Shaw66

That's a good point. A lot of issues at a lot of positions, not knowing what positions could get shored up in the draft, and the limitations of the cap. No way that there can be a plan for all of it. More that they have to have a really good understanding of all of it and then do the best you can, day by day, adjusting your perceptions of need as guys come and go and as money gets spent.

Good luck to him. Got dealt a lousy hand.

A lovely man. He showed his love of his work, and his courage, when he returned to the microphone after his initial treatments. So sorry for him and his family.

I agree. I think one important things that separates QBs is how they perform off-script. That's what we saw in the Super Bowl. Brock Purdy is great when the play goes as designed. One read or two reads and throw. But when he gets beyond a couple of clicks, his efficiency goes way down. Against good opponents, that can be as many as half the plays, and having an inefficient QB on half your plays is a bad thing. I think Tua is the same. If Waddell or Hill opens up on schedule, he's great. The rest of time, not so much. I'll take all those guys you named over Tua.

The problem is that there are so many moving parts, Beane needs more information to decide what to do. In particular, he needs to know what talent is likely to be available to him so he can decide what to do with the people he has under contract. In other words, he needs to do some legal and illegal tampering to know his alternatives. That's why it all will come at the end.

As usual, I don't disagree with much you have to say, except that you seem value talent over coaching, and I'm the opposite. Assuming Diggs returns to form, a decent number two receiver will thrive in this offense IF Brady runs an effective passing game, as a play designer, a game planner, and an offensive game manager. If Brady doesn't do that, I don't think it matters all that much how talented the #2 guy is. At the end of the season, scheme wins out over talent.

Hey, Hap - You've always got interesting takes on things, and this WR vs. dline comment is another. It's compelling, but I'm not sure it's right. Might be, and I can't prove it's wrong, but I look at a different way. First, the Bills were 8th in the league in yards passing per game, 7th in TDs. 20 yards per game behind the Dolphins, 15 behind the Lions, who were #2, and 2 yards per game behind the Chiefs. My suspicion (not original) is that Diggs was injured for the second half of the season; had he played up to his usual standards, the Bills would have had 10 more yards per game, on average, for the season. That tells me that there is not a massive hole in the receiving corps. It's hard to say that the Bills have had a serious negative impact on the passing game because of what you consider an under-allocation of resources to the position. I say this because unless they add the replacement for Diggs in the first round and he turns into an immediate stud, no one should expect that the Bills are going to get more than 800-900 yards out of their number 2. If that's the case, the Bills aren't far away. Factor in likely increased production out of Kincaid, and I just don't see a huge hole. Second, I'm not saying the Bills don't need receiving help; ideally, the Bills get a #1 receiver in the first round, pair him with Diggs for a year or two, and then move on from Diggs. However, if they don't hit a homerun and have the luxury of starting two #1s in 2024, they don't need a lot of talent to continue in the top 10 in passing or even move up into the top 5. I think it depends much more on Brady than on getting some stud to be another target - again, I'd welcome the stud, but I don't see that he's crucial. Third, you clearly have a different philosophy about how to build a successful team. Beane and McDermott are all in on the defensive line rotation and getting pressure with four, and that philosophy therefore demands that resources go there. That's eight players who need to be impactful, and that has a cost associated with it. The Bills were 7th in passing yards allowed per game, second in TDs allowed, and fourth in sacks. That's at least some evidence that the allocation of resources to the Dline makes sense. I've always questioned the rotation, because by needing 8, it's difficult to allocate spending to a true stud in middle, and that's the kind of player who can have out-sized impact on games. But as I say, I've been able to live with the rotation because it has gotten results. Finally (and back to #2), I think we all tend to look at the long term less critically and less thoroughly than McDermott and Beane do. At this time of year, they're thinking a lot about the 2025 and 2026 roster as they consider their choices, because their intention is that the Bills will be good next season AND in the seasons beyond. One of their big issues has to be who will be the #1 receiver in the future, and how are they going to fill the position? One answer is exactly as you say - get that guy this year, hope he can be a solid #2 by mid-season, and get a free agent who can help in the draft pick isn't the guy, or isn't the guy yet. But for all we know, McBeane see what works best for the long term is to plan to get that receiver in the 2025 draft. They may already be considering how they can stockpile picks in order to trade up. I don't have any idea, but I think there's more of a plan at work here than I can see. Having said that, what I hope to see in 2024 is a #2 receiver with decent deep speed, good route running ability, reliable hands. I want a guy like Shakir but with better size. He'll run routes better than Davis and will be a regular threat in the offense. He doesn't have to be great; he has to be smart with enough speed. After all, it's pretty clear that what works in the NFL these days is having a lot of guys on the field who can execute an offense that attacks what the defense gives them. With the Cook/Allen run threat, the defense has to give up space elsewhere, and the Bills need a scheme (Brady) and the receivers (Diggs, Shakier, Kincaid, and one more) to attack that space.

Maybe you're right, and Douglas is a lock. On the other hand, there's no denying that reducing cap and dead cap in a nice amount simply by letting one guy can be pretty attractive. Douglas is a good solid player, but he's not some stud in his prime. Other guys can do the job. That's what's so interesting and challenging about what Beane has to do over the next few months. As I understand it, he has a lot of ways he can go to get under the cap. Which way he goes depends in part on McDermott tells him he can live with. McDermott may say he absolutely has to have Douglas, given what else he has to work with at corner, the depth he thinks he needs, etc. and how easy it will be to replace the player who leaves because the cap relief had to come from somewhere. Point is that cap relief is going to create holes or issues at one position or another, and Beane and McDermott are managing that process. Trimming off veteran talent and replacing it with younger, cheaper talent is the art and science of running a program that stays on top of the league. Time will tell how good they are at it.

As I said, people can have their opinions. But you're talking about a first-ballot Hall of Fame player. At the same age, Bruce Smith, another first ballot Hall of Famer, had two double digit sack seasons ahead of him. ACL surgery and recovery from it is pretty routine now. Miller's work ethic is great. I agree. He might be done, but he's not your average guy.

Just as a matter of semantics, I think it's more than hope. What you mean, I think, and I agree, is that there is no way to know today what the Bills will get from Miller next season. That's true, but what we've seen so far is completely consistent with a full recovery. So, to say it's a hope and nothing else really isn't accurate. Frankly, I think his chances of returning to full form are better than White's.

I get it. I saw it. But his first game back was telling. He wasn't even pretending to compete. The Bills very clearly had a plan for him, a plan that had a schedule of how hard he work. They used his first month back as preseason. And the consistent reports are there most players take more than 12 months to recover. I'd guess that if you asked the Bills, they'd say his progress through the end of the season was what the doctors and trainers said they should expect. They no doubt hoped for more, but that wasn't there. Bottom line, I don't think the 2023 playoffs showed a Von Miller whose recovery was complete.

First, I have to say that I doubt Logic's bolded language is true. I don't think Beane was surprised at the cap number. We were, the media were, but I doubt Beane was. The cap is based on a formula, I'm sure a complicated formula, but the the owners and GMs have access to all, or most, of the data that goes into the formula. They know what the TV contracts are, for example, so they know what the revenue is. The owners have good projections. So, I think Beane's been planning for a number like this all along. Furthermore, six months ago or more, when Beane didn't necessarily know where he would be, he had the beginnings of a plan to deal with the cap. He has it every year; it's something GMs and their staff do. But, regardless of whether he got a pleasant surprise or not, I think you're correct about what you're saying. I don't if Morse or White or anyone goes, I don't know who gets extended. What I know is that Beane and McDermott intend that this team be very good, like top five good, season after season, and the only way to do that is to rotate players through the system. You have to get rid of veterans you like and be smart about getting younger guys to fill their places. So, I agree, that any of White, Morse, Douglas, or some others could be gone. I'll be a little surprised when the news breaks, and I'll wonder what the plan is, but there will be a plan, and they will develop or acquire people who move into the lineup. It's been several seasons since this team has gone into the season with unfilled holes. The Bills have quality guys at every position. Some of them guys you'd like to see replaced by upgrades, but even those guys are legitimate NFL starters. The only way to continue having quality everywhere is to constantly replace aging guys with younger guys, and being smart about how you acquire the younger ones.

I think you're too quick to write him off. I take the optimistic view, and I don't think it's too far-fetched. The optimistic view goes like this: He's played essentially the entire season for just about all of his career. 15, 16 games, year after year. The timing of his injury in Buffalo cost him half of one season and practically all of last season. It's usually the second season back that players really recover from their ACL repair. Tre was the same, injured at about the same time of year. There's very little evidence that he's breaking down. When he signed in Buffalo, he said he intended to play all six years his contract. He's a really serious competitor. He has a good body. His play in 2023 improved from game to game, with his best game, as you said, being the second last of the season. All of these things, and that's a lot, suggest that there isn't any good reason to thing he's done. He may be done. Lots of guys drop off the cliff like that. Absolutely possible. But he has all the hallmarks of a guy who, absent further injury, will return to form. I wouldn't bet against him.

This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure it's correct. I think there's a benefit to turning over the roster, year after year. When you keep all the same guys, the "book" on a team is really good - the book that says how you can attack them When you turn over the roster, even though you lose some quality players, you change your style of play to match, to some extent, the players you have. As your style of play changes, if you have good football players, you present new problems to defenses. The Chiefs have done a good job of that. Get your quarterback, a few stud, core guys, and then don't be afraid to move one from one talent and acquire another. The constant change makes your team better.

Douglas was in the league for four seasons before he was showing enough to become a regular starter. I just don't see why anyone should conclude that Elam won't be able to show the same improvement over four seasons. That's particularly true when he was hampered by injury in his second season. It's the curse of draft position. If Elam had been drafted in the fifth round, people would be calling him useful depth. But he was drafted in the first round, so people treat him as an unequivocal failure. It just doesn't make sense to do give up on Elam and thankfully, McDermott understands that.

This is the kind of comment that I've grown to distrust and that I try not to make. You're free to have your opinion about Elam, of course, and to say what you want, but after reading this forum all through training camp last year, I have developed a healthy respect for how little we all know. Last summer it seemed everyone was screaming about middle linebacker and no one was saying Bernard could be anything more than a modest liability. I tended to agree, because the little that we saw of him in 2022 was not encouraging. Every time I find myself thinking Elam is a bust, I think about Bernard. Elam's a first-round talent, and he was injured most of 2023. If he's healthy and not playing in September and October, okay, that says something, but I'm not reaching any conclusions about him before then.

Thanks, Gunner. I agree about Beane. He says a lot in these interviews, and often just a little bit more than he intended. Too bad about Douglas, because he was such a solid addition. But I agree that Beane using past tense probably means something, and the cap savings is simply to important to pass up. Peeling the onion one layer deeper, Douglas leaving probably says something about their thoughts about White and Elam. Benford's got one side, but the other side is still open. And they always seem to take a corner take in the late rounds. Receiver is no news. Either in free agency or the draft, there's a quality receiver coming from somewhere. And what Beane said about skillset isn't surprising, either. That's how they got to Kincaid. It makes much more sense to put the targets on the field and then design the offense to utilize their strengths than to evaluate the 2023 receiver room, decide what skills are missing, and search for those skills. Safety is an interesting position. I don't think you meant literally "not good in shorts." At every position, in their world, the guy has to be "good enough" in shorts. Too slow is just too slow. But I get your point and agree with it. In McDermott's D, the safeties have to understand everything and process quickly. If you think about how much geography a player has to think about at the moment the ball is snapped, tackles have the least and safeties have the most. Players at both positions have to think fast, but the safeties have a lot more to think about. I watched a few minutes of the the Lions and Chargers from week 10 yesterday. Goff hit St. Brown on a deep crosser, and the replay Romo pointed out how the safety broke in to respond to an underneath threat. It was very easy to see how no amount of physical talent was going to make up for the wrong decision as the receivers came off the line. It's also what drives all of us crazy when a Bills safety or corner is there for the tackle but not close enough to break up the pass - at DB, McDermott values brains over closing speed. The difference is obvious when we compare a corner like Dane Jackson to a linebacker like Dorian Williams. The problem with drafting a safety in the first round is where you're picking. The truly special talent, good brain and good in shorts, never lasts late into the first round. The difference between the guys who are left that you might take in the first round and the guy you can get in the later rounds just isn't that great in terms of his contribution to the team. Thanks for the report.

He owns the history to the only audience that matters - his team. His players are completely behind him - we heard it repeatedly after Hamlin's problem. He doesn't have to own to the fans. He has no obligation to say anything to the fans.

And Tyrod Taylor is elite, too? When did Josh start coaching that top-10 defense?

Yeah, I know. I've said a variety of things about Josh for the past couple of years, things I think he needs to be better at. Those comments always draw immediate reactions, suggesting I'm some kind of traitor. And it's kind of funny that my comments about McDermott being the best choice for head coach draw reactions suggesting I'm an idiot. Just the nature of people discussing stuff.

I don't tell people they're wrong because they don't believe in McDermott's mindset. I tell them they're wrong because if you have a coach who's won as much as McDermott has won, he is more likely to win a Super Bowl than almost any available head coach. It's very hard to win a lot of games in the NFL, and McDermott has made it look easy. The other available coaches either are coordinators who have never been head coaches or are guys who have been head coaches and who haven't been able to win as much as McDermott has. As some have put it, he's closer to winning it all than any other guy the Bills could hire. He is like Shanahan. I think the smart bet is to bet the guy who's already having a lot of success compared to everyone else trying to do the same thing. I get that people say the Bills need an offensive minded head coach. I don't agree the focus needs to be on the offense, but I get that argument. But even so, the guy has to be able to do the whole job, and there are very few coaches in the league who are doing the whole job better than McDermott. And I get that some people think he's the next Schottenheimer. As I've said before, Reid was the next Schottenheimer before he became Reid. Pete Carroll had failed twice as an NFL head coach before he was as old as McDermott is today. People change, they grow, they develop, especially people who model their behavior based on a growth mindset. I think McDermott has a much better chance of being the next Reid than the next Schottenheimer.

Hah, I try not to say bad things about Rex, so in those years it was hard to say much at all. It's a measure of how desperate ESPN is that they hired him as analyst. He rarely has anything useful to say. I'm pretty sure that Josh in fact said post-game that he needs to be better at sliding in the pocket. That is, if he'd perceived in real time what actually was happening, he would have moved to get himself to a better place to make the throw. And in fact, that's how these guys think - is there anything I could do better, anything, and how do I learn it? I thought it was great self-awareness. And, in the process, he didn't throw his lineman to the wolves.

Yeah, I do jump to his defense, because I like to think that I've grown to understand a lot about how he thinks and how he approaches his job. And I think his approach has been largely right. I don't criticize like some people here do, because I know I don't understand the nuanced details of offensive and defensive football strategy. I'll see things that I'll question and write about, but I don't presume to understand. For example, I've said here often over the past couple of years that I question whether McDermott's effort to load the roster with swiss army knives really is the best approach. In the thread about Groot, I said that he's one of those guys who is very good in all the categories, and Oliver too, but that sooner or later you just need a flatout playmaker - a Chris Jones. But, yeah, in general, I plead guilty. I write about the current Bills head coach in a positive fashion. Hell, I was on the Jauron train for a lot longer that most. Gailey, I backed him. Even Rex a bit. That's what I do.

Yeah. Interesting. 1. I decided not to be impressed by the winning percentage thing. Seeing your comment, I looked at the list. First, looking just at the list of guys who coached seven seasons, there are about 22 coaches, and McDermott, McVay, and Shanahan are on the top of that list in winning percentage. That's impressive. Of the coaches who coached 8 seasons or more (that is, everyone who's ever coached more seasons than McDermott, McVay, and Shanahan, there are 96 guys. McDermott being 15th in winning percentage isn't quite as impressive as one would think: It's true that getting to 15, his name is with some names like Halas, Shula, Lombardi, and Paul Brown. However, he's also with a lot of guys who won a lot but never won championships. 2. Yes. I always had a sense that that committee had coaches who were respected around the league, but I'd never understood it to be as big a deal as Flores says.

I think that if his job didn't require him to talk to the media, McDermott wouldn't talk to them at all. His job, the business side of his job, requires him to talk to the press. But his real job, the football side of his job, does not involve any obligation whatsoever to talk to the fans. He's just trying to win football games, and talking to the media and the fans contributes essentially nothing to winning football games. Now, we can argue about what it is, exactly, that the business side requires be done with the media. The owners, who ARE the business side, say this, and pretty much only this, to the head coach: "Manage the media as necessary, and don't get us into any controversy." That's the job. Guys like McDermott and Belichick work hard to do that - keep the media under control without causing a stir - in a way that maximizes their time and ability to do their football jobs. Their owners don't ask them to do more than that, because from a business point of view, nothing the head coach says in a TV interview is going to increase revenue. That is, talk as much as you have to while you're out there, but then get out, because we only have downside when we talk to them. The fans tune in because they like our product, not because some coach is a very interesting story teller. Okay, we can say, well, we're the customer, and we buy the products you advertise, and you have a duty to us to give us some honest insights into what's going on. The simple fact is that that is not true. It's like saying we're all customers of Amazon and therefor Jeff Bezos has a duty to tell us his business strategies. There is no such duty. I just thought it was amusing that you are an active participant in a thread about what McDermott said in the media and then you declare that you don't care what he says to the media.