MJS

1989 49ers: Great names like Joe Montana, Steve Young, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice, and Ronnie Lott. The team had 8 all-pros that year.

What is the methodology behind the ranking?

The pants would look better without that silver and purple stripe. They are just OK. I'm not a big fan.

That's what it looks like right now with all the positive press Claypool is getting, but these things usually change once pads come on. The guys who stand out in OTAs are not usually the same as the ones who standout in training camp and preseason games. Still, Claypool had good production his first two years and he has the most physical upside of those in the running for that final roster spot. It would be a big win if he keeps his head screwed on right.

He is 34 years old. And you are still referring to him as a young adult? He is a full grown adult. But I get it. People take longer to grow up today than they ever have.

Mahomes has a 105 passer rating in the playoffs. He has a 120 passer rating against the Bills in the playoffs. Clearly he plays the Bills much better than other teams. Meanwhile, Mahomes has a passer rating of like 85 against the Bills in the regular season. I think the key is that the defense has been decimated by injuries, and the effectiveness of some of the players who were playing was hampered by injuries as well. I think the big reason the Bills have been better in the regular season is because they were healthier at the time. And it isn't that surprising that the Chiefs are more focused and bringing it more in the playoffs. Certainly. But if you look at the list of names of players missing on defense in those elimination games, it makes sense. Maybe it is a cop out, but it is silly to think that defensive injuries hasn't been a major factor.

It was around longer than I thought. I think they officially got rid of it in 2006. So, it was around for more than a decade. But they didn't really enforce it much after a while.

Just watching them win the superbowl. I've been to Bills games, both home and away, and I've seen them do good things and bad things. The only thing I haven't seen them do is win it all. I think I prefer to watch games on TV, including the superbowl. But I do like to get to a game here and there.

I think it would mean something if you were a team like the Chiefs who has been getting there so many times very recently. Then you have multiple superbowls of experiences to look back on and pull from. That's about the same as playoff experience. But for the vast majority of teams, that just is not applicable. Most teams, if they get there, they don't go back year after year. And your team has so much turnover that by the time you get back, if you ever do, the experience doesn't apply. Most of the team is new anyway. Getting to the superbowl every year for the Bills in the 90's I think was at least of marginal value in aiding them in getting back there year after year, even if they didn't win one. I just think there are a bunch of other factors that are much more important. But everything helps, I suppose.

What a prick. But I agree with him. Superbowl experience doesn't mean a whole lot. I think playoff experience means more. You rarely see a team make the playoffs for the first time in a long time and then go on a long run and make the Superbowl. They usually make the playoffs, get beat, and then do better in future years. Not always, of course, but often. I know Cincinnati did that in 2021, but they are an outlier, I think.

Barkley and Ekeler are older now. Barkley is 27 and Ekeler is 29. Plus Barkley has an extensive injury history. They are both on the decline. But we'll see with Cook.

I like that direct snap to the RB play they called a few times. One of my main takeaways watching this game is just how much spread offense concepts have changed the game. Back then it was deep drops by the QB and vertical concepts. It led to a lot of big plays, including lots of sacks and turnovers.

New contracts are always at a premium. Existing contracts are always behind the curve. And if he is a difference maker He'll cost $8m+. And if he isn't a difference maker, why resign him anyway? You might as well bring in some young, fresh legs.

Draft one to replace him. Paying running backs doesn't usually work out these days. If he is only worth 3 million a year, that means he was largely average and not a difference maker. That's less than Devin Singletary got paid. Let running backs like that walk.

They did. They drafted a receiver with their first pick. As they should. And I think all the teams with elite QB's will be doing the same.

Well, having a $35 million per year WR would hamstring the team, in my opinion. It's getting to the point where teams should just draft receivers all the time and let them walk after 4 or 5 years and let some other team pay them QB money. I don't see how a team with a franchise QB can afford elite receivers. The Chiefs saw the writing on the wall and traded away Tyreek Hill.

Does it matter for the Vikings? They haven't won anything with him, and now they don't have a QB. They haven't won a single playoff game with Jefferson.

Now Tyreek Hill will REALLY want a new deal.

I didn't project any stats. I'm saying the Bills are relying on Kincaid and Shakir since they are the constants in a year that the Bills overhauled their receiving targets. Similarly, the Chiefs relied on Kelce as a constant as they have overhauled their receiving targets. Nobody is saying Kincaid is as good as Kelce or that he is a future hall of famer.

You have to account for seller fees. He might be able to sell a house for more in 2 to 3 years, but I still bet he loses money on it because you have to account for at least 5-6% of the future sale price in fees. Plus, the housing market is not great right now. There is no guarantee it will even go up in two or three years.

Yes. Curtis Samuel and Chase Claypool in 2020 were top 32 wide receivers in receiving yards. But it is also a moot point because the Bills have turned over their receiving room and have a bunch of young weapons like Coleman, Shakir, and Kincaid. We are at the very beginning looks of the new weapons. They aren't proven yet. The Chiefs didn't have a top 32 WR going into last year. They had a bunch of young guys. One of their receivers barely cracked the top 32 in Rice at the end of the year. They did have Kelce at TE, though, and that covers a lot. The Bills have to take a step. They are in year 1 of rebuilding their receiving room. But Kincaid and Shakir will both get way more targets and we've seen how good they can be. Will they both be top 32 in receiving? I don't know, but I think it will be close even if they aren't. And if it isn't Shakir, it will be one of the other receivers like Samuel or Coleman. But just like the Chiefs relied on Kelce to be the consistent force last year, the Bills are relying on Kincaid to be that for the Bills while the receivers get up to speed.

You believe that the Bills currently do not have a top 32 receiver on the team? I guess that is your belief. I'm not going to make that assumption. I'd rather look at the results. I find it hard to believe that the Bills won't have a top 32 receiver in receiving production. That would be a failure and would likely require a lot of injuries, perhaps including to Josh Allen.

I didn't make that argument. You are putting words in my mouth. I stated that you don't need a top 5 receiver. I never said that anyone else argues that you do, although of course there are fans who believe that a top 5 receiver would get you closer to a superbowl. But I might argue that you need a top 5 TE. I think that moves the needle more than a top 5 receiver would.

What team are we discussing that doesn't have a top 32 receiver?

I specifically mentioned top 5 receivers. Aiyuk was not a top 5 receiver. He was 7th in yards and 19th in TD's. And what has Aiyuk done in the postseason? His postseason stats are pedestrian. Just like Steph Diggs had pedestrian postseason stats all the time despite being elite in the regular season. And we are talking receivers, not TE's. I think there is better correlation to getting to the superbowl with elite TE's versus receivers. Top 32 in receiving? Really? That does not make you an elite receiver. In no world was Rice an elite receiver. And what do you mean I don't follow the rest of the league? I do. Why would you make that assumption?