MJS
-
Posts
19,137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MJS
-
-
7 minutes ago, uticaclub said:
If we were a top 3 team over 5 years you think we would have made one Super Bowl.
Not when the top team keeps beating you, though.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, uticaclub said:
Then why does this team feel like it’s not much better than last years?
Because you haven't seen them play yet and because the Bills have been a top 3 to 5 team for years now and any improvements are going to be marginal because they are already really good every year.
5 hours ago, twoandfourteen said:I’m a realist.
I've noticed that every person who claims to be a realist is, in fact, a pessimist.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, NickelCity said:
Weird move. Blue over white was the obvious call
I think the players like the all blues.
-
9 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:
Close but all red and that ridiculous wind chill or whatever its called uniform are worse
I like all reds better than all blues, actually.
-
2
-
2
-
-
My least favorite Bills uniforms.
-
5
-
6
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, twoandfourteen said:
And a roster full of JAGs to show for it.
A top 5 roster in the NFL.
1 hour ago, twoandfourteen said:The only difference between the Bills and those “garbage can” teams you’re talking about is the guy under center.
A deeply uneducated and incorrect statement. It is clear you do not know anything about NFL rosters.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
Bills: 27
Ravens: 30
Multiple turnovers by both offenses. The Bills stall out in the end and lose by a field goal.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, FranchiseSavior said:
The difference between Lamar and Mahomes and to a lesser extent Allen is when Lamar makes a mistake the defense isn't getting him the ball back. Josh can play like complete cheeks and be giving an opportunity to win the game. Lamar was given that very opportunity and marched his team down the field scored the TD hit the TE in his belly and the TE dropped the ball. The silly thing is Josh severely underthrows the TE. The TE makes a heck of a play to get back to the ball an attempt to save his QB and its somehow the TEs fault they lost the game however Lamar hits his TE in the stomach and the narrative is Lamar couldn't get it done.
Lamar Jackson has a much bigger body of work in the playoffs than just that game. He doesn't rise to the moment, in my opinion. He saves his worst ball for the postseason. He has a 3-5 record, with 1,753 passing yards, 10 touchdowns, and 7 interceptions, with an 84.6 passer rating (plus 6 lost fumbles). That's not good enough.
Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes play their best ball in the postseason.
1 minute ago, NewEra said:You just happen to apply the degree of difficulty to the catches but not the actual passes.
Lamar had a routine play, but he double clutched and it threw off the timings. Andrews should have caught it- definitely. But Lamar didn’t execute perfectly.
Josh made an otherworldly throw that, imo, no other QB could make. He hit his TE in both hands. Given the circumstances. Just did a much better job on that play than Lamar did.
I thought the degree of difficulty on Josh’s pass was close to one in a million. And my boy dropped it. 😞 😢 😭
And even if the Ravens would have scored, there was plenty of time for the Bills to go win it after that. A lot of people seem to forget that.
-
4
-
1
-
3
-
-
23 minutes ago, quincy said:
I loved seeing a number 80 playing for the Buffalo Bills on offense but alas not by Shavers this year.
Not seen this posted elsewhere. Still eager to see what he can do when given the opportunity.
Bills' promising WR Tyrell Shavers changes jersey number to match two recent Buffalo stars
Darn. He looked so good in 80.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:
Chargers over Chiefs
Agreed. I don't even think that is a big upset, honestly.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
Shakir played 54% of snaps last year...Cook played 45%
I addressed that. Receivers switch in and out according to personnel packages. Shakir is a slot receiver, so is especially prone to being taken off the field. But the top receivers play much higher percentages of snaps. Ja'marr Chase plays 80-90% of snaps. Derrick Henry plays 60% of snaps, or less. Barkley played 70%. But most "workhorse" style backs play in that 60-70% range while most top receivers play 75-90% of snaps. Running backs need the rest.
-
3 hours ago, Pete said:
I received a D- grade and an 0-14 projection for this team lol
Jared Goff Det - QB
Brian Thomas Jr. Jax - WR
Terry McLaurin Was - WR
Derrick Henry Bal - RB
Bucky Irving TB - RB
Dalton Kincaid Buf - TE
TreVeyon Henderson NE - RB
Bench
Jameson Williams Det - WR
Jacory Croskey-Merritt Was - RB
Keon ColemanBuf - WR
Drake Maye NE - QB
Rashid Shaheed NO - WR
Ray Davis Buf - RB
Your Bills fandom got the better of you, haha.
-
13 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
I don't know about anyone else but right before we play the Ravens, I love that they announced that they rated Lamar above Josh on this stupid list, perfect timing.
I'm pretty sure Josh and Lamar are good friends and support each other. I don't think this ranking is going to change how either of them play.
-
I like it. He could be a great call up if we have injuries.
-
13
-
5
-
-
5 minutes ago, FireChans said:
I think you mean more valuable?
I find the whole topic interesting because I think there's a moneyball market efficiency there somewhere.
Saquon who for sake of example is clear cut RB1 in the NFL.
He had a ridiculous 5.8 YPC on 345 carries and 6.5 YPT on 43 targets. That puts his usage rate at 388 balls given Saquon's way, at a 5.9 yards per.
Chase, let's call him WR1, had 9.8 yards per target. 1.6x more efficient than Saquon.
Chase is making $40M AAV. Saquon is making $20M AAV.
So despite Chase not quite being twice as efficient as Saquon, he makes twice as much. Now, factored into that price point is youth, upside, and longevity.
I think there's some way to manipulate the numbers so that paying a player like Cook is a better value than signing a mid-tier FA WR.
This is all spot on. And it is why the NFL moved from a run heavy league to a pass heavy league. It is just way more efficient. The more plays you have to run in order to score, the more likely you are going to get stopped. Passing the ball is almost twice as efficient as running it. Yes, it is also more risky, but teams are willing to take those risks because it has shown time and time again that it is worth it.
We moved back toward running the ball, but it is never going to return to what it was. Passing is always going to be more important and more efficient. Hence, receivers get paid a lot more money. But let's not pretend like it is all receivers. You can get bargain receivers who can produce for you, but the bargain receivers still get paid a lot more than the bargain running backs. And they should. Passing is better than running.
-
24 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
Virtually nobody can handle the rigors of the position. Yes there are a lot of people who can do 70% of what an elite running back becomes because you play them 70% of the snaps...what if you played them 50% of the snaps and got 100% of their ability for a much longer time?
Why do they need that many carries? I think the bills have shown with Cook that it doesn't need to be that way...and they aren't spending a lot on Davis or Johnson at all.
But yeah, the long line of talent is not better than or as good as the best running backs, unless you grind the best running backs into the ground with too many carries.
Sure, which is why so many teams have gone to a committee approach. It takes less off of your starting back, but that also makes you less valuable to your team because you are doing less. It isn't complicated. The more you do, the more valuable you are to the team.
Meanwhile, the rest of the offense is able to play close to 100% of snaps and only come off the field for different formations and personnel packages. Pretty much only running backs need breaks. Sometimes receivers if they run a bunch of long routes in a row.
-
2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:
I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...
The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense. The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard. I think the RBs have a point.
It takes more talent to get open, create enough separation, and catch a pass than it does to grab a handoff and run for a few yards while having literally the rest of the offense besides the QB blocking to create space for you. Two way different skill sets. One of them is more rare. A lot of running backs can step in and get the production that is created for them from the oline and scheme. No matter what, a receiver is always going to have to create their own separation by running good routes, and they always have to be sure handed enough to make the catch. Scheme can help receivers, but they are mostly alone in what they have to do to get production.
-
5 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
Oh I get that it's a physical position... I'm talking about who says they need to get 350 carries a season?
Look at what the conversation around Cook was during the contract negotiations...he doesn't play enough % of plays
Because the more you can do, the more valuable and harder to replace you become to your team. If they don't need to pay money and roster high quality 2nd and 3rd backs, or scheme around your inabilities, those resources can go elsewhere.
And like I said, if you aren't able to handle the rigors of the position, there is a long line of talent willing to step in and take your job and prove that they can do it.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
Says who on it being the nature of the position?
How is it not? You are running the ball through a gauntlet of large men trying to tackle you. It is a high contact, high volume position.
-
7 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
I was just watching something on Shaun Alexander and how his body broke down basically right after signing a big contract extension. I also think Ricky Williams falls into this category as well.
Both of their teams gave them on way way way too many carries...so much so that Williams decided he needed to take some time off to rest his body in order to essentially survive, and then the amount of vilification he received from that...it was wild and the attacks were extremely personal on him and yeah, it wasn't cool.
What I'm saying is that teams often use their running backs in unethical ways that contribute to their bodies breaking down and then turning around and saying see, the position is not worth paying...except they're largely causing that to happen
That's the nature of the position. There's nothing unethical about it. Durability is really important for a running back. If you can't do it, there is a line of young guys waiting to take your job.
-
19 hours ago, mannc said:
I used to think this was an average or below roster bolstered by a superstar QB, but I no longer think that. There might not be a lot of stars outside of Josh Allen, but it’s a very solid roster. The offensive line is probably the best the Bills have ever had, top to bottom, and I suspect even if Josh missed 5 or 6 games, the team could easily go .500 or better. Key defensive injuries every year have prevented us from getting to the Super Bowl…
Agreed, and it has been like this for awhile. The Bills have a great roster. The only thing we don't have is the one or two elite playmakers at key positions like receiver or pass rusher. I've always said that you need three elite difference makers to win a superbowl, and one of them has to be the QB. We have Josh Allen. Maybe Cook can get into that territory. Benford is an elite corner. But we really need an elite pass rusher.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Running backs have always been very important to offenses. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are so many running backs that can do it. The drop off from the really good ones to just average ones is not that significant. We rocked with Devin Singletary for years, and he is just a below average running back, but it was fine. You can operate your offense just fine with a guy like that. There are a thousand Devin Singletaries, and you can pay just a little bit more and have a pretty dynamic, above average back. There are tons of those guys too.
So, it isn't that demand is low, it is that supply is high. You can find good running backs at any round in the draft. Bring in a cheap free agent and he can get you production. The offensive line is more important for rushing production anyway. And if your running back has a deficiency, that's not a big deal because you can bring in another RB who does that thing well and just have a committee approach.
And the last issue is just the longevity. They break down extremely fast after 30.
So, I'm sorry, but they don't deserve to get paid the big bucks like other positions do. A few of them are getting a little more money, but it isn't really moving the needle that much in the grand scheme of things.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
I would never predict that. But I sure am hopeful!
-
3
-
-
17 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:
Awesome to see you congratulate and celebrate rather than obsess that he's *only* #3 instead of 1 or 2.
Who is obsessing? Discussing the politics of the ranking is not obsessing. It is just a normal discussion. Or are people not allowed to talk about it?
-
1
-
Joe Montana said if he had to choose a QB to start a franchise with, it's JA17
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
I think Allen is more off script than Mahomes.