YodaMan79

Pitts is taking this game over. He’s a physical specimen, the actual version of what half the board insists Kincaid is destined to become. He's younger, too. Looks like Atlanta has wasted his potential.

Because when the lights shine the brightest and the competition is the best, no one has shown the ability step up and own the moment. Gabe being the exception, but the coaching staff pissed that one away.

Careful, you’re making too much sense. People on this board actually think a “luxury TE” who was 24 as a rookie is some kind of up-and-comer. Meanwhile, there are usually really solid LB prospects available at the end of the first round. Dean went in the 3rd and has turned into an impact player.

"Up-and-comer"… lol. And calling another TE a one-trick pony? That’s rich. Glad you have a hunch with nothing tangible to back it up.

How old is Kincaid next year? Don’t worry, I’ll help you out: he’s the opposite of Edmunds. How much more upside does a 27-year-old have? He is what he is. No one can argue he’s not above average when available. He was a questionable first-round pick, and it looks even worse now when you see the production from younger, more talented TEs. There are players hitting free agency every year who can match his output. DK still hasn’t had a single season that tops what Gesicki has done multiple times. I’m using Gesicki as an example, not necessarily pounding the table to sign him, though I wouldn’t be against it if a player like him was available. What’s wrong with short-term deals for guys who actually produce? How can you look at the Knox contract and be ready to run that sequel again? If you’re cool paying top-five money to a tweener who struggles to stay on the field, I don’t know what to tell you. For your reference. If DK had similar production (19,20,21 & 24) we'd be thrilled. Gesicki has an AAV of 8.5 million. Goedert will be available in the off-season for likely much less than DK.

I voted to let him walk. I’ve said for years that Mike Gesicki brings essentially the same skill set for a fraction of the cost. And if you think this is a recency-bias take, go search the forum threads, I’ve been consistent on this. Why pay a premium for production you can get on the open market?

Just thinking out loud here, so don’t come in too hot. The demands on players’ bodies are already pretty intense. What about an 18-game schedule with 55–58 game-day active spots, where each player can only suit up for 16 or 17 games, plus two bye weeks? The goal is simple: get the best product and the healthiest players on the field when the playoffs roll around. Teams with real depth and smart roster management would actually get rewarded. And honestly, it’d be fun to see a backup QB have to start a game or two by design, bring a little baseball-style strategy and matchup philosophy into the mix. Without overthinking it, this feels like a win for everyone: players get more rest and recovery, owners get their 18th game, and fans get a better on-field product and two extra weeks of the season. Fire away and let me know where I have a blind spot.

Sensitive? I hope not. Disappointed? Absolutely. Have you seen the statistics on reading comprehension in this country? They’re downright sad, and frankly, a little frightening. Thanks for the advice. I’m definitely a work in progress. According to our AI friends, qualifiers are surprisingly handy: -They signal exaggeration or irony without being 100% literal. -They keep the tone playful (or sarcastic). -They prevent alienating your audience by acknowledging “some limits.” Thank you, we did. I hope you did as well. Now we’ve got 48+ more hours of unfettered optimism, pretending that Bean just saved the season with this move. Let’s go, Brandin! (for real) As for Cooks: I’ve always appreciated his skill set. His NFL journey has been, interesting. I have a strange recollection of him being really young when he was drafted, the anti Kincaid. I didn't like when he was in NE for obvious reasons. I thought he’d flourish again in Dallas after LA, but the situation in NO this year wasn’t ideal. Here’s hoping we’re pleasantly surprised moving forward, the fans deserve it.

Trolling? Who, the front office? No. I just assumed the board was sharp enough to recognize a playful mix of frustration with a tiny sprinkle of hope, and clearly, they are. We’ve got a good group here. It appears you might be the exception. The way you managed to interpret that post as a literal statement of wishful thinking is… honestly a little concerning. So maybe try not being the "jackass" (your words, not mine) George Carlin was talking about when he mentioned the other 50% of the population.

What is a simple definition of satire? Satire is the art of making someone or something look ridiculous, raising laughter in order to embarrass, humble, or discredit its targets.

Also didn’t burn a 3rd pick.

Please tell that the sarcasm wasn’t lost on you?

Word is, he's still faster and can separate better than Coleman.

Santana Moss?

Joe Banner, Andy Reid and the early 2000 era Eagles felt the same way. It held McNabb back his first 5 years in the league. You're correct, they haven't kept up with the times. But at least they were getting to the NFC Championship.

Could the addition of Cooks be too little, too late, maybe about four years too late? Yes. That was my immediate reaction, and I doubt I was alone during the past 12 hours. I woke up this morning actively hunting for reasons this could work, trying to drag myself out of the “our front office is operating with a Magic 8-Ball and this roster is a resource-allocation dumpster fire” mindset. Honestly, I’ve been in such an NFL funk I’m barely even pretending to be excited about the rest of the season. So why not at least attempt to convince ourselves something good could come from this? At least until they inevitably prove they have absolutely no idea how to use him. I’m shoving every memory of Hines and Hardy into the mental junk drawer where I keep stuff I don’t want to talk about. Here’s today’s episode of “Delusional Positivity I’m Forcing on Myself”: maybe Brandin Cooks can be this team’s James Lofton. Yes, I know, the ’80s NFL was a different sport entirely. Just roll with it. We’re in survival mode. On the surface, by the numbers (before joining the Bills): James Lofton arrived in Buffalo in 1989 at age 33. 11,085 yards Five 1,000-yard seasons 54 TDs And averaging an absurd 18.3 yards per catch Then in 1991, at 35 (and 36), he had a straight up resurgence: another 1,000-yard season, 8 TDs, a Pro Bowl (back when that actually meant something), and most importantly he helped ignite the Super Bowl run. Brandin Cooks arrives here at 32. 9,687 yards Six 1,000-yard seasons 60 TDs A career 13.3 yards per catch (and yes, we’re all collectively pretending this year’s 8.7 doesn’t exist) I’m digging deep here. I fully admit I have absolutely no clue who the Andre Reed equivalent is supposed to be, please don’t ask, it’ll collapse the whole house of optimism I’m building. But hey, could he also help propel this team into the big game? Stranger things have happened. Probably. Maybe. Don’t fact-check me. If you squint hard enough, and I mean squint like you’re trying to read directions on something you're trying to air fry at 46 years of age, there are some parallels. And at this point, a little delusional hope is all we’ve got. So with that, I give thanks to Brandon Beane for the next 96 hours of optimism. It may be borrowed, delusional, and doomed, but hey, why shouldn’t Bills fans get a little joy before reality smacks us again? We're rooting for you Brandin! Let's go...never mind (I don't want this moved to the political section)

Cooks was a better version of John Brown's style of play. Curious to see who puts a claim in, or how he maneuvers his free agency. Does he have anything left for a contending team?

This topic hits close to home after this week. This did not get enough attention in my opinion. What have we seen to think the Bills will, or could be the outlier?

I can’t disagree with this take more, wow. Philosophically, I have no idea how anyone could land there. It’s such a different lens than how I see the team. This would actually be a great debate over a couple drinks, because clearly we’re coming at this from completely opposite angles.

I think we’re past the point of excuses. Every team plays the same number of games in the same amount of time. Some years the schedule looks tougher on paper, some easier and this year was supposed to be one of the easier ones. Every team deals with injuries. The great ones overcome them. The Rams literally signed a guy off the street to play safety and still won the Super Bowl. And honestly, that was the Bills’ window. After :13 seconds, I was ready for major changes, because deep down we all knew that was the chance, just like the Lions/49ers meltdown. In hindsight, that was the moment. At some point, we have to define what “good” actually means. Good teams impose their will. They force opponents to adjust. They don’t live in a world of ifs. That’s not the Bills right now. We’re stuck as a “good enough” team, endlessly chasing the carrot. We comfort ourselves with the same worn-out phrases: If we were healthy… If Josh had one more second… If he catches that ball…If we recover that fumble… It’s always something. We’ve become Uncle Rico: “If coach had just put me in we would have won state…” And the worst part? It’s not even fun anymore. Every game feels like Season 18 of The Walking Dead just limping forward, hoping the next episode suddenly makes it worth watching again. At some point, the results speak for themselves. There’s no quick fix left. A real philosophical shift has to be on the table.

Hot start? Against who? Until a couple weeks ago, the teams they beat had a combined total of single-digit wins. I’m done with the injury excuse. Every team deals with injuries, the great ones overcome them. At some point, we have to decide what “good” actually means. To me, good teams impose their will. They force opponents to adjust. They don’t live in a world of ifs and hypotheticals. That’s not the Bills currently, not the way I see them. We’re a “good enough” team, always chasing the carrot just out of reach. We soothe ourselves with the same recycled lines: If they were healthy… If Josh had one more second… If he catches that ball… If they recover that fumble…It never ends. We’re in our Uncle Rico era: “If coach had just put me in, we would’ve won state.” And honestly? Whatever day of the week they’re playing, it isn’t fun to watch right now. It feels like Season 18 of The Walking Dead, just shuffling along, hoping the next episode finally changes something. At some point, the results speak for themselves. There’s no magic quick fix here. A real philosophical shift has to be on the table.

There is a line by George Carlin about the general public and the least intelligent person we know that this thread reminds me of...like Triumph...I kid, I kid. We should give this guy a break though. This team has sucked the fun out of game day and he's struggling like the rest of us.

- Shakir's fumble was a killer - The 4th down run call was a killer - The interception into triple coverage, with Cook open under the coverage was a killer - Not adjusting the play development time to help offset the pressure was a killer - Getting zero pressure from your DEs was a killer There are many more "killers." An extra point miss is far down on the list.

Josh Gordon, the #1 receiver we're all looking for!

He’s full-blown crazy, not just a diva. I’m all for the front office taking calculated risks to add talent, but this one gives me pause. The Eagles are great at managing big personalities and have strong veteran leadership, and even they passed after winning a Super Bowl. No doubt he makes plays, but in his mind he’s better than Ed Reed and Steve Atwater combined. When he’s locked in and in sync, he’s absolutely a difference-maker… but that’s a big “when.”