MJS

Seems like they are just saying all the normal talking points and speculative criticisms. Alright.

That price tag for Shakir seems high to me. He has 1500 yards and 7 TDs over three years. He plays predominantly in the slot. I just don't think he will be paid that much. Maybe 15 per year?

I didn't ignore them. I stated that they were player execution issues, and I believe that. We didn't have many of those issues when peak Hyde and Poyer were playing. My reply wasn't to you anyway.

Anquan Bolden

No, not this year. But last year, absolutely. And even this year, I think we would have been on the road in the playoffs more, which would not have been favorable. Everyone rotates their defensive line.

Because they lost a ton of talent. It was a real issue. And despite that they were able to generate a ton of turnovers which legitimately added to the Bills ability to win games in the regular season and the playoffs.

I think McDermott props up the defense, especially the secondary, and that we see more of the true colors of the team in the playoffs when the difference in talent becomes evident. So yes, I think losing McDermott and changing to another coach would negatively impact the defense in the regular season and result in fewer wins.

That's such a lazy argument, though. You can't cast aspersions at the coach or the scheme when you don't have concrete things to point to besides the result. There are a lot of things that go into those results.

The coaches have and continue to modify their scheme. That's my argument. The Bills aren't doing the same thing on defense they were a few years ago under Frasier.

All of those things are execution issues that require better talent.

He should retire. But he won't. Favre was way better in his old age than Rodgers is.

Yeah, 30 other teams can say the same thing. That's what the offseason is for. You retool, try to bring in better players, evolve the scheme, make new hires in the coaching staff, etc. Heck, even if you make it to the superbowl, you do the same thing.

So, it sounds like you don't have any specifics about the scheme other than man coverage vs zone coverage. Why even talk about the scheme being an issue if you don't know about the scheme or what you would do differently?

In what way?

What specifically would you change with the scheme and what specifically do you think the issues are? Or play calling, etc?

Why is this an issue? All the teams operate under the same rules. All of them have access to the same levers to pull. All of them can structure contracts to include void years. The fact there is flexibility and levers to pull is good. Eventually, the chickens come home to roost. The Saints were pulling all the levers for years, and they've been paying for that now.

That happens so often in the NFL and almost always is nothing. Occasionally, a guy will get a concussion from that, true, but Mahomes didn't appear to have any symptoms.

Yeah, that is huge. The safeties were already average at best, so became a real weakness with one of the starters out. And losing our best player on defense in Benford was a tremendous blow, especially since the game plan was to mix it up and play a lot more man coverage. Going from an elite corner to a shaky, inexperienced bust in Elam was really impactful negatively.

I think we need better players. But yeah, they need to continue to evolve the scheme. And they have been. They ran a lot more man this year and blitzed more. They ran that odd mirror defense with Milano spying that was extremely effective against Denver and Baltimore in the playoffs. That was a really nice scheme. A good pass rusher would really go a long way...

I legitimately believe McDermott is a really good coach and I would be bummed to lose him. That day might come eventually, but I have always been a fan of McDermott. The defense lacks talent and difference makers. And previous years had key injuries in the playoffs.

Frasier had a year left? I thought his contract was expired as well.

He can't pass block, so he isn't on the field during two minute drives or on 3rd down. He is a 50% of the snaps back. Yeah, he is excellent for what he does, but there's a reason he isn't on the field in key situations. No way should he be making more than 10 million per year given the limitations of his game. Every single back on that list is an 80% of the snaps kind of back. Cook is not. They did play him for one snap and he got destroyed trying to pass block. He is a liability when they need to throw it, so he doesn't play those critical downs where passing needs to be an option. He just doesn't have the frame for it.

Shouldn't it be a record every year because the population increases every year? They need to find a way to normalize the ratings from a base year, similar to how they do inflation. Or just report the percentage of viewers to non viewers. The Chiefs getting pummeled might have actually HELPED ratings. I guess we'll never know.

That's impressive if you called it. I wouldn't even know where to start to look up potential special teams coordinators.

There's a great culture with this team. It is a real thing to be proud of.