Richard Noggin

The Bills practicing the shovel pass was actually briefly shown in a brief local TV news segment leading up to the game, and I swear I knew that play was going to be featured. By 1994 the Bills offense was becoming a predictable facsimile of its earlier self, and any new wrinkles were not exactly destined for success.

This thread's back-and-forth is primarily predicated upon the repetition of the misleading headline of the linked source in the OP... We should all be able to recognize that Gabriel Davis has in fact NOT gained 17 pounds THIS offseason, and has in fact only continued a slow and steady body recomposition (not actually a word) that includes gaining maybe 4 pounds since last season ended. Anyone who actually reads the linked text should understand this without having to present nonsense red herrings about dramatic weight gain and how that can negatively affect an NFL WR. It's like a bait-and-switch for online drama queens. Published sports content online is not often beholden to journalistic standards of responsibility, and relies upon lazy and/or slanted commentary for impressions. Anyone in this thread concerned about Davis's weight gain is therefore easily duped or dishonest.

David Boston didn't seem to struggle with adding weight...

No league handicaps success like the NFL, and yet no league is as beloved or as successful. The rewards for excellence are still greater than the substantial subsidies for failure/mediocrity. An intriguing microcosm.

I got it from being absolutely wrong, okay. Is that what you want to hear?! Yeah I was completely ignoring the annual extradivisional, INTRAconference (AFC) division rotation.

Respectfully, I truly hate the idea of FURTHER scheduling punishments for being good the year prior. The NFL already has plenty of parity-minded policies, and it's important that opponents are chosen impartially and equitably. Draft order (which is huge) plus 7 out of 17 opponents each season are currently weighted inversely against prior success. No reason to tack on yet another inconsistent and subjective counterweight.

But you're not actually presenting your idea? This is a complaint (one that I share, btw).

I'm also 43 for a few more weeks. Admittedly, sometimes I have to fight the reflexive, cynical, narcissistic urge to dig for clues to what the deceased might have done to accelerate his demise. Like each early passing is some kind of cautionary tail for me to learn from and avoid, rather than a real life tragedy for everyone involved. It's the "Just-World Fallacy/Hypothesis"...we tend to blame other people for what happens to them. Helps us feel better/more in-control. But it's wrong-minded. Our instant access to so much news means we learn about more deaths than we used to, so anyone who dies who had any connection to us or our interests is brought to our attention. It's a lot to manage in a world of increasing entropy and decreasing empathy. I'm sorry for his family and friends.

Agree with Cam as closest physical comp, and on the field with respect to power running tendencies. Cunningham had more freakish speed and arm talent than Cam, but due to a slighter frame was a different style of runner. Amalgamate the two and you've got something very close to Allen's physical traits. Not quite there, but close.

Commendable work overall with respect to music and splicing, but repetition of the same two device throws wears out quickly.

That's sexual assault from my perspective. No ambiguity. Coincidentally, Antonio Brown was accused of basically the same exact thing, and unsurprisingly, did not receive much in the way of NFL punishment for that (as far as I know).

All of the ELITE QBs you've mentioned here are smaller than Allen, and at least two have less arm talent and at least two are less gifted runners. Therefore, they are ALL less "talented," despite being awesome. Cam Newton and John Elway are maybe the closest physical comps? Newton has the size and athleticism but not quite the arm. Elway has the early career running and arm strength, but not quite the size. Maybe Randall Cunningham should be mentioned?

Okay, Mr. Weo. Mr. Weo, okay. But hitting on Josh Allen at #7 DOES have us looking back and saying "yeah [and] they got Edmunds, T Johnson, Neal and (you lump together/dismiss the SOLID picks that moved on or were moved to) other teams' rosters."

Goodnight, moon

So sweet of the landlord to apologize to the fanatic squatters he's been caring for.

I love the reliable ebb and flow of the bulls and bears on this board. Set my serotonin clock to it.

Soldiering isn't an individual competition, you absolute chucklehead. It's the ultimate TEAM sport. Risking one's own wellbeing for the protection/benefit of the larger whole is, in fact, ELITE SOLDIERING. And I'm usually the last person to celebrate warfare. But your take, wow...truly embarrassing.

More a case of a couple false steps than it is a bad angle. He had contain but bit to the inside and then couldn't recover. Sometimes you have to be willing to let someone else overpay...even if it hurts in the short term...

Josh Allen three years ago?

I get why fans love it, and why it's a great look for the org.

This is probably a popular opinion, and one that I agree with. A 31-year old Jordan Poyer might not be worth a TOP dollar safety money extension, given the full context of the roster and cap. And that seems like a smart position: the Bills can't keep paying TOP dollar to BOTH safeties without sacrificing elsewhere. Too much of a luxury when you've already got a Josh Allen and a Stefon Diggs and a Tre White and a Von Miller and a Matt Milano, etc. The problem with this sober, logical approach to cap allocation moving forward, is that Poyer might force the issue sooner rather than later. Letting him play out his current deal is probably what most Bills fans/execs would prefer, but that seems to be an unlikely option. Poyer showing up to minicamp was apparently predicated upon some kind of good faith negotiations and assurances. The Bills either work out SOME kind of expensive extension/raise, or they suddenly have a hole/distraction at SS. Bottom line.

I think we DO know what caused Moss to fall out of favor: he wasn't a good fit as the Bills rushing attack moved away from zone blocking schemes down the stretch last season. Throughout his tenure, McDermott has wanted the Bills to be a primarily zone-based rushing offense (more specifically outside zone), evidenced by his early hires (Dennison et al) and by his most recent hires (and interviews), but not previously matched by the personnel dept (too many subpar athletes on the OL to run it effectively). I commend them for adapting last year to the pin-and-pull and more gap-based approach that the line could actually execute at a high level. Aside from Kromer, the Bills interviewed OL coach candidates who were all proponents of zone blocking (and again, wide zone specifically). Moss fits into this organizational desire to run that kind of offense. I think, with two years remaining on his rookie deal, and a potentially better fit, he gets more time.

Not unlike partisan politics and the 24 hour news cycle. When there are only two "teams," there isn't a lot of room for nuance. I actually think that Mayfield, when healthy, IS in fact a decent NFL starter who can show flashes of high end production. I also think that he came into the league pretty darned close to his ceiling, so there isn't much room for growth. (And did himself NO favors playing through the shoulder injury last year; funny how he gets very little praise for being a gamer.) Kind of like Tua, but with an actual NFL arm. Tua is out here trying to succeed in the 2022 NFL with 2010 Chad Pennington's arm. He's better than his physical traits indicate (like Mayfield), but ultimately capped.

Admittedly I'm underinformed on the entirety of the Watson saga, but didn't the PLAYER refuse to play again for his team last year (like prior (just barely) to the emergence of these allegations and consequent lawsuits)? Didn't he essentially allow the NFL to NOT make any difficult decisions on his availability last season? I could be missing important info (often am). But under my recollection of events, there is ZERO case for any "time served" considerations. Only post I hadn't yet read when I replied. Also my understanding of how it played out last year, of course.

The ship has sailed on the "jailed" part of this preferred consequence equation. All we can hope for now, if we care about consequences for heinous actions, is significant short term financial penalties, medium term professional punishments, and lasting personal stigma. It's not ideal, but when dealing with the ultra rich and famous, it's about as good as it's going to get.