Beck Water

Judging by what I read around here, that doesn't qualify as an "unpopular opinion"

Apologies if this was posted upthread, but Jason LaCanfora just SCORCHED the ideo of Aaron Rodgers trade to the Jets with Sal Capaccio: You're kinda young, aintcha?

That definitely sounds like a draft that would have me vomit my Tacos I feel that points of agreement between TBD folks should be celebrated.

I don't think so, no. There was an 18 yd completion to Davis, the strip sack/injury recovered by Ryan Bates, an incompletion to Diggs that fell short, then the throw to Davis. Not just 4th and 21, but 4th and 21 from our own 14 yd line with 33 seconds left in the game, and no timeouts left for the Bills. Completing a nice 21 yd pass to get us to our own 35 yd line would not have gotten us too much.

Sorry, what I meant was "What Dawinstein and Davefan 66 said. No, running out to by an Apple won't solve your problems" Didn't mean to suggest that you were one of the "go buy a mac" advice givers, just to suggest that I thought your advice was good.

Don't we already have an older experienced vet on the roster, to mentor the younger pass rushers?

Surely the Jets will sign him to play with the #2 QB in the league, after Rodgers and the Jets and GB stop talking and get to the written word. How'd that go with another experienced veteran, Tommy in Tampa, when you strolled up on the sidelines to give him the benefit of your views? If Cole wants to play in the league next season, Drive-Bys on Twitter are probably not his best strategy

I think they just don't talk about it at all.

My Ignore file is lonely without you! It can no longer resist you. In you go, INto the sack.

Harris’ contract numbers up. As reported, $1.77M - quite a change from his $7.7M reported "market value" on Spotrac. He got base salary just over vet minimum - $1.12M, with reportedly $400k of that guaranteed; signing bonus of $600k so total guarantee $1M of that $1.77M No publicized milestones or incentives. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/damien-harris-29123/

That's 80% where I am - Fix the Oline! Please fix the Oline! And, draft an offensive skill player, a WR or TE, before the 4th or 5th round please! We really can't afford to bring in another highly-paid vet WR on the cap, so we need to succeed with draft-and-develop. I do agree with the TBN writer who said that keeping Dorsey as OC is the biggest risk the Bills are taking. He's got to 1) take a step with his play designs and play calling 2) he and Joe Brady have got to get into Josh Allen's psyche and keep him from succumbing to the lure of the Aggressive Deep Shot. We need an effective short game and a run game to keep teams honest.

Contract details for McKenzie out. Took a significant price cut over the $2.2M he would have made with the Bills Basically, getting a vet minimum salary for a 6 season veteran, but he's getting a signing bonus and some additional guaranteed money. Funny how contract details like that involving a drop in pay take a while to be released Colts can move on from him pretty much any time without sneezing given their $21M cap, but McKenzie takes home more than a practice squad player earns, and more than the ~$330k would have received from the Bills if they brought him into training camp and then cut him.

Agree about 50/50 with the Bengals vs. being waffle-stomped. I think there might be a point that the Bengals really pumped themselves up for the Bills game and gave it everything they got, then they struggled to get back to the same place and didn't have as much to give vs. the Chiefs, same as happened to the Chiefs last season. You're likely right that the Chiefs had the "PR pump up" card with all the trash talk about "Burrowhead" and the "0-3 vs. Burrow" talk. But when I saw Burrow on the sideline in the Bengals game, he didn't look like the same "stone cold killer in the face" we saw vs. the Bills. He had that thousand-yard glazed stare. They did put up a better fight than the Bills did, for sure. I think I disagree that the Bills were "mentally beaten" or "running on fumes" the entire second half of the season. "Mentally beaten" teams don't win 8 games in a row. I do feel they were struggling offensively. Things that they were doing earlier in the season were omitted from their game plan; things that came easily, didn't. I think that has to do with Josh's UCL injury being worse and hampering him more than was generally reported; he acknowledged at the end of the season that he couldn't throw with his preferred rotational throwing motion and had to revert to a lateral motion that he used prior to 2020 (and was less accurate with). And then they lost Von Miller and had Poyer's injuries piling up, so the defense wasn't able to pick up the slack.

I think the coaches have a role to play, and I think the game plan has a role to play, but I think the way the Bills played vs. the Bengals wasn't a function of the game plan. One can say if the team is flat, the coaches haven't done their job correctly to motivate and inspire the players. But ultimately, great players on great teams have to be interiorly motivated, too; it's not like they're robots where the coaches can wind them up and find the right buttons or give the perfect motivational speech. Sometimes there's a "right" motivational speech that helps and sometimes I think there isn't.

To your first point, Right On. The Bills may not be as good a team as the Bengals, especially without two key players on D (Miller and Hyde) and with others playing hurt (Poyer, Phillips) or out (DaQuan Jones). On the other hand, the Bengals may not be as good a team as the Bengals, especially with 3 backup OL (my point being, both teams were missing important players, no excuse there) But the question really isn't whether the Bengals roster and coaches, in some abstract sense, are better than the Bills roster and coaches, in some abstract sense. They may be, they may not be; you can think they're not, I wouldn't fight you over it. I think the point people are trying to make, is that the loss, and the way the Bills lost, doesn't necessarily reflect some abstract humongulous talent differential between the teams (more in a minute), but rather a difference in the intensity level with which the teams approached the games. The Bengals came out hot and gave us everything they had; the Bills looked flat, as though they'd already given everything they had and were writing post-dated checks. It was a horrible, terrible, no good very bad game. Then the following week, the Bengals (IMHO) looked flat against the Chiefs, as though the Bengals had already given everything they had and were writing post-dated checks themselves. Not as flat as the Bills had looked the week before, but still, plenty flat. I can't tell you why. I can tell you, that when a team is flat, there's apparently not some magic reset button the coaches can push. As far as talent level: The Bengals are a talented team. They lost to the Steelers, the Ravens, and split with the Chiefs (regular season W, playoff L) and ended the season 12-4. The Bills are a talented team. They beat the Steelers, the Ravens, and the Chiefs in the regular season 13-3 with wins over a number of the same teams. I don't know if the Bills are better in terms of roster and coaching than the Bengals, or the Bengals are better than the Bills. I can say that, playing in the same conference against many of the same opponents, winning against some teams they lost to, It's not likely that as of last season, there was some gaping talent chasm - which some people here seem to think there is. Whether that will be true next season, Can't Tell Yet.

Again, very well written and well thought out post. To the point about roster and lineup: The Jaguars beat the Bills last season. In fact, the Jags kind of embarrassed them. I don't think anyone would look at last year's Jaguars roster, and say "they were a better roster" and certainly not "they were better coached". But the Bills came out flat, like "yeah, nothing to worry about here" (or maybe they were all out partying, who knows) and the Jaguars got psyched up "look at them over there, they aren't acting like they want it, they don't deserve to win, let's prove we deserve to win" and that was that story. The Jags were the better team - that day. The point is, in the modern NFL, the talent difference is not so large over an entire team that other factors can't come into play. I had the chance to chat with a former OLman, a name you would recognize. One of the questions I asked was, why sometimes a team that's not so good defeats a favored team; or, a less-talented player wins against a dominant player. As you might imagine, he kinda waffled and said a lot goes into it blah blah. Sometimes the opponent's coach finds weaknesses and has a better plan. Sometimes the opposing player does a great job of watching film and identifies some tendencies they can exploit. But he said (and this is interesting) it's much more mental and emotional than I might think. He said the most successful players aren't necessarily the most athletic talents, but the guys most driven mentally and most able to turn themselves up emotionally week after week. That if a team plays a really tough game and pulls out all the stops to win one week, it can be hard to physically recover, put the same level of mental focus into preparation, and get back to the same level of emotional intensity the following week. He said sometimes one team just comes in fired up and knocks the "better" team off kilter. And that can change during the game. We were talking about Ryan Fitzpatrick coming in as a rookie, setting a record (I don't remember for what - comeback by a rookie?) and defeating the Houston Texans (the Rams were behind 3-24 at the half, and won 33-27) - everyone liked Fitz, and he threw everything he had into the game so the team turned it on and went harder while the Texans were "wait, what just changed?" But also that sometimes you can't tell the reason why the team is flat, and the reasons the team is fired up might seem petty or silly to outsiders. My kid now works in Lafeyette, IN, home of Purdue. I don't think anyone would argue that Fairleigh Dickinson had more talent than Purdue, but they were the better team - that day.

All I can say to this is: Thank You. It's so well put that there's really nothing else to say.

Incredible, isn't it? "Oh yeah, these guys were great players for years but they stopped playing or didn't play as well after major injuries therefore they must suck" At the risk of sounding like an Andy Reid apologist, let's take it further. The Chiefs won the Superbowl in 2019 a year after their 1st-year starter won league MVP. You can't do that without a good OL, you simply can't. Then they lost the Superbowl, tore down their OL completely, went right back to the conference championship the following year with a rebuilt OL that sustained a bit better run game, and won last season with that OL. (Still very much an OL built to support the passing game tho) So they won 2 Superbowls in 4 years with two completely different OLs, and this guy wants to tag Reid as being a poor OL talent evaluator and having bad OLs. Now let's go back a decade or more to 2009 when Reid rebuilt the Eagles offense around a running miracle on cleats named LeSean McCoy and had a top-10 offense for 3 years with QB named McNabb and Vick. Completely different style of offense designed around McCoy's skillset in the run game, but amazingly enough, one of the players he brought in (a C named Jason Kelce) is still playing in the league and has won 2 Superbowls himself since then. No doubt, because Reid is a poor evaluator of OL talent. It boggles the mind. I con only pray that the Bills FO might become subpar at evaluating OL talent to that degree. All I can think of is that the chosen screen name "Einstein" must be intended as ironic.

How to tell us you didn't read the OP without telling us you didn't read the OP: "Each of the 10 units are ranked 1-32 based on current rosters (assuming Rodgers on NYJ for now) and weighted based on positional importance"

Just guessing, but I'm thinking that maybe he doesn't rate Davis that highly and that Harty (who missed a lot of games last season with a foot injury) and Sherfield (who had 1 good season playing behind two top receivers in the league, Hill and Waddle) aren't considered legit as weapons. I'm not saying they can't be or don't have the potential to be, but I think one would have to say they would be assessed as "not proven"

I'm not saying there's an agenda, or a problem. To the contrary - I'm pointing out that expert opinion is usually worthy of respect. I am pointing out that digitizing a subjective opinion doesn't make it empirical

Huh? Thought Colts slot last season was Parris Campbell, now with the Giants Do Pittman (6'4") and Pierce (6'3") really play that much from the slot? If McKenzie had choices, I can't say he chose poorly to hitch his wagon to Steichen and a Colts team populated by giants (at WR)

But the assertion is, he's basing the rankings upon the current roster at this point in FA and prior to the draft, correct? (I'm not disagreeing with you, just clarifying my own understanding of what the rankings are supposed to represent)

They definitely were separate Achilles tears, different sides. That's why I was wondering if he tore the 2nd one because he had unconsciously compensated for the first - maybe not because of the strength of the Achilles but other reasons (flexibility, strength) He's only got 1 more year in the league than Edwards and Bates (26 1/2 next fall) and 2 more than Connor McGovern (26 next fall). Does calendar age really make that much difference for an OLman? As OL starters, I go with the axiom you can't improve by keeping things the same. The R side of our line was not good enoughlast year, and either Brown backslid, OR, he looked better playing next to Darryl Williams at G in 2021 than Bates in 2022 which would say something for quality.

Yep, that's my sense. In other words, it's his subjective opinion that he's trying to quantify numerically, to make it appear empirical and data-driven. 11 or so years ago, our family was trying to make a decision on where to send our child to middle and high school. I had us each write down our "gut impressions" of the schools and rank them in order best match to least match, entirely based on our subjective opinion. This wasn't good enough for my spouse, a multi-degreed engineer. Spouse came up with 6 categories on which we were each independently to rank each school numerically from 1 to 5, then sum the scores to produce an "objective, empirical" ranking. I did my honest best. Wanna hear the spoiler? The numerical rankings we each came up with differed - but exactly matched our individual subjective ranks. Huh. I'm not trying to diss Mike Clay on his subjective opinion. The opinion of a knowledgeable person is always worth hearing. I just don't care for the modern trend for trying to add gravitas to opinions by digitizing them.