Nephilim17

Really good interview gives some perspective on what Beane is thinking about offense, and about Brady and other stuff. Of note: the new stadium has grass and they can't do grass in a dome. Maybe everyone knows this but I didn't. But to the booze!

Just wait till the folks on this side of the pond bugger up some Britishism, like bully, cottaging, or the C word. I bet you'll suddenly be a stickler for usage then.

Gotta love the offseason: 20 posts with multiple people debating whether someone from a different continent is using an American turn of phrase correctly.

Maybe he's waiting to see how the team (particularly the new offense) looks. No point risking his health if we don't have a legit shot to make a run.

If he was right 100% of the time in his scouting he'd making a lot more money as part of player personnel for an NFL team. He's insightful, reasonable, and grounded. I like him even if he gets a few things wrong, like everyone does. Plus, he looks like Josh's chubby and bald (when he takes off the cap which is rare) brother.

Interesting take calling WRs the new running backs. Not sure if you're 100% correct in implying teams don't need a stud number 1 any more but one thing I like with the model of a very good committee vs an elite WR with an average cast: With the elite guy, if he doesn't get his targets, he can sulk, complain, be a distraction. With 4 good/very good but no great guys, that's a harder act to pull as each guy is less vital on his own and can be more easily replaced. People point to Green Bay. And KC seems to buy into that but A) they do have one of the best TEs ever (essentially a WR in the short/itermediate zone) and the best QB and possibly best coach in the game. Plus, a D that was very good. I hope you're right and Beane is right that we don't need a true number 1. Not sure. But we'll know in about 4 months.

I'm sure Knox will have something to do with a box and a fox.

Watching the Joe Marino podcast on MVS, I feel better about it. He points out MVS has ZERO drops in the playoffs for his career. His 2022-2023 including playoffs EPA (expected points added per target) against man is .38, against zone is .09 — and the Bills have the highest % of man coverage in the NFL last year. We need receivers that can beat man coverage and MVS does that. Marino says he hopes MVS can open up the underneath for other guys. He's not expecting him to get a ton of targets but he's useful as he brings a vertical element we didn't have otherwise. "I think the Bills got a faster and cheaper Gabe Davis," Marino says and would rather sign MVS to to this deal than Davis to 3 years for $39 million. Before people lose their minds, Marino is not saying he's saviour or a number one, just a useful addition and an upgrade to Shavers or Isabella. "And yeah, I do wish his drop rate was better. But if you can't see what he brings to the table then you just wanna crack jokes and be mad," Joe says. p.s. he expects Kincaid to lead team in targets.

This to me is interesting because it suggests a couple things: 1) Beane isn't totally confident with the WR as it stands. That's good news for most of us who are anxious about what we have (or lack). 2) Beane wants a vertical threat. The draft had vertical guys we could have taken but Beane didn't pull the trigger. So this to me suggests he simply didn't like the guys who were available for the value they would have required. Perhaps if MVS doesn't sign they might explore Metcalf later for size and speed (and consistent hands).

This should, at the very least, be interesting. If I can separate my fan feelings for a minute, f this guy doesn't get it right most of the time, it will be funny to see McD lose it. But you gotta credit them for trying.

I don't think this is a binary choice: will Beane trade for a WR or won't he? I think they might want to see how camp shakes out a bit to see what kind of shape they're in. If Coleman looks really good and someone else steps up maybe Beane has confidence about going into the season like that. If Coleman struggles and no one steps up beyond maybe Samuel, then Beane might reset his expectations and consider a trade later on to salvage the season and avoid fan mutiny (with lots of people upset with the Coleman pick I think it would be a PR disaster if Coleman struggles this year and Beane doesn't make any further WR upgrades). We'll know more in a couple months...

I never said if that's all Davis is that that is good value. I just said we could still be "fast" with Cook as the primary guy. Cook is in year three. if it's a 60/40 split (either way) and Davis is the feature back in 3 years, I'm good with that. If he's just a role player, then no, a 4th for just a short yardage back is not good value. LIsten, I'm not saying it was a great draft. I hope it is. I hope Coleman becomes a number one but if he is a good number 2 that's acceptable. If he's less than a good number 2, it's a failure. I don't think we've done enough for Josh over the years and I hope this team takes a big step forward — beating good teams in the playoffs and challenging for a Super Bowl — and if not I'm in favor of a new regime. I don't want this regime to go another 4 years without challenging seriously for a Super Bowl. For me, one to two more years, tops.

I'm not necessarily prognosticating just saying IF Davis supplants Cook as the main back, I have no qualms with it. I see where you're coming from with the seeming lack of a plan and the seeming trial and erros. If Cook remains the number one and Davis is most the third and shorts and goaline back we could still have a "fast" offense. But who knows. I don't think McD is an offensive guru so let's see what Brady does.

If we got Metcalf, how do you see Samuel's role, boundary or splitting slot time with Shakir? Who would be the other boundary starter, Samuel or Coleman? Sounds good to me but I would hope that we didn't waste $8,000.000 per year for three years on a back-up slot guy.

I thought Cook had a good year but in a Joe Marino podcast I believe the day we traded Steph (so that Cook podcast was overlooked by many) Joe was fairly critical of Cook and not as high on him as many. I vaguely remember Joe saying the line actually opened a lot of holes for Cook and while he was good in certain respects, he was limited and not a true feature back. So if Davis picks up more carries and is a better blocker and inside runner and good in the short-yardage TD situations, I don't mind. Cook is in his third year; I don't want to extend him for substantial money given the position. Let's do what smart teams do and not pay running backs, just draft them and let them go and replace with cheap drafted labor.

I don't know what he will be. I'd love for Coleman to be a number 1. I'm just saying if he's good but not great or a number one and a couple other guys like Solomon and Bishop become starters, this could be a good draft. I still wish the best for the kid — I haven't rooted for a Bills draft pick this much since I can remember. He seems like a charming and genuine kid and I'd love for him to be a 1,200-yard WR in a couple years.

For his sake, he better run faster than Coleman. Am I doing it right? 😁

If this guy could eventually be an 8 to 10-sack guy and Coleman settled into be a good number 2, not great, but a good number 2, this draft, along with Bishop might be seen as a success. Yes, he fell to the fifth. But we've drafted successful starter there before.

I just hope it's the last 59 minutes and not the first.

Some of it was funny. But I can't believe they made those Hernandez suicide jokes. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to humor but that's not my thing.

Don't think this was posted here, if so apologies. Funny and kinda fun to see Belichick laugh at it.

I enjoyed him for decades. He had the aw shucks small-town charm that I think represented Buffalo well. At least those teams. Wish him a good recovery and happy retirement or whatever he's going into or leaving.

Elam just turned 23 on May 5th, days ago. I don't think he's too old to never change or improve. He's younger than Xavier Legette. Not saying it will happen but it could.

Never head that before. That's great news.

I misread the wrongly spelled thread title: "Add 2 Bills draught players in their prime" I read "draught" as "draft" not "drought" as @H2o later corrected me. Given my fondness for alcohol and that "draught" and "draft" have the exact same sound, it's not that unreasonable!