Shaw66
-
Posts
9,079 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
3 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:
I thought you were old enough to watch the AFL teams?
Which cities are you missing?
Did you double dip for NYC and triple dip for LA(Rams, Raiders, Chargers)? What about cities like St Louis that had two different teams?
And how did you meet that mant women from that many cities?
This could he a thread all by itself!!!
Great post! Yes, it could be it's own thread - fantasies about dating NFL fans. Heck, it could be it's own forum.
I dated a woman who moved from Houston to Nashville, and I never could figure out whether she counted on my list for the Oilers, the Titans, or the Texans. So, I went out with her two more times and counted her for all three.
The woman I dated in New York was large enough to count for the Jets and the Giants.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
Yea. I think Burrow is better off script than Purdy and certainly than Goff etc, but I think compared to the other guys we talk about in the elite conversation he is weaker there. He is the probably the best in the league purely from the pocket though.
Right. Burrow in the pocket is exquisite. Decisive and amazingly accurate. The good news for Bills fans is that it's easier to get better at early and late script (where I think Allen needs to improve) than it is to get better off script. I think what you see is largely what you get with Burrow, but Allen is going to continue to improve, which is a scary thought for the rest of the league.
None of which has anything to do with Waddle!
-
I had a bucket list when I was young to date, at least once, a woman who was a fan of each NFL team. I was about 25 teams into the list when I met my wife, so I'm a Bills fan. I guess I'll never know what I would have thought of those other seven women.
None of that is true, but I thought it was a fun story.
Born and raised in Buffalo.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
Goff is as bad as Tua in genuinely "off script" situations and I say that as someone who has always argued Jared Goff is underrated by most football fans. I think the difference between Goff and Tua isn't "off script" so much as it is "beyond first read." If a play totally breaks down they are both stuffed. But with Goff that only happens really if you get early pressure. It is why being in Detroit behind the best bookend tackles in the NFL is perfect for him. With Tua it happens if you can take his first read away and make him get to his 2nd or 3rd read. He doesn't process quickly enough to do that and at that stage the play is basically broken and he is in trouble. I remember that game in Buffalo early last year and those first two drives Tua actually made a couple of nice plays in that situation where the Bills were right there and just couldn't make a play on the ball. I said then in the GDT - "he won't make those plays all day." And after those first two drives he didn't. The Bills did. And they won in a canter.
I've kept thinking about this, and I really like the distinction you've made here. I think it's useful to evaluate quarterback play in three categories: early script, late script, and off script. What you've said here is that Tua is good at the first, Goff the first and second. I think that's correct.
I think, for example that both Purdy and Burrow are great early script and late script and weak off script.
I think Mahomes is excellent in all three phases.
I think Allen is good but still needs to improve early script and late script, and he's the best (with Mahomes) of all the current QBs off script.
-
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:
So if you are the Dolphins GM you’d be drafting a QB? Seems like you’d be stuck in a mid-late round one draft pick. Similar to the spot the Bills were stuck in for a decade. Or….is there a free agent you have your eye on?
All of the above. I think if you're a GM and you don't have one of the ten or so guys who are in the first two categories I described, all of your plans have to be driven by how you're going to get a QB. Maybe you're drafting one, maybe you're getting a free agent, so you're thinking a lot about how to get a top draft pick and how to put yourself in position to sign the occasional free agent. The free agent route means you need cap room, so if I'm looking for my QB, I'm not using up cap space on a Gabriel Davis.
The Broncos haven't had much success, but I applaud them for being active. They swung and missed on Russell Wilson, but I think that their only choice without a QB was to take the best swings you could. However the Bills got into the situation, they needed to be swinging the year they drafted Manuel. The Bills took another swing on Tyrod (which was sort of a wasted swing - journeymen QBs usually just waste playing time that could be used on anyone with upstate. The Broncos, for example, took a swing on Siemian. It was also a miss, but at least it was a guy with real upside.
I think every season the Dolphins stick with Tua is a season they aren't actively looking for the right guy. Extending him means they won't have cap space to be in the bidding when a free agent comes along.
If I ran the Dolphins, for example, I would have been in the bidding for Aaron Rodgers.
I just don't see any point in building a team around a guy I don't think I can with. I have to field a team, of course, but my team-building should not create impediments to find the right QB - for the long term I can't afford to restrict my draft picks or my cap space.
It's just how I think an NFL team should be run. Obviously, the Dolphins think otherwise, and they have a smart coach and probably a smart GM, so what do I know?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
Goff is as bad as Tua in genuinely "off script" situations and I say that as someone who has always argued Jared Goff is underrated by most football fans. I think the difference between Goff and Tua isn't "off script" so much as it is "beyond first read." If a play totally breaks down they are both stuffed. But with Goff that only happens really if you get early pressure. It is why being in Detroit behind the best bookend tackles in the NFL is perfect for him. With Tua it happens if you can take his first read away and make him get to his 2nd or 3rd read. He doesn't process quickly enough to do that and at that stage the play is basically broken and he is in trouble. I remember that game in Buffalo early last year and those first two drives Tua actually made a couple of nice plays in that situation where the Bills were right there and just couldn't make a play on the ball. I said then in the GDT - "he won't make those plays all day." And after those first two drives he didn't. The Bills did. And they won in a canter.
Thanks. I hadn't focused on it in that detail, but I agree. That's how I see Goff, too. For me, Goff is very good until he isn't, and that's off-script - he just isn't very good when he has to create, or to continue the script metaphor, when he has to ad lib. To say differently what you said about Tua, to me he looks like a college QB executing a highly scripted offense where the first or second option always is open: drop, look, throw. If something tells him not to throw, the probability of success on the play goes down dramatically. It's almost as though Goff knows the whole script, and Tua memorized only the first few lines.
Goff isn't my cup of tea, but at least I can get why the Lions signed him. If I were the Dolphins, I would be giving no thought to a big deal for deal. Painful as it is, scary as the future without a QB may look, I'd be moving on from Tua and getting to work finding a guy I think I can win with. Every year spent with Tua is a year the team is not moving toward a championship.
32 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:The market for the proven thing, decent not great, #2 receivers like Gabe Davis is, and will continue to be, teams with QBs on rookie deals.
Exactly. If you have your QB on his second deal, you can't afford Davis. If you have no QB, it just make sense to spend on a Davis.
-
51 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:
I mean, "right quarterback" for what? Winning a Super Bowl? There are probably 28 starting QBs in the league right now that will never do that. What quarterback is just going to drop in their lap that's gonna do that for them?
Before you try to win a Super Bowl, you have to be a winning team, and they've been that under Tua and then some. I though the kid would be a joke at the NFL level, but when he's been healthy he's been pretty good. He's not a top 3 guy or anything, but he's a top 10 player for sure. If there's a top QB available in next year's draft, there's virtually nothing they could do to get him and in an attempt to do so, they'd alienate Tua and have to go all-in on an unknown entity. It would also push Hill and Mostert to the end of their prime and they'd have to start all over again.
At a certain point, you just have to commit with what you've got accepting your chances are lower than what you'd like or just blow everything up and end up with no chance for years.Yeah, I hear you, and what you say makes sense. I see it a little differently. I'd say at any given time in the NFL there 2 to 5 QBs who essentially make their teams contenders every year. Rodgers was and may still be one. Josh, Patrick, Burrow's on my list. We coudl talk about the list, and different people would have some different guys on this list, but we pretty much know who those guys are.
Then there are another half dozen guys or so who are good enough that when everything falls right, they might win a Super Bowl. Personally, I think Goff is one of those. He doesn't really scare me in August, but it all may come together for him in some year. If you're the GM, I think you have to swallow hard and pay the guy, which is what the Lions did.
For me, however, Tua is not in that group. I think Tua is a system QB who's fine when he can run the offense on script and make quick throws. He's really good at that. But when the play has to be extended, he's really poor. Six to ten plays a game, maybe more, the play demands that your QB be creative. Mahomes and Allen are great at it. Goff is okay, Tua isn't even okay. On top of that, he's an injury risk. I think it's five-year mistake to give him a big second contract. He's going to disappoint them, and when they figure that out, it will be too late.
I know, it's hard to let a guy walk who's been productive, but I think the Dolphins won't win with him.
-
3
-
2
-
-
52 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Come on Shaw! Maintain a sense of humor.
Sotry. I loved yours and House, too. No hard feelings at all. They funny posts.
But I did think it was interesting how many people said it was a bad move. They weren't posting in my thread!
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, HOUSE said:
You can get 12 for a dime.
I expected a few of these comments, and there have been some.
However, I find it interesting that the general tenor of comments from people here is that the Dolphins are idiots for spending so much money on wideouts. Someone said Hill and Waddle will make more than the entire Bills wide receiver room. It's probably true. The question is whether Miami's offensive production will be THAT much better the Bills because they have these two guys. And the answer is, no.
Whatever. We've had that discussion, and it was fun. We don't need to have it again.
I, like many here, was glad to see that Miami did. I don't think they have the right quarterback, and it's really dumb to spend money on receivers if you don't have a quarterback. It just limits what you have when the right QB comes along. And because I don't think they have the right QB, I'm hoping that they give him a big contract. Then they're in cap hell and don't have a QB. That would be great.
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:
Shakir is capable of a lot more than Cole was though who was really one note kind of WR. He was a short area specialist...Shakir is faster, bigger, stronger, and much better YAC and can attack the defense in all 3 phases of the game. And he can do that out of the slot or being moved around.
So I think you limit the value of Shakir if you try and replicate Cole.
I agree. And, to be fair to Beas, I'm not sure Shakir ever could be as good as Beasley was at the short area game. Yes, Shakir has some quickness and shiftiness, but Beasley really was elite in that category. Beasley was as good as Edelman, maybe better.
But for sure, if the Bills try to use Shakir in to fill the Beasley role, they will be limiting his effectiveness. One of Beasley's principal limitations was that he wasn't a serious threat to go deep, which allowed defenses leave him one on one and just take their lumps on short balls. Defenses simply didn't worry much that Beasley would be running a crosser 20 yards downfield. Some guy playing Shakir tight man at the line of scrimmage is going to back off because it's Shakir, and that alone will reshape the defense in a way that creates opportunities for the offense.
Samuel and Coleman present the same kind of problems. They can attack the defense in a lot of ways, and the strength of the passing game will be that they'll all be on the field at the same time.
I'm repeating things other people have said here in the past couple of weeks, but it's important to remember that last season Davis was somewhat one-dimensional and Diggs, too, was a less-diversified threat. This season, if it's Samuel, Coleman, and Shakir on the field, the Bills will challenge defenses to protect against quick screens, slants, posts, corners, everything. All three of them present serious threats in different packages. If Brady does his job, and Allen does his job, there are going to be a lot of throws for uncontested catches.
-
2
-
-
My answer: I don't know.
Seems to me (and to everyone else on this board) that the goal is to spread the ball around. The way to spread the ball around is to have a team of receivers that run routes that stress the defense in one way, and then have those receivers read and react to that stress. That's based on play calling, Allen making the correct pre-snap adjustments, Allen and the receivers making the correct post-snap reads and adjustments so that Allen throws accurately to guy who can make uncontested catch. I've always disliked the comment that "so-and-so has completed 17 of 20 passes to nine different receivers," but in fact that stat is one measure that will show whether the passing offense is working.
What does that mean for Shakir? I think it means the same thing for Samuel and Coleman and Kincaid and MVS and Cook. If Allen is getting the ball to these receivers for uncontested catches, all of them have the talent to get serious yards after the catch. All of them need to be good at the things I said in the previous paragraph, and if they're all good at those things, all of them will be serious threats on the field, and they all will be successful.
-
3
-
-
Quote
Probably less now, I understand why Patriot fans basically didn't give a flying f*ck about the offseason for two decades now. If you have a truly great QB you will be in it every year and while some years the roster will be better and others worse, you have a guy who you know can deliver the goods and give you a shot regardless.
40 minutes ago, 90sBills said:
Having an elite qb is great but until Bills start stacking trophies together our fans don’t have the luxury of ‘didn’t give a flying ***** about the offseason’. No, we don’t have anywhere near the same feelings they had imo.This made me laugh. I agree with both of you. I think I have BOTH of those feelings. In the drought I fretted about how to even sniff the playoffs. I don't worry about that now. I'm much more comfortable. With Allen, my team is in it every year.
At the same time, however, this is in no way like how Pats fans felt. I live in New England, and I know I'm not feeling what those people felt in the off-season. Heck, we're not feeling what Chiefs fans are feeling. After 2023, I can imagine a lot of Chiefs fans thinking, "We've got the QB, we've got the coach, we've got seriously successful personnel management, so do your thing for now and I'll tune in after Labor Day." Ain't a lot of Bills fans thinking like that this off season.
-
1
-
1
-
-
It's an interesting question. I think I spend the same amount of time here, and that's one measure of my interest. I think the level of my interest is the same as in the drought years, but I think the focus of my interest has changed. During the drought I thought about the holes, and whether the underperforming guy the Bills had at this position or that could be expected to get better. So, for example, iI spent a lot in the off-season thinking and talking about success for Tyrod - what would he look like and is it possible to get him there? Could he actually throw for X yards or run for Y or have a passer rating of Z?
The current Bills are different. They don't have holes - at every position they have a legitimate professional who actually deserves to start in the NFL. They certainly would like to get better at most positions, but they have a talent level that makes them competitive at the top. And actually getting better at some positions (receiver being everyone's favorite position these days) is an important part of what it takes to win a Super Bowl. I'm not so interested in that improvement, I guess because I'm not sure whether it matters which positions get better - the real question is whether in some way, McBeane are making the team better. That's the real objective - is the team getting better, and is it on a credible path to a championship?
So, I think the focus of my interest in the Bills is now on the coaches and the GM and what they're doing. What do I think of the job they're doing? Are they pushing change within the organization to achieve greater success on the field? Why are they doing the things they're doing, and do I have confidence in what they do? I rarely asked myself those questions during the drought, because there simply wasn't enough they could do in the draft and free agency to fill the holes, and there wasn't enough they could do to coach their way out of it, either. I mean, really, during the drought did anyone ask, "Are the coach and GM doing enough to get the Bills to the Super Bowl this year?" Of course not. That question was almost meaningless, because until the Bills had quality professionals filling all the holes, talk about winning the Super Bowl this year was silly.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:
For me, I like what I think is the current FO strategy, go low on RBs (price-wise) and invest in pass-catchers. Consistent with that strategy would be doing a big trade for an expensive WR. Loved hearing that there are rumors J Jeff could be had. Now that would be a seismic splash out of Beane.
Why do you think the current strategy is to invest in pass receivers? They didn't use any assets to trade up for a great rookie receiver. They didn't sign an expensive free agent - Samuel, Hollins, Claypool, MVS all were got on the cheap. They unloaded Diggs and they didn't want to pay Davis. None of that looks like a team that's investing in pass receivers.
-
2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
Yes, I am saying that. I don't think you should take anything at all from how they build the room in 2024 other than they were doing the best they felt they could given their other pressures. In terms of next year's receiver room IMO one of two things happens..... 1) Keon is great as a rookie and is the established #1 going into 2025; 2) He doesn't and they are aggressive next year to find a #1 either by trade or by going receiver early again in the draft.
Yeah, I get it. I don't think it's clear, at all, that if your #2 happens the Bills will go after a true #1. I don't think we really know that the Bills believe any longer that they need a true #1. And I think we'll find out, because I don't think Keon will emerge as a true #1. Next year at this time, we'll know if you're correct, and you may very well be.
In 2024 the Bills will have a receiver who statistically is number one. They'll have a guy with 1300 yards and that guy will have the most targets. The announcers will say he emerged at the #1. But I don't think that'll make him a #1 receiver. For me, the question is whether the guy created those 1300 yards (that's what a true #1 does) or whether he was the guy in the system who got the most targets. Now, he has to be good to get the most targets, but that's not enough to be a true #1. I think a guy like St. Brown isn't a true #1 - he's great, but he needs the right system to create the opportunities he needs to be great.
-
2 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:
I'm in the minority that expect Beane to do a move in early June.
But to the OP, I believe almost all teams want multiple good WRs. Unlike RBs where some teams aren't going to pay the top level RBs (ie the Bills). With the rise of Josh the FO adopted the strategy of going cheap on RB and more investment in the WR room. Generally teams with good QBs will find it hard to pay 2 really good WRs, so they need at least one through the draft. Consistent with this strategy is the Bills trading for a top tier WR and developing K Coleman.
I don't know what people are thinking this new strategy is exactly, in regards to the Bills. We're going to go cheap on WRs along with going cheap on RBs? That's not a strategy, that's just being miserly, that's rebuild stuff. Under this new strategy where does the money go (and many teams have the same QB pay)?
No, I don't think it's going cheap. I think it's making decisions about where your dollars are best spent. I think the future we're heading into is one where teams will be reluctant to spend big dollars on star receivers, because it isn't money well spent. Receivers don't carry your team, any more than running backs do. What carries your team is a quarterback, an offensive line, and a good defense. You can't mix and match offensive linemen every year, drafting one and signing a free agent. The line needs continuity, and you can't have continuity if you're shuffling and reshuffling the line. But you can shuffle and reshuffle running backs. And I believe we're into an era where you also can shuffle and reshuffle receivers. That's why OBJ and Hopkins seem always to be on the market. Having a stud receiver isn't the key to winning, just like having a stud running back isn't the key.
-
8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
I agree they do everything with a purpose but their purpose is not always about the immediate short term. Unless you think in 2018 Beane put together the worst collection of skill position players and offensive linemen the Bills have had this century to support his rookie QB because he thought that was a good idea? He didn't. He thought taking on all the dead cap of the guys they had moved on from - Sammy, Darby, Dareus, Glenn, Tyrod etc - in one hit was a good idea. The offensive talent reflected the reality that he had less to spend as a result.
That is what is happening here IMO. Beane's purpose is to do a mini-reset of the roster in 2024 to transition from the first Allen era team to Allen era 2.0. He has built the best WR room he thinks he can in that context. It doesn't mean they aren't trying to win in 2024 but their #1 objective in their roster decisions this spring was to begin that reset.
I hear you, and you may be right. I mean, it's definitely a reset, I agree with that, but not at all of the type or magnitude of 2018. Beane inherited a team that didn't look at all like he wanted it to look, and he had only two choices - gradual or drastic change.
The change in the receiver room is different, I think. Unless Davis had a monster 2023, he was always going to be gone, because the Bills wouldn't pay him what he could get in the market. Diggs may have been a surprise to McBeane as the 2023 season unfolded. Who knows all that went on, but increasingly I find myself wondering whether, once Brady took over, he began installing the concept they seem to be going with now - call it receiver by committee and Diggs just didn't cooperate with it. Diggs would be perfect in that kind of scheme - he could be better than Beasley at being Beasley, he could go deep, he was good at crossers. He had all the tools. But I wonder whether he didn't cooperate because he understood it as a demotion - he would no longer be the true number one guy, and I think that was important to him.
But I think that what you're saying is that wherever the Bills are going with the receiver room - receiver by committee of classic stud #1 guy with a supporting cast, 2024 is a transitional year, and the receiver room won't be complete for another year or two.
In reality, however, I think receiver by committee is a system where the receiver room ALWAYS is in transition. Certainly that's what has happened in KC since they unloaded their top dog, and what's going on in San Francisco is at least curiously suggestive that the transition has begun there. Receiver by committee is essentially a system that requires the GM to have an interesting collection of talented guys at receiver every year, and it's always in flux. In that sense, I'd say 2024 is not a reset - it's the first iteration of what the future is going to look like. MVS is a receiver-by-committee receiver. Samuel is too. Shakir is. The 2024 receiver room may be the first committee - not the first step in a reset, not a transition, just the first committee. In 2025, Beane will keep some of them, replace some others, and season after season there will be a new committee.
-
1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:
The only three players that are possible to start are Coleman, Bishop and SVPG. The rest of the rookies are either slotted to be depth role players (Hardy, Davis, Solomon, Carter, Grabel, and Edefu) or a project like Clayton. The Bills are not going to have to heavily depend on this draft class to step into many starting roles unless there are injuries.
I think expecting 2 and maybe 3 players to start or have bigger roles out of your rookie class is pretty "standard" for most draft classes.
I think they really want to have Davis and Carter be in the regular rotation at their positions. I consider that starting, but that's just me. Point is, the first five guys the Bills took could all be playing significant roles on the team. They may not, but they all have talent that suggests they could. Three potential starters and two potential rotational roles.
-
12 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:
To add on here ,
I think regardless of the players last year Vs Players and potential players this year , Coaching will define them.
No big drop offs and no big gains , on paper at least.
Enough of Bills critical losses can be assigned to Coaching errors or questionable in game decisions.
Expecting that to improve this season gives me faith that the Bills will again compete heartily for AFC championship.
Go Bills
That's well put. Thanks. I think you're correct.
Of course, it doesn't mean that the coaching WILL improve, just that it isn't unreasonable to think that it will. I am certain, for example, that the work plans for each of the HC, coordinators, and the position coaches include targeted objectives designed to address identified deficiencies in coaching from last season.
I don't expect a step back. Once again this season, the Bills will be one of the toughest outs identified on every opponents' schedule.
-
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:
The Brit comment was obviously a joke. (Sarcasm is pretty tough on a message board.) I am however thinking that the Bills will take a step back this year and I don’t think that’s the worst thing that could happen in the long run. I want to win, not just be forecasted for, a Super Bowl. I’m glad they’ve been forced to complete some much needed roster turnover.
I agree, except I'm not expecting them to take a step back. I think they will be as competitive as they were last season, tenacious. They have the talent to play with anyone. Where I worry is with injuries. Even if I'm correct about their level of talent, their depth is really questionable.
The problem with all the rookies, the rookies I think have chances to be serious contributors, is that they also could be less than adequate depth if they're counted on only as depth. As you say, they haven't played a down in the NFL, and all of them could prove to be disappointments.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
I think you misunderstood. I never said there was a crisis Shaw. I only said that without seeing any of the rookies play a single down of professional football it’s impossible to know how they’ll fair. That’s it.
Sorry. I absolutely agree with that. And I know you didn't say crisis. But I thought it wasn't unfair to make that reach after you suggested that I seem to be suggesting that the Brit was making the squad. You knew I didn't say or mean that, and I knew that you didn't say or mean crisis.
On to football!
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
Just trying to counteract the seemingly ‘Mc Beane can do no wrong’ take that permeates Shaw’s homerism. Did the Bills draft a bunch of players? Yep! Do they have the luxury of drafting purely for depth right now? Nope! Is the current cupboard completely bear at every position? Nope….but when you’ve lost BOTH your starting WRs, BOTH your starting Safeties, and your starting Center all in one offseason, we all better pray that at least a few of these rookies can indeed play…and right now. Is there an alternative? Nope!
I'm not praying that they can. Well, I'm really hoping Bishop can play. But other than that, I don't think the Bills' 2024 results depend on any of the other rookies. If Bishop is playing significant snaps by October, the Bills will be fine. If more the rookies can play, the Bills will be better off, but they aren't necessary.
They lost both starting receivers by design - neither was contributing enough to be significant losses to the team. They have a satisfactory replacement for their lost center. They may even be all set at safety without Bishop, but I'd rather see Bishop there.
There's an important point that I think people are missing. I think MVS said it when asked whether the Bills need him to be a leader, or something like that. He said something to the effect that neither this receiver room nor any other one needs to be rescued by anyone, because the talent in every receiver room is amazing. He said every team has real dogs, fighting everything. The difference is coaching, preparation, luck, etc. And QB.
I think it's true for multiple positions, not just receiver. The Bills have good players on the offensive line, and they will be successful whether or not VPG plays of not. The difference in quality of play between Morse and McGovern just isn't that significant. The difference in quality of play between Poyer and Hyde (2023 versions) and Edwards and Rapp just isn't that significant.
People don't want to believe it, but it's true. Yes, you'd rather have the better player at every position, but you can't have that. What you need are good NFL players at every position, and you build from there. The Bills are in that position, so they aren't dependent on all their rookies playing immediately.
All I've said is that I think that the Bills drafted a lot of guys who look like they could player sooner. That's a good thing, but it doesn't mean the Bills have a crisis if they don't.
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:
They are at the corner of Jefferson and Best. They left just the 4 gates that were at the corners of War Memorial. They took down the rest of the original stadium.
Thanks. I'm definitely going there this fall.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Augie said:
Right where they used to be? 🤷♂️
I’m not kidding, I only have a very rough idea of its location. My buddy who still lives in Buffalo took me by. Maybe @PromoTheRobot can give us a better idea.
Got it. When you said a friend took you after a game at the Ralph, I thought you meant they were on display at the stadium in Orchard Park.
I'll have to go find them. I'd like to see that.
-
2
-
Waddle gets paid
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
No, I don't have a free agent they should target. There isn't one now. But as I said, they missed out on Rodgers. Stafford and Goff were available.
I was talking more in general. I think if you don't have the right QB, and I don't think the Dolphins do, then every move you consider has to be evaluated in terms of how it affects your ability to get a QB. You have to be looking at every QB in the league who might be available, and you have to be studying every draft class. If the next good QB draft class is next year or two years from now, you need to be planning to get within the top 10, better top 5, picks. If you see what looks like the right QB coming in free agency, you need to be planning your cap space to be able to be in the bidding war for him. After you have all those plans, draft and FA, in place, then you do the best you can with whatever picks and cap space you have left. QB has to be your number 1 priority, and you can't make any moves that will limit your ability to go after a QB who looks like he'll be a keeper.
From what I understand from posts in this thread, with Hill's contract, now Waddle's contract and what's likely to be Tua's contract, the Dolphins will be all in on Tua, because they won't have the resources to get a top QB for several years. They'll be good enough to be outside the top 10 draft choices, and even if they did draft a QB, their cap situation will limit their ability to acquire other players to build with, because they'll have a lot of cap tied up in Tua.