Shaw66

I agree. It used to be much more common for guys to do what he did - let himself go and then diet like crazy to get ready for the season. I was surprised to see him so overweight. Still, his diet was pretty incredible. The flip side is I heard a retired offensive lineman interviewed on the radio, and the interviewer commented about how fit the guy looked. The retired player said he weighed 190, and that he had eaten enormous quantities of food to maintain a playing weight around 300. When the season ended, he would drop to "only 260" or something in the off-season, then eat his way back up to his playing weight. Once he retired, he started running and returned to really was his normal weight under 200. He said there are a lot of pro football players like him, which means they are "dedicated professional" athletes who are trashing their bodies to carry the weight to play the game. Cuts both ways.

I think he's Pete Retzlaff, the best Eagles tight end of all time. He was wide out turned tight end. He'll be guy who isn't quite suited physically to his position, bit he's just too good not to play. He has the potential to be a regular 1000 yard receiver.

Sean McVay and Matthew Stafford? You can be sure there were plenty of people saying it's only one game when the Bills beat them to open the season. They were wrong; it was an indication of how good the Rams actually were.

I'm not saying either, but there's nothing wrong with people who have this opinion. Russell Wilson lost a similar one point game to open the last season, and it have been completely correct for someone to have blamed Wilson and said the Broncos have issues. The reality of the league is that almost every season there is a team that most people consider to be a lock to make the playoffs and don't, like the Rams last season. It happens, and a few people can actually see it coming.

This is true, but it's also one of the interesting thing about the NFL schedule. Even though we won't know until December to know who these teams really are, the L on the Chiefs schedule counts just as much as a December L. Pretty much everyone in the AFC has what looks like a tough schedule. Over time, of course, some of those teams will turn out to be easier outs than we think today, but most teams are simply going to have a tough schedule. Getting Ws rather than Ls is going to be difficult every week. Starting with an L is significant, especially a non-conference L. KC's AFC gauntlet hasn't started yet, and they're 0-1.

I just think you go for it because you have Mahomes. They didn't lose the game on that play. Mahomes didn't play great, but they didn't give him much help. That's where EB may very well have been missed. Yes, but the call sheet that Reid works from is designed by the OC.

Yeah, but I think Goff's average, what you can expect from him, is not what he looked like when he went to the Super Bow. He was a decent QB who had the benefit of a coach who helped him excel. I think he makes it less likely that his team will be great. If you want to be consistently great, you need a Mahomes or Allen or Burrows or Rodgers or (name a couple more who are on the cusp). If Goff wins a Super Bowl, it will happen because he had a career year that came together with a lot of other fortuitous things. Mahomes already has won two because his average years look like Goff's career year.

I don't think it matters. Plus, you probably lose the two minute warning any way. Punt plays take six or seven seconds when you figure the time to get the ball to the punter, hang time, and return. In that situation, Lions probably don't catch the punt, but let it bounce. Unless the Chiefs are really lucky, or succeed in punting out of bounds, the clock is going to run to the two minute warning. Which is what it did anyway. All of those things are possible. But if I have Mahomes or Allen or Lebron or Steph Curry, I want to give him another touch.

Whaddya mean? It was the first game of the season, and it's the only thing to talk about. It's also the Chiefs, and a loss by the Chiefs is important. And it was an opportunity to see what this year's version of the Chiefs look like, because before too long the Bills will be in that stadium trying to beat them. Certainly worth talking about, whether you're interested or not.

Beck - I am definitely flattered. I've written that a couple of times, but I don't think anytime in the past couple of years. It was a hockey game. Yes, it was an epiphany. It was so clear that those women were really focused on their bodies and how they looked, and suddenly it dawned on that of course they would be because their partners were also focused on their bodies. Think about what Dawkins did. It was, apparently, five or six weeks, 35 or 40 days, where EVERY DAY he: (1) drank 100 ounces of water before he ate anything. Think about that. Eight glasses of water before eating anything. (2) Ate a salad for lunch. (3) Ate a salad for dinner. (4) Maybe had a protein bar. That's it. Every day. I couldn't eat my favorite food every day for six weeks, but that diet? These guys are focused on their performance in ways that, to be honest, aren't normal.

I didn't ignore it. I mentioned it. It's a risk. But at that point in the game, you have to take risks somewhere. I just think that if you have a Patrick Mahomes, or a Josh Allen, the difference between giving him five chances with the ball and six chances with the ball is big enough to take the risk. When you have a guy who can win the game for you, I think your decision making has to be skewed in the direction of giving him the ball as often as you can, and the risk be damned.

You're talking about the Lions, which is fine. You can have your opinion about how they're going to do. I don't have an opinion. That's fine. As for the trend, I think it's clear. There's been a very clear shift in the league, in terms of defensive strategy, in that more teams are following what was McDermott's lead. Get pressure with four and try to limit the blitzes. Play more zone (announcers last night said the Lions have gone that way), and stop the downfield passing game. Defenses are getting good at that. Mahomes didn't have success going deep last night, and Allen had more trouble last season as teams were forcing him to play the short game. When your passing game is limited to short passes, because the defense is putting defenders deep, running becomes a more effective tool. Why? (1) Because with defenders deep, you don't find as many tacklers in the box between the tackles and, (2) the differential between yards gained per pass attempt and yards gain per rushing attempt shrinks. I think it's undeniable that it's happening. Last night, the Lions forced Mahomes to throw short, and the Chiefs didn't take advantage by running more effectively. The Lions didn't run great, either, but they had their moments when they hurt the Chiefs with the run. The Chiefs weren't balanced in their offense, and increasingly, being balanced is important. I think it's clear that the Bills intend to be more balanced this season. Why? Because if you can hurt people with the running game, then the mid-range passing game becomes more effective, and it's easier to hurt people with Davis and Kincaid and Knox taking advantage of the open spaces. As I've said, it's up to Dorsey.

You have to assume that your defense will not give up the first down. If you're defense is going to give up the first down, then by all means you should go for it on 4th and 25, because otherwise you're going to be in total desperation mode.

Absolutely. The game is so much easier when the script works, and it's up to the OC to write a script that works. The definition of "works" is that a receiver is getting open on schedule somewhere and quarterback makes the reads on time to see that the guy is getting open. Then it's easy throw and catch. To raise a sore subject, I think that's one reason that Davis was disappointing last season. Davis wasn't open, either (1) Josh blew the read and threw to the wrong man, or (2) the scheme didn't work, so no one was open and just just did the best he could. It also could mean Josh should have audibled. No. 2 receivers need the scheme to work and need the QB to recognize who the open guy is in the scheme. Last night, a variety of things may have happened. One is that the Chiefs' game plan may have been faulty, because they didn't have a lot of film of the Lions. They may have been outschemed. Even so, the receivers let them down. Mahomes didn't seem to have easy places to go with the ball as often as in past seasons. Certainly Kelce would have given him a few more easy throws. But the receivers on the field didn't look like they were helping, and then there were the drops. Mahomes' throws weren't always perfect, but that doesn't excuse the drops.

I think you have to go for it on 4th and 25. You're only chance of winning is scoring, and it's almost certain that the only way you're going to score is on offense. Yes, it's possible they'll muff the punt or turn it over after you punt, but the chances of either of those happening are slim. You have to score, and you have to score on offense. If you punt, and stop the Lions on three plays, you get the ball back with maybe a minute 40 and no timeouts. If you go for it and don't make it, and if you stop the Lions on three plays, you still get the ball back with a minute 40 left and timeouts. MAYBE, the Lions get a field goal. But the point is, the ball with minute 40 and no timeouts is maybe five or six plays, excluding downs you burn clocking the ball. I think at that point in the game, having one more offensive play, even if it's fourth and 25, is more valuable than the field position you might lose. You need to give Mahomes every opportunity with the ball that you can. And maybe on fourth and 25 the Chiefs gain 20. Then if the Lions go three and out, they punt and you're in the same position you would have been in had you punted instead of going for it. So, by going for it, the Chiefs got an extra offensive play, and that point in the game, having that play is very valuable. It didn't work out, but I think the decision was correct. Mediocre QB, maybe you make a different decision, but I know that if it's the Bills in that situation, I want to put the ball in Allen's hands. Either way, if you fail, you have to rely on your defense for a stop, but only by going for it do you have an extra chance for your QB to make a play.

I didn't say they were great running the ball, and I didn't say they can win just with that they have. My point is that they, like many teams, have decided that they're going to feature the run more than was common a few years ago. Coaches are figuring out that it's gotten more difficult to pass than a few years ago, and one of the reasons is that defenses (including the Bills' defense) are selling out to stop the pass. That's why the Bills play a slot corner instead of an outside linebacker in a 4-3 alignment. As teams have sold out to stop the pass, running is getting easier, so coaches have realized that featuring the run is a viable way to build an offense. See Ravens, 49ers, Titans. The pendulum is swinging, and the Lions clearly are part of that trend.

That's true. He needed pinpoint accuracy on some second-half throws, and they weren't there. The thing about the great QBs is that when they get in great offenses, they're completely deadly. Mahomes and Brees are/were at their best when the offense is creating a lot of open throws, because they make those throws over and over again. (I think, for example, that Goff never will be a star, because he isn't consistently accurate.) When the offense fails to generate a lot of those open throws in rhythm, even the great ones have trouble. That's why I've thought all year that Dorsey is perhaps the most important key to the Bills' success this season. His job is to have an offense that flows, that generates open receivers on schedule. If that's what Josh is looking at, and if he's patient, Josh can be deadly. Still, I saw Mahomes' greatness last night. He knows exactly what's going on. Several times they showed Mahomes after a play had failed, and he was make this signal with his hand, as if to say, "Come on, come on, give me the next play." He's really focused, always thinking about what he should be. Someone drops a pass, he may make a little gesture, but you can see that he doesn't dwell on it. He just moves on.

It's the re-emergence of the running game in the NFL. At first it was just Tennessee, then the Ravens, and now it's the Lions. And other teams. If you can run on first down and get five yards (or more) on a lot of those plays, which is what the Lions did, you can control a lot of games. With teams so focused on stopping the pass, running has been getting easier. I believe that's why the Bills like Spencer Brown and wanted Torrence. I'm guessing that this season, finally, we'll see the Bills be serious about running the ball, because McDermott wants to take what the defense is giving. If the passing game is solid, running is going to get easier, and stopping the offense will be a bigger challenge.

Oh, I disagree. His decision making was superb. His movement in the pocket is excellent, and his decisions to run are almost always correct. Give him a 10-yard completion instead of the pick six that was totally not on him, and his passer rating was in the 90s. Give him a better receiver (Kelce, or a wideout), and Chiefs would have cruised. All they needed was one score. There is no one better.

I had a few observations: 1. Great to have real, live football back. 2. Chiefs crowd made some noise. They have good fans there. 3. Defenses are catching up with the offenses. Kelce or no, the Chiefs didn't look anything like the high flying out fit everyone has grown to fear. 4. In particular, fast aggressive linebacking was on display. 5. Mahomes is outstanding. He's a great decision maker, in the pocket and on the run. Physically, I love Allen, but he needs to think his way through the game the way Mahomes does. 6. 3 notwithstanding, Chiefs win with Kelce. I just kept thinking about how Kincaid could have a similar kind of impact on the Bills offense. 7. Lions were wired to begin the game. They have to grow up and recognize that it's about being really good on every down, not emotionally explosive for a quarter. Still, give them credit. They didn't back down, and they put together a beautiful drive to win the game. Campbell sure seems like an inspirational leader. Fake punt was amazing. 8. The rookie Campbell would be nice to have in the middle, for sure. When I saw his pass break-up, my first thought was, "When did I ever see Edmunds make and athletic reaction like that break up a pass completion?" I'll be happy if we see Bernard do that. 9. Lions' fan turnout was impressive. 10. I like Collingsworth was not one of his better nights. Great as Mahomes is, the announcing has to be better than just chuckling and slobbering all over him. 11. January is a long way off, and the Bills have to take care of business rather than watching scoreboards, but it never hurts to be up on the Chiefs. Beat the Jets, and it's like the Bills have a head start on home field. If the Bills have to play the Chiefs in January, let's finally play them in Orchard Park.

There's another aspect of this that no one has talked about. By "this," I mean the original data showing that 46% of draftees are on the roster. The GM's concept of what needs to be done to construct a team also has to be considered. Yes, there are discussions to be had about how good or not so good the draftees were, what the batting average and slugging percentage is. However, there's also questions about the proper mix of free agent and draftee additions, Do you really want a roster of 53 guys, all of whom you've drafted? I don't think so, because if you're having that kind of draft success, you start having cap problems as these guys' rookie contracts expire. Especially when you factor in the experience that some guys can bring to your team at a lower price, it means that your team will be better. And success also is affected by the constant churning of the roster, generally, and that churning has to be managed. In view of all that, what's the optimal mix of drafted vs. free agent acquisition? I don't know. But I do think that Beane and McDermott are trying manage all of it to achieve a particular mix of athletes who can win. Either the team that they're building toward will win a Lombardi soon, or the Pegulas may lose faith in their particular team-building philosophy.

You guys are having a great discussion. I've enjoyed reading some of it. Happy, I think you're largely correct. The fact is, winning is a lot about teamwork, how athletes play together, and in some (certainly not all) cases it just isn't that important to have great talent at a position than it is to have good talent everywhere. I've saying that's particularly the case at middle linebacker, for example. I think Beane and McDermott may actually think for the team in general, teamwork is the most important thing. And I'd suggest that one reason we see Beane not having had much success at drafting true difference-makers is that he's not looking for those guys as much as we might like. I think their philosophy is that good athletes can learn to play together in ways that give them an execution edge, and that edge is (in their opinion) more valuable than the talent edge. That's really what McDermott is about. He wants a team of full of wrestlers who desperately want to win and who live to be part of a team. That's why we see guys like Spencer Brown and Terrel Bernard and Greg Rousseau and A.J. Epenesa getting drafted, guys who maybe can do a lot of different things for you, so you can teach them to be effective in multiple offenses or defenses. (And that's why they value depth players like Bates, too.) Before I start an argument, I'm not saying that's a good thing. I subscribe to the notion that you have to find a really key contributor in the draft from time to time. A guy like Micah Hyde (I know he wasn't drafted); what I mean it's important to add a guy like Micah to your team from time to time, a guy who isn't just good at his position, he turns out be almost essential to your success. You gotta find a Kyle Williams or Matt MIlano in a later round, or you gotta find a transcendent player in the first round. You have to hit on someone, on an Edmunds or a Rousseau or a Kincaid, because the player you hit on CAN make a difference. What I'm saying that is Beane and McDermott may have a different opinion. They may value the versatility of some high-value players like Gabriel Davis or Groot over what the Bills would have had if those guys were less versatile but bigger stars. Why would they value those guys so highly? Because at the core of McDermott's philosophy is the cult of the team, the belief that he can build a military-like machine out of a certain kind of athlete. He believes the machine will be more successful than a team with an extra star or two. That's the vision that the Pegulas invest in every time they extend Beane and McDermott.

This is a really interesting point. My recollection is that when he was drafted, a lot of the decision was supported by the opinion of his college coach, with whom McDermott is friendly, and by the fact that Bernard was, as you say, an extraordinary student of the game. (No one said this, that I recall, but he was sort of like Kellen Moore, a guy with an excellent college career who can at least survive in the NFL mostly on brain power.) The assumption is exactly what you say - that he can learn to do the physical things well enough, but his real benefit should be running the defense and playing mistake-free football. Kind of a Hyde-in-the-middle. That may be what McDermott sees in Bernard. And, by the way, that kind of on-field leadership is something Edmunds never grew into. It will be very interesting to see what happens at that position. I'd guess that McDermott and the coaches have a pretty good idea what to expect from Bernard, where he's going to help and where he's going to be a liability, and McDermott seems to have confidence in him. But we're naturally less confident, because all we know is that for all those great attributes, on the field Kellen Moore was still only Kellen Moore. Is Bernard's ceiling just too low for him to handle the position? It'll be interesting.

The question is whether Bernard has any of these!

There's one other point I've made before, and that's that I believe McBeane that MLB is the least important position on defense. If that's right, they don't think they need talent there that's as great as the talent they need at other positions. Why would that be? Well, for one reason, it's the one position that is surrounded by teammates. The middle linebacker is the only player who's not on an island. Every defensive lineman has to win his one-on-one battles. Milano and Johnson are more often one-on-one, as are the corners and safeties. The middle linebacker is the one guy who can get help from all his teammates around him. Edmunds covered a lot of ground. His replacement will cover less, more like a conventional middle linebacker. So, the defensive assignments of everyone around him will change but not very much. McBeane understood that six months ago, and they decided that they could make those adjustments without hurting the defense. I don't know any of that is correct, but it makes sense to me. McDermott and Beane certainly thought about all of this stuff in deciding how they were going to build the roster. We will see whether their judgments were correct.