Shaw66
-
Posts
9,884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
2 hours ago, JJGauna said:
So how did it compare to opening day at the Colosseum?
Did you know that in the Olympics in ancient Greece the athletes competed naked? I never missed those.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I was and I do.
New Highmark? Maybe.
Oh, and I was at the first regular season game at the Rockpile.
-
12
-
1
-
13
-
-
3 hours ago, Sweats said:
I'm quite certain that the BBMB was shut down because of me.......that forum just wasn't ready for my great insightful football mentality/philosophy that i brought to the table each day.
...........and also, i was a bit of an ass
The man who brought down an empire!
-
There is nothing - NOTHING - about the Bills on the business side of the house that is not about making money. Nothing. The NFL is about making money, and the NFL effectively requires that each of its teams be about making money. Jerry Jones gets richer only if the other 31 teams are getting richer, too.
The owners will not tolerate a team marketing itself by criticizing it's own product. Lexus doesn't do that. Facebook doesn't do that. No successful business organization does that.
Why did the Bills pull the plug on the Buffalo Bills Message Board? Because it didn't make any money. Why did they pull the plug on the Jills? They didn't make any money. The day Steve Tasker starts criticizing the Bills, the Bills will pull the plug on him. Pretty simple, and to expect otherwise is naive.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, longtimebillsfan said:
Hi:
This was not the first game in Rich Stadium. It was the first regular season game.
The first game was vs Washington. On the opening kickoff, Herb Mulkey ran back the kickoff d=for a touchdown.
I was there.
Yes, I am old.
I was there too. I remember nothing about the game.
3 hours ago, JimmyNoodles said:Remember, they gave out a souvenir coin with the stadium on it.
And a card. I still have both.
-
3
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
No
Hah!
No comment?
Or, no, the Bills don't need a high priced back?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:
There's pry some hesitancy with 1st round corner by Bills fans because of Elam not working out and CB being an obvious need going into that draft. T. White did though picking near the end of the 1st round. I'm not sure if that was a Whaley or McDermott pick though. If another potential T. White like corner falls into the mid 20's I could see the Bills moving up.
I can't say you're wrong, but I'm not sure you're right, for a different reason. I don't think it makes sense to count on finding a T White at 27. T. White was a finished product the day he arrived. He got better, sure, but he was a guy the Bills could on the field and they were going to get very good all-round play. That kind of talent typically doesn't fall any more.
But more importantly, as much as they'd certainly love to a true stud corner, I think the Bills would rather have a true stud linebacker or a true stud defensive lineman. A true stud playing in the front seven is in or around the ball on a much higher percentage of the plays than a DB, and being close to the ball has more value to the team. A Myles Garrett or a Chris Jones is much more disruptive to the offense than anyone other that a true stud shut-down corner. And even with a great corner, offenses adjust.
-
1
-
-
I read the title of this thread and thought that Lull was a free agent I should know about. Does he play offense or defense?
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:
I get the everybody eats stuff,but when you have a Kincaid etc, then you find a way to scheme them open. So yes quite a bit of it is on Brady.
Actually, I think it works sort of the other way. You design schemes that get everyone open, one guy this play, another guy the next. Then, within that scheme you begin to see opportunities to use your best players' talents to attach more spaces.
I think, for example, that that's how Kelce has caught so many passes. They have schemes to get everyone open, and then they use Kelce's special skills -mostly his brain and understanding of how the offense works, to get to spots on the field from within the scheme. I think, for example, that the difference between Knox and Kincaid is that Kincaid's skills allow him to attack open spots in the defense better than Knox's skills would allow him to do that.
So, it's not creating plays for Kincaid (although there is certainly some of that) as much as it is letting Kincaid's skill take advantage of what's already there. For example, the play call may send the tight end up the seam. Every team will run that pattern, and the Bills have run it with Knox since he's been in Buffalo. But when a healthy Kincaid runs it, he can get separation that Knox can't. Or he can challenge the defense in a way that Knox can't. The Bills will send Knox on that route, and other teams will send their tight ends on that route; it's just Kincaid is the kind of guy who can get more out of the play than the average tight end.
-
2 hours ago, Logic said:
4. Joe Brady, in my opinion, failed to deploy both Kincaid and Knox in ways that best highlighted their respective abilities. As much as I like Brady, one concern I have about him is his ability to use premiere playmakers to their strengths in the passing game. We saw it with Diggs, then Cooper, and in my opinion, we've seen it with both Knox and Kincaid.
I'm not a good enough observer to know any of this for sure, but I think the focus on Brady is correct. I don't think it's limited to premiere playmakers. The intention of this passing game is to, by design, stress the defense so that they can't defend every area on the field. That's how they intend to create opportunities for receivers, premiere or otherwise. By my eyes, that wasn't happening as the season progressed. The easy throws that Allen got earlier in the season evaporated.
I think a lot is on Brady.
-
1
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
I just don't know if we are committed to this offense if he is ever going to be as good of a fit in it as Dawson Knox. I realise he will not be traded. And it makes 2025 make or break for him. If he makes, great. If he breaks, his value might be lower next offseason. But I understand Beane not wanting to give up on consecutive first round picks in the same offseason. That would not look good on his resume.
Someone said they don't think Kincaid ever will be the focal point of the passing offense. Tight ends essentially never are the focal point. Tight ends are guys who take advantage of opportunities created by the offense. They don't get separation on their own. Even Kelce, pretty much all he does is run to where the open space is. He understands their spacing exquisitely, and he and Mahomes are good at seeing the same opportunities.
In his rookie season, Kincaid showed the ability to be available in the open spaces in the defense. His problems last season may have been injuries, may have been changes in how the Bills were defensed and how Brady adjusted - or failed to adjust - the scheme. What we saw in 2023 was a guy who could be a real weapon in the offense, but he only can do that when he's reasonably healthy and when the wideout passing offense is working effectively. As much as I've been a believer in the "everyone eats" passing scheme, one or some or all of the wideouts collectively have to emerge as downfield passing threats for Kincaid to be the threat Beane, McDermott, and the fans all envisioned when he was drafted.
-
4
-
-
No, he will be a pocket QB like Elway and Roethlisberger. He will not go down like a bag of goose feathers like the goat did.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
Milano was supposed to make $9.375M base salary in 2026 plus whatever bonuses he was scheduled to make. Almost no chance he is making that on the open market next year. He is also willingly giving up $3.6M in salary this year and is not likely to earn all of it back, as his agent would have made very clear to him.
No player who takes a pay cut is "betting on themselves." Agents would never advise that. They're just accepting the reality that if they get released they're likely to take an even larger pay cut from their next team.
The positive spin about Von taking a pay cut out of the goodness of his heart was a total fabrication. The team knew he was going to be suspended and came to him with a compromise that favored them, and he smartly took it because the alternative was to get cut and make even less money on the open market.
I would think that aphorism doesn't ring true for a 30+ year old player with a vast injury history. Make no mistake - Milano didn't want this, but it was the lesser of two evils.
I hear you, but there's a lot going on in these situations. As we know, the recent trend has been for teams in contention to pick up free agents in October, stars probably past their prime, in the hope that they'll bring a spark to the team at a key position. In Miller's case, I think he really was betting that he'd shine in 2024 and be worth a lot to someone midseason in 2025. If not betting, hoping. Yes, he knew the Bills would cut him, but he was eyeing one more nice pay day, even if it wasn't a mega-contract. A one-year $12 million deal looked pretty nice to Bosa, and I'm sure Miller was hoping he could perform well in 2024 and get a similar one-year deal.
In Milano's case, it's even more true. He knows he's done in Buffalo and is at risk of being cut now if he doesn't redo his deal, he believes he still can play, and the chances of his catching on with a team and getting another nice deal. He also wants to stay with the Bills this season to have a run at a championship. If he has a good season, being a free agent next year is much better than in two years.
All three guys - Miller, Taylor, Milano, were being told "you aren't worth what we promised to pay you, so much so that it makes sense for us to let you go now than keep you." All three believed in themselves and believed that the best way to collect another big check was to restructure. They all did it because playing in the current year made more sense than getting cut, because all three were coming of seasons that would limit their value in the market. All three were betting they'd have a good final year with the Bills and they'd capitalize on it in free agency in a year.
So, sure, they don't like the message that they'll be cut sooner rather than later, but under that circumstance, the best move is to play one more year, count on making it a good one, and then hit free agency. Getting cut immediately, after a weak season, hurts them in free agency. In that sense, they're betting on themselves, because the plan depends on their having a good current season.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
That's the usual positive spin given by the player side, just like with Von last year. The truth though is that Beane approaches the player and their agent and says something to the effect of "we don't want to cut you, but we will have to under your current numbers" and then they try to find a compromise that works for both sides. The player knows if they get cut they're likely to make even less than the compromise number. The team knows it will be hard to find a replacement player while also paying the dead cap. So it's a give and take from both sides. If you want to phrase it harshly, the team basically tells the player "if you don't rip up your current deal and willingly take less money than we signed you for, you're on your own."
By the way when fans get on James Cook or other players for using hardball tactics or not "playing on the contract they signed," I hope they realize teams do this kind of thing all the time. I don't begrudge either side for it. The initial contract signed is a framework, not a lifetime guarantee. It's a brutal business with players trying to maximize a short career and teams trying to maximize a short championship window.
I think this is the same thing they did with Miller last season. It's kind of surprising to see players put money back on the table, but it happens. As someone said, it's the player betting on himself to make the money back in incentives and to be able to hit the market once more while they may still have some gas in the tank. Tyrod Taylor did it with the Bills, too. He left a lot of guaranteed money on the table, but he was betting that his performance in the short term would be good enough to make him a lot of money in the market. Turned out, he was wrong - he never made up the money that he would have been paid by the Bills. Still, I talked to a sports agent friend of mine who said that from the player's point of view, your objective is to be a free agent as often as possible, because every time you're a free agent it's another chance for a big pay day.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:
Shaw, I'm with you on Benford being good and extremely good piece as used by the Bills.
But the FO has to consider health issues when making this deal. It's a huge risk to the organization.
And it's a huge risk to Benford to turn down a large chunk of guaranteed money with his concussion history.
The health issue may be hard to quantify but the FO and Benford need to do it.
Oh, I wasn't clear. I agree completely that the health question is critical in making the deal. What I meant was I wasn't going to talk about the health issue. I just wanted to talk about the fact that guys are valued differently by different teams because of how the player's talents fit the team. Benford is a really good all-round corner, which is exactly what the Bills want.
Benford is like Rousseau, Oliver, Bernard, Milano, Poyer, and Hyde. They're all guys who are really good at their position, really good, but not explosive play makers, not All-Pros. And all you need is one of those All-Pros. So the question is do you get rid of Oliver because maybe the next DT will be better? No, he's too good. You have to hope the real stud will show up at some other position. Same with Rousseau. And I think it's the same with Benford. He's too good not to keep. But only at a price that properly reflects the injury risk, if there is one.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, sven233 said:
All that said, I watch him and I never see "Best in the League" out of him. No, I am not saying others view him as the best in the league by any measure, but I think that is my point. The numbers say he is in the conversation, but the eye test to me says I don't see a shut down CB deserving of top dollar like he is probably going to get. He is very good at covering guys down the sidelines and in zone. In fact, I will say he is elite at those things. But where my issue with him is when he is lined up against WRs that are great slant runners and when other teams get him running across the field on drag routes. I've seen him get abused on slants, drags, and crossers and it is because he is not a quick twitch guy and doesn't have top end speed to recover when he does get beat cleanly. I will say those routes are hard to cover no matter who you are, but there are those guys that just can throw a blanket over the entire field no matter who they are covering and what routes they are covering even when being asked to do it in mostly man situations. Our scheme plays to Benford's strengths, as it should, but because of that he is not asked to play primarily man coverage for most snaps like other teams ask some of these other top CBs to do against the top WRs in the league. He also very rarely has been asked to travel with a top WR and cover them for an entire game. The Bills primarily ask him to line up on his side and whoever the other team throws over there is the guy he covers. He's not being asked to find WR1 and just shadow him for entire games like the top shut down CBs many times do.
Now I don't want this to look like I am bashing the guy. I am absolutely not doing that. I think Benford is a top CB in this league. Borderline top 5 even. I guess the only point I am trying to make is that I'm struggling to give him money like Stingley just got because I don't view him in the same class as he is. I think he's great and our scheme has played to his strengths which is obviously important. I guess the question I have is if you swapped Benford for a guy like Stingley on a different team if he would have the same success in a different system. If he was forced to be a true lockdown CB in a man to man system, could he do it consistently? I'm just not sure he could. But, I know Stingley would still be a shut down CB here.
Well, I left out your discussion about health, because that's kind of imponderable. It's just very hard to know what his concussion risk is going forward.
But the rest of your discussion fails to recognize an important point: players are worth more to some teams, less to others.
You mention that the Bills scheme plays to Benford's strengths, but then you go on to say he isn't worth top money because he isn't a great shut-down corner. Well, the fact that he isn't an elite shut-down corner should be important to teams that are looking for a shut-down corner, but the Bills aren't. They had Tre White, who in his prime was a top-five shut-down corner, but the Bills didn't use him as that on a regular basis. They required him to play in the scheme, which meant that often he was in zone or he had mixed responsibilities. Most games, he did not switch sides in order to be locked onto the opponent's number one receiver.
A player's value to a his team is based on his skills and the team's needs. What the Bills need is someone who, it turns out, happens to be pretty much exactly what Benford is. It would be nice if Benford had elite shut-down skills, but that would only be a little icing on the cake. What the Bills need is what he offers. That means he's very valuable - and he's tough to replace. The Bills took Elam to be a stud number 1 corner in the Bills system, and they found out how hard it is to find the right guy in the draft. They happened to find the right guy several rounds later.
Unless they're being dumb and making a mistake, teams that need a shut-down corner won't pay Benford at the top of the market. He'll find that out when he shops himself (his agent is already doing it, informally). But even if the Bills have to pay top dollar to keep him, it wouldn't be a bad move, because he is exactly the guy they want and need at cornerback. It's really hard to compete at the top of the league if you don't have the players, and Benford is exactly the right player for the Bills' defense.
-
39 minutes ago, DapperCam said:
A couple years ago maybe. Douglas was terrible this past season. He hasn’t been signed and might not even be on a team this season.He wasn't terrible last year.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Utah John said:
Benford didn't get targeted much because the Bills' other CB was always worse, with Douglas struggling at times and Elam a train wreck. Of course other teams looked the other way.
That's not right. EVERY team has a better and worse corner. That doesn't mean that teams don't attack the stronger corner. There are only certain corners who don't get targeted. And most teams would have loved having Douglas as their #2 corner.
-
1
-
-
I just said this in the Stingley thread; probably should have been here.
I know what I see and don't. I see him around the ball all the time. I see him break up passes. I see him be a solid, aggressive tackler in the run game. I don't see him getting beaten and I don't see him missing assignments or tackles.
I think he's a cornerstone defensive back, the equivalent of Tre White. Solid, all-round football player and defensive back who secures one side of the field for his team. He may not be a truly elite cover guy, but he is elite in this defense.
I think the Bills will be forced to match the market on him. Some team probably will overpay him, and that's what the Bills will need to match.
I think he's a great piece of the backfield puzzle for the next five years. I think if the Bills can afford only to keep one and to lose one, they'll lose Cook and keep Benford.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Really???
How much game film do you watch? How many times have you seen Benford get burned or even targeted over the years?
I don't watch film but trust the guys who do like Joe Marino, Nate Tice, Bruce Nolan and Robert Mayes. Those guys all think he's somewhere in the range of really good to Elite.
Benford's camp was smart to hold out. His price range is probably somewhere between $25-$30m AAV
I don't know what the right price is, but I agree with your analysis.
I don't watch film, either, and I haven't heard what the amateur Bills experts are saying, but I know what I see and don't. I see him around the ball all the time. I see him break up passes. I see him be a solid, aggressive tackler in the run game. I don't see him getting beaten and I don't see him missing assignments or tackles.
I think he's a cornerstone defensive back, the equivalent of Tre White. Solid, all-round football player and defensive back who secures one side of the field for his team. He may not be a truly elite cover guy, but he is elite in this defense.
I think the Bills will be forced to match the market on him. Some team probably will overpay him, and that's what the Bills will need to match.
I think he's a great piece of the backfield puzzle for the next five years. I think if the Bills can afford only to keep one and to lose one, they'll lose Cook and keep Benford.
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, tigerthelion said:
Yeah, but just think of all the gaudy stats Burrow will put up. Burrow knows the team will be lucky to field a decent defense, but he will get his numbers and analysts will talk about how his defense let him down. The year Cincy had a good defense, that showed up in the playoffs, they went to the Super Bowl. Go figure.
It's just so tempting, when you find yourself with two receivers like that and a QB with an arm and great accuracy.
Defensive strategies the Bengals will see:
1. Blistering pass rush to make it tough to have the time to go deep. Burrow is going to get hit a lot.
2. Two-deep safeties.
3. Other strategies to stop the pass.
If the Bengals spend any money on the offensive line, it will be for pass protectors, because if they can't protect Burrow, they will have wasted their money on receivers. In other words, the Bengals almost certainly will have poor run blockers, and they showed a year ago they wouldn't pay a quality running back like Mixon.
All of which means they're forcing themselves to be one-dimensional, and one-dimensional doesn't work in the NFL.
-
This is the exact opposite of what Beane and McDermott.
The Bengals have put all their eggs in one basket - the explosive passing offense basket. They are forcing themselves to be one dimensional, or to try to be balanced without the personnel to have an effective running game.
There's a reason teams in the NFL don't have two #1 receivers. Bengals didn't get the memo.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:
He is dreadful.
Oh, great.
I trust your judgment, so I'm way less than excited about this one.
Still, I gotta believe he's better than dreadful. Bills must see something there, some potential. Can he return kicks?
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:
Even Roseman makes mistakes: Jalen Reagor over jefferson, Wentz extension, agholor, even Huff last year - there's a ton of examples. The key is trusting your eyes in practice and on film, and not waiting too long to make changes and continue to add players to valued position groups.
Thanks for this; it follows on what BeckWater said. Everyone makes mistakes. It's amazing that with all the work the GMs and their staff do, they still miss on plenty of players. From our perspective, it seems easy, but in truth it really is more art than science.
And there's one related thought about GM performance in the draft. People are after Beane because he hasn't hit on any real game changer other than Allen. (As an aside, it's important to remember the magnificent job Beane did trading up and up to get to the place he needed to be to have a shot at Allen. That alone was masterful, and then to have been so right about Allen - amazing.) But as others have noted, you aren't finding game changers drafting 30th every year. Once in a while there's a game changer there, but it's an accident when you hit one. All you can do is keep drafting the Rousseau's and the Kincaids and hope that you get lucky and some guy turns into a HOF talent that 20 GMs missed on.
-
1
-
Bills had the best free agent class according to ESPN
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
The thing about all rankings like this is that they are biased in favor of certain teams over others. In the case of this ranking, it's easy to see how they could have a bias toward good teams. If you have a good team and you pick up Joey Bosa, the commentators think, "home run!" Why? Because the Bills are good and they can see how a talent like Bosa will make them so much better.
No matter whom the Jets sign, the commentators will think they had a bad preseason, because it's hard to see the Jets getting better until there's an answer at QB.
Rankings after the draft are like this, too. Some team that had two first round picks will always be ranked higher than a team that had none. Seems to me, a true ranking of excellence would measure how you did against how much draft capital you started with.
Still, it's nice to know that somebody ranked your team as the best at something.