Buffalo03

So, don't do it again? I mean, we know what Mitch is

God, Let's just draft a late round guy

Beane: "Hey Deonte, do you remember in Miami last season when you returned that punt for us and changed the momentum of the game" Harty: "Hell yeah, that was fun. I can't wait to do that again for us this season" Beane: "Yeah....about that....that's not gonna happen" Harty: "What do you mean?" Beane: "I am asking you to do the opposite of stay" Harty: "I'm not sure I follow" Beane: you see that door right there?" Harty: "The one that goes out to the parking lot?" Beane: "yeah, that one. I need you to go through that door and not come back in it" Harty: "why?" Beane: "Just a game I like to play" Harty: "Doesn't sound fun at all" Beane: "Deonte, go through that door. And don't come back. Take your car to the house like you did that punt, but stay there and don't come back" Harty: "But I don't think" Beane: "Deonte, you're cut. Get out"

Well now the ones that wanted him gone so badly can be happy. Go ahead and celebrate at the Casino tonight and brag. Have fun

It really shouldn't matter. And it was "2 years before" not the year before. I was simply commenting on the fact that someone said the Bengals went 9-8 last season and then someone said "that was with no Burrow". I simply pointed out that even with Burrow they were 5-5 so let's not give him that much credit. Burrow didn't win his Super Bowl and this is a thread about which QB will be the next to win their first so...there's that. We don't know who it's gonna be

I believe they were 5-5 with Burrow and weren't playing well

Just curious to see if anyone has a favorite late round QB that could possibly be Josh's long term backup? Almost like his Frank Reich. Anyone here have a guy they like?

But I was hoping for a 100 page thread

I'm sure they will have more than one guy. But of they really prefer one guy over another, it probably wouldn't be a bad move

I feel like the Jets opening week would be too repetitive. They have done it so much

What in the bloody f*ck did I just read?

If there happens to be a run of 3 straight WRs or something, you may want to try to leapfrog some teams to make sure you get your guy

So he made himself worthy?

I agree with this. It was moreso a complaint about how some of the prior Bills GMs would preach the "build through the draft and sign our own" which I agree with but you would have thought when the playoff drought reached 10 years they would have said "ok, let's make some splashes while building through the draft" they just always seemed to want to cheap out and get average players to mix with bad draft picks and it was a never ending cycle until Beane, thankfully

Yeah, that was also a big part of it. We never wanted to pay out big contracts to guys that deserved it. But during those years, it was so frustrating to sit back and watch big FAs get signed and then we were looking to spend less on dust settle guys that wouldn't have made our team any better than it already was.

Mike Schopp picked his top 5 teams he thinks will NOT be the Bills opening week opponent. He said Chiefs at Bills obviously isn't happening but then went on to say the Jets, Rams, Ravens, 49ers and then said the Lions. I actually think at the Lions would be an awesome opening Monday night game. But I found his whole picking of opponents interesting

Watch out boys, he'll chew you up KC here he comes, he's a DB beater

Operating this way now when we are good is fine. But man, during the drought, this never made sense to me. Like, we always had the money, we sucked year after year and with the exception of going all out for Mario and McCoy, we always went after the "after dust settles" guys and it drove me insane

Somehow Belichick would still get credit for this

I think if they didn't get Anthony Richardson last year, there was a good chance Pittman may have been dealt. But Richardson showed promise when he played and getting rid of your young number 1 guy would be very dumb at this point

Yeah, another underperforming defensive end. Let's f**king do it

Why should any article online be free then? There are millions all over the place online about a million different things that people can read free of charge. Why are they free?

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college

Lol. You make it sound as though there aren't millions articles on the internet about pretty much anything that can be read all the time free of charge. I don't expect "labor" to be given to me for free. I don't expect free food at a restaurant, I don't expect mortgages to be free like the other guy you are agreeing with. I don't expect to have my car worked on for free. That's true labor. None of those are the same as reading an article online. And it's not Mel Kiper himself charging for it. It's the company he works for so it doesn't really have anything to do with labor. Espn plus should be for programming, not for being forced to read an article here and there on their website. I say it again, peacock and Amazon prime offer tons of shows and movies as part of their subscription. Does that mean it's right to make customers pay for football games on their platforms when ALL other games are available on local TV? No

I like to read as many mock draft articles as I can. Whether it's from Mel, or whoeever else. Anyone can pretty much read an article like that for free in a lot of places but you got the select few that include into a subscription along with TV shows and all that that they want them to pay for. It's ONE article and people are forced to pay $10.99 even though, they get more with the subscription, I want to read the one article. No one should have to oay for that. Just like I think the Amazon Prime football games and the playoff peacock game should have been free and forcing people to pay for that to watch a game even though those platforms offer other shows is just wrong