Shaw66

I don't think TV market size has much, if anything, to do with how valuable a franchise. Individual teams don't share the tv revenue based on their market size. The fact that the NFL shares tv revenue among all teams is exactly what makes smaller market teams viable. It's all about brand value, as you say. In particular, it's how much revenue you can generate in your community. The Bills have among the lowest ticket prices in the league. If they raised all tickets $50 per game, they'd be in line with a lot of other teams. That's $2.5 million per game, or $20 million per season. Some of it is shared with the visiting team (I think not the suite revenue). Net to the home team on all the ticket revenue would be at least $10 million more, probably $15 if you have a lot of suite revenue. $10 million of extra net income a year increases the value of the franchise by $100 million to $200 million. The Bills aren't worth as much as the other teams because their market won't permit them to raise ticket prices that much, and their market won't support a lot of high-priced suites.

I agree with this, but I don't think I said anything that disagreed with it. I agree Kelce and Hill are better than Diggs and whoever, although Davis may turn out to be Robin to Diggs's Batman. And I agree that I would rather have Diggs and a great tight end than Diggs and a great #2. That's all true, but it's different from what I was saying, and what Logic said. In the offense that the Bills have and the offense that the Bills run, a great tight end would not add that much production. Yes, Kelce would catch more balls than Knox, but Beasley and Sanders would catch fewer. Would the net be better? Probably. Would the difference be meaningful, particularly given who it would cost to get a Kelce. Probably not. As someone said, when you have the best passing offense in the league, how much better can you expect it get by adding a player? It's nice to have a great tight end. It's nice to have a great QB. It's nice to have a great wideout. It's nice to have a great player at every position. It's nice, but it's unrealistic. You can't have it all. You have to make choices. In the Bills' case, investing in tight end talent is likely to offer a smaller return than investing in other positions. So, I can see why Beane hasn't chased after a tight end. Just like, by the way, Polian, who didn't see the need to chase after a top tight end when he had Reed, Lofton, and Beebe. Absolutely correct. Dareus wasn't personally dedicated to his craft, and the best player on the team can't be a leader if he isn't dedicated to doing his best. One reason Brady was so great was that he was the hardest working player on the Patriots, year after year after year.

Yes! Always ready for more Edmunds talk.

Favre said it. He said these guys today take better care of the ball than they did in his era.

Thanks. Good stuff, again. I never knew that. The thing about this is that you've only scratched the surface. Every team in the league knows that's what the Bills do, and I'm sure they tinker with their rout trees to try to confuse the corners and the safeties. When number 2 runs a short out and up, if Tre's bitten on the fake too much, the safety finds two guys running deep in his zone. And I'm sure there are much more sophisticated variations off that, too. When you start to think about the ways the receivers can challenge this set, you begin to understand how complicated the defensive processing is back there. The Bills four defensive backs don't get beaten very often, even though they are playing schemes that require them to make quality reads and off receivers to one another. It's an intricate dance.

I think this is right on the money. KC's coaches picked the Bills apart.

Right. Same is true for running back. How many touches does Saquon Barkley get in the Bills' offense? If you make him the workhorse, the receding talent is wasted. And that's why the Ravens have trouble getting high end receivers.

I agree with all of this. TE is the biggest positional hole. However, I also think it's the least important position on the starting 22. Unless you have one of the top 3 TEs in the business, your TE is not the guy who's winning or losing games for you. As others have said, when you're coming at defenses with Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, and Davis, with McKenzie thrown into the mix here and there, your tight end is not going to be an important target. I say the tight end is not important for a couple of reasons. First, if your tight end is your star receiver, he reshapes your offense. He causes your offensive focus to be the center of the field, because that's primarily where he operates. You'd much rather have Diggs and Sanders be your primary threats than Kittles, even though I would absolutely love having a Kittles. You'd rather have the wideouts because they force the opponent to defend the whole field. Tight ends don't. Second, when you do have wideouts like the Bills have, you don't need a stellar tight end. All the TE has to do is be a good route runner. Very few tight ends can generate separation on their own - they get separation by running to the openings created when the defensive backs are chasing good wideouts. Sweeney can get to the open spaces in the defense as well as Kelce can - it doesn't take supreme physical talent to run to those openings. It takes brains and discipline. Is Kelce better? Of course, no question. The question is how many more balls will Kelce catch playing in that offense than Knox would catch in that offense. I think it's less than you think. Why does Mahomes throw a lot to Kelce? Because he doesn't have Beasley, that's why. Kelce is his Beasley. It's the same as punters. Sure, I want the best punter in the league. But the difference in your win total for the year between having the best punter in the league and an average punter is essentially zero. Teams rarely look back at their seasons and say, "we made it to the playoffs because of our punter." Yes, a great punt might actually win a game for you once every few seasons, but it's only slightly more likely that the great punt will come from the best punter as from an average punter. It's just one punt that the punter hit just right, and the average punters in the league hit a lot of punts just right.

I hadn't thought about it, either, but the new IR rules make it easier on the coach and GM. When you have multiple guys down 3-6 weeks, it got tight continuing to carry them all on the roster to keep them available for later in the season. Now, it's much easier to manage that problem.

Yeah, but I think Stevenson might be full go after a week or two. There are two weeks of practice now, and two more weeks before he can be activated. It may have been worth it to the Bills to stash him on IR for three weeks even though he may only need three weeks from today. In other words, it may be about roster management almost as it's about recovering from the injury. This is a convenient opportunity to evaluate the oline and dline situations, for example. And certainly the receive situation. They probably didn't like having to make the receiver decision yet; this buys them three weeks.

I don't think so. I think the TE is the least important guy on the offense, especially in this offense. And it's hard to get a really good TE - you have to burn draft capital on a position that is a real shot in the dark. I think that after the top 5 TEs in the league, it doesn't matter all that much which you have. Would you like one of the top five? Oh, yeah, sure you would, because he will reshape your offense. But the Bills offense doesn't need a lot of reshaping, and it isn't easy to find a top 5 guy. One will come along, but the Bills aren't in a hurry to find one.

Thanks for your intitial explanation and the discussion it started. I now see much more clearly what's going on up front. I never understood why Edmunds lines up on the line so often. I would think "come on, everyone knows he's dropping, why doesn't he line up two yards back, like in a more traditional 4-3?" Well, because he isn't dropping every time. And because he's good enough to drop from there. McDermott always says he wants to get pass rush from four. It's easy to see the technique. He is getting pass rush from four, most of the time. He's able to do it by making it difficult for the offense to understand which four it is. When you plug the A gaps like that, and you have guys who can drop, the combinations of four you can send at the offense can be pretty confusing. And he's apparently a master with the safeties, as well. I remember reading something where one of them was describing how their interchangeable, and how they are regularly disguising their coverage assignments presnap. So, the opposing QB starts the play not knowing where the rush is coming from and knowing where is go-to receiver likely will be. He as to figure it all out on the fly, post-snap.

What people say about McDermott's defense, and McDermott admits it, is that he makes it really hard to make any useful pre-snap reads. He forces the offense to read and adjust post-snap, and on this play it's obvious that someone on the offense didn't adjust. And add to that a growing list of guys who can simply beat their man one on one - Hughes, Oliver, Epenesa, Rousseau, Zimmer, even maybe Basham, and you're putting immense pressure on the offensive line. Those guys don't know who's coming, and the guys who ARE coming can beat you off the ball.

Thanks. That's an example of what I've been saying about Edmunds and not even known exactly what situations show it. His length and athleticism allow him to lineup effectively as a down lineman and still cover the short zones, because he can get out their quickly, but even if he can't get all the way back, his height and length save him.

Yeah, I wasn't sure who dropped. But what I found interesting is looking at the still photo and explanation of how the lineup challenges the offense to go nearly max protect. That formation says "you know that we're sending four, and probably only four, but you have no idea which four. And maybe it's five. And it it's five, the fifth may be a safety, or the slot corner. And maybe it's six. You figure it out." So, then you watch the video, and there it is - Klein and Edmunds coming, some other guys dropping. They don't adjust protections properly, Bills rush four and Wilson's on his back. Simple, consistent look, but it requires your QB, line and backs to be ready for a lot of different things.

Hap I tend to agree catch the ball and be where you're supposed to be, unless you have a special downfield talent. The really good tight ends are threats in their own right. So, although I'd choose TEs by your standard, I think the Bills see Knox as a potential high-reward receiver that Hollister never will be. Knox is downfield threat, and he's a threat after the catch. I'd guess that the Bills think that just the threat of Knox opens up the offense, and it he can emerge as a consistent threat, all the better. I think he probably has really special upside, because it's surprising to me that the Bills are still so invested in him in his third season.

Makes sense. Dabs would rather have the extra blocker who can run his patterns and catch, rather than an extra receiver who isn't a blocking threat when line up tight. It's luxury to be able to add the extra blocker to enhance the running game, especially because the Bills run so much play action. I hear you. Probably means they'll get some comfort by having a practice squad TE who might offer more of a receiving threat that Gilliam or Sweeney.

Thanks. Interesting simple look at it. Easy to see why you need speed in your linebackers. Sticking them right in there and then expecting them to make the necessary zone drops is pretty demanding.

Man, '64 '65 was so great! And four straight Super Bowls, too. Now it's time to win it.

My Dad would have loved the Super Bowl years, but he didn't even make it for that. He'd love what we're seeing now, too.

I used to get flamed when I'd argue that Tyrod Taylor was more or less as good as Cam. I said it not because I thought that Tyrod should be All-Pro, but because I thought that the Cam love always was misplaced. Great QBs have what it takes between the ears. Not many do. Cam doesn't. Still, I find it hard not to like the guy. I wish him well.

70 is when I first realized there may not be much time left.

Still, that's a lot different from five or seven years ago. Then, those final five were the best of ten guys who looked more like development players. Kumerow, Stevenson, Sweeney, Butler, Hamlin, Thomas all look like guys who could contribute if asked to play a significant role today. I mean, seven years ago, if a guy like Kumerow were cut from some team, the Bills were looking to sign him. The problem then was that a guy like Kumerow didn't want to come to Buffalo.

Everything changes when your roster is deep. In the drought, guys on the PS simply weren't ready for the NFL. All you could do was hope they kept developing on the PS, and maybe one day they'd contribute. When one got called up, you were getting just a body to fill out the roster. Now, there will be at least a few players on the practice who are legitimately good enough to be on the 53, but there just isn't enough room. When they get called up, there will be legitimate reason to expect them to perform. Something we're not used to.

Watch your diet, exercise, see your doctor regularly. That's your only hope with the Sabres.