes in the first half with defenders all over the WRs and TEs. His guys were winning everything.They got more aggressive trying different blitz packages when the LBs did not get home and that was leaving Higgins and Gesicki open in the middle. The CB blitzes helped, but also put Chase on Lewis which was a mismatch. The difference in the second half was Higgins and the Cincinnati team dropping the ball and not making plays.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
It’s how it all looks. The spread was 7.5.
The game was over. That FG was kicked with no time left.
That is all. Make of it what you will.
So that means they should not call the penalty?If they want to blame anyone - blame 22 - don’t accuse Refs and Pete of screwing bettors or putting a fix in. They are trying to score - that is what teams do.
#22 just needs to touch him down and the game is over and he purposely lays on him to try to run the clock out.
If you are believing in a fix - it is on the broncos going for it on 4 down and the player committing the foul.
The Raiders made the kick with 5 seconds left - hoping for 1 second as typically 4 seconds run off and maybe you can get a play on the onside kick.
McDermott still in over his head
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
My only issue with that is - if as I suspect - it was close enough that it was going to be very debatable - missing it on the first drive not only costs you a timeout, but potentially future challenges.
If the play is upheld - he now has only 1 potential challenge the last 59 minutes. Later more impactful plays may come up - so I have no issue with being judicious at that spot if you don’t have a good look.
In addition- to those that want a challenge because the Pats hurried up - most teams on any kind of close play rush up to force either a timeout or challenge on any close play. It would be incredibly stupid to just use that and say challenge it. You have to know if there is a chance and does it make sense.