PBF81

Phillips played to his late 3rd round draft status. Remember, he was never a pass-rushing prospect. He was more of a gap-filling DT, which he did decently. Was he an impact player? No, but at the tail end of the 3rd round that isn't expected. I'd say he's played better at DT than his offensive counterpart Spencer Brown has at OT and both were drafted within a couple of picks of the same draft spot. I'd be pretty happy if we could get the same level of play out of Brown at the RT spot. The Rams overachieved last season, '21 , also. I wouldn't mind seeing us overachieve in the playoffs one of these seasons. By hook or by crook I'd take a Championship!

Lotulolei cost us over $30M for the three years he played here, and not including 2020 when he sat out. Talk about a waste. That Carolina connection for the players we've stripped from them hasn't worked out well at all. Lotulolei, Benjamin, Addison, Jones, Obada, Butler. Them going there and so constantly coming up empty is troubling. It's as if they're completely afraid to step out of their comfort zones which is the way that they stock the team, with a ridiculous overemphasis on Defense in both the Drafts and Free Agency. It wouldn't be so bad if some of their DE pass-rush draft choices would turn into an impact player. To what extent does that have to do with Allen however? How would this team be doing with QBs like Taylor, Fitzpatrick, Orton, Bledsoe (LOL, in particular with his brick feet), etc. I don't think even average by our standards back then.

You implicitly raise a great point, albeit perhaps unwittingly. IMO the overall teams of that "Last 20 Years" period often had better talent than we had. We simply struggled to find a QB that was better than average. If we had had Allen on many of those teams we'd have done better overall than we are now. I even think that some of those coaches were better gameday/on-field coaches. It is easy to underestimate the impact that Allen has had here. There's no doubt in my mind that had we had Allen in some of those seasons we'd have made the playoffs easily and likely even won the division over a Brady-led Pats too.

Great piece!!! But not really mentioned or even implied in the piece is, "What are you getting for your money?" (Cash in particular, but Cap also, Contracts in general) You have to have talent to compete regardless of where it comes from. Whether it walks in from stocking supermarket shelves, as Undrafted Free Agents, 6th & 7th Round draft picks, 4th & 5th Round draft picks, or Day 1 & 2 draft picks, Veteran Free Agents, etc. But the most expensive ones are Veteran Free Agents. When those don't perform and you haven't been able to get the required play from your draftees, that's when cap issues begin to mount, and when the amount of money going out isn't coming back to you. That's when the team's that are getting back from what they spent will outperform you.

You know that I disagree with much of that. LOL My first thought is that Allen is doing much more and covering up much more of our coaching and GM deficiencies than most realize. Take Allen out of the mix and as I've said, IMO we don't win the division once on these guys' watch. In fact, we're on the lower end of that "Last 20 Years" thing. As to ourlads, one of my go-to sites along with spotrac, both have been for years. pro-football-reference the other. Which was the "monster FA contract" on D that you mentioned? Because Lotulolei got a lot and added little. Neither Addison nor Murphy were cheap either and neither added much there either. All three were overpaid despite perhaps not having a "monster contract." As to the rest, we'll see what they do. I addressed a lot of this stuff in my last response to you. That'll take some time to read and digest. I'm really enjoying the back-n-forth here, thanks!!! But let me ask you, how do you envision our current needs? Let's look forward and assess as the offseason develops.

I read that and my first thought going into it was that it has a lot of [statistical] balls in the air, and anytime I read something like that relating to sports, I always immediately think that someone's trying to mathematize perfectly a sport which involves the human element, which is impossible. The second thing that stood out is that it was highly correlated to contracts paid. I would challenge or at least question several of the premises of their methodology, but that's just me. For one, we are all aware of players that don't play well thru four seasons, don't get their 5th-year option exercised, then play very well that 5th year, get signed elsewhere, and don't play up to the level of their contract. Just like teams and players have "seasons" in the looser sense of the word, not necessarily a season of play per se, where they collectively or individually play much better than they did the rest of the time, I'm sure that there's at least some correlation to that occurring for those 5th-year non-signees. I didn't see any provision for that in the study as one example. Having said that, it would be tedious and even perhaps difficult to challenge their results because based upon their criteria, those are the results. I didn't see anything about the Bills in there particularly. But what I'm talking about is different. We traded up to get Edmunds, who wasn't worth the 16th overall. We could have done much better with the original picks and had more of them, for example. Everyone seems to have leapfrogged the original point in my statement, which had little to do with the picks that Beane did make for the OL, but it was the fact, established fact, that Beane has spent fewer resources on days 1 & 2 of ANY team in the league on the OL. Put another way, you're never going to build a solid OL by not drafting any OL-men. Ford (38th overall) and Brown (93rd) overall are it in five seasons, then journeymen free-agents otherwise typically on 1-2 year contracts. That's my point. If I tasked you with building a shed and sent you to the local farmers market this Saturday to get the supplies, you're not going to be building much of a shed. We can discuss why Beane didn't perceive the need for consuming resources on the OL, and McBeane's over attention to building the DL & F7, despite the fact that shortly we'll only have one starting caliber LB on the team, but that's been discussed here a lot. Why has Beane only seen fit to draft two OL-men, one early 2nd and another late 3rd, as the only solutions to an obviously problematic OL? We don't know, but it's a great question if you ask me. Then, let's ask ourselves why Brown at the time, at 93rd, when the two OL-men selected immediately after him at 94th and 95th are both solid starters now, one very good? What did Beane see in Brown but not in those other two? I also think that GMs and Scouting Depts. pay too much attention to draft rankings. I have no problem with going off of the media's board, but when you do, if you select players like Zay Jones, Bernard, Basham, and Epenesa, you'd better be right, and he wasn't. I've had the mindset over the past two seasons, that we sorely need LBs as we only had two starting caliber LBs (Milano and Edmunds), now soon to be down to only one. I've been told that's not important because of the scheme's that they run. I would upset the conventional-thinking cart and ask, how do we know they're not running those schemes because they don't have the LB manpower to do much else? Either way, here we are now, with only one solid LB on the roster. I'm not sure how our D is good this season like that. Did they not see it coming? If not, why not, it should have been obvious from a big-picture standpoint, and that's what a GM is paid to do, manage the big-picture, right? A good GM will keep his cap in check, we've not done that, and at the same time it's hardly because of an overabundance of talent causing it. Anyway, let's move on to your statements in context. Again, there's a ton of room for subjectivity here, and again, we need to realize that we're merely discussing this amongst ourselves, nothing we say or do will change anything, it's pissing into the wind for the most part. LOL "Second contracts" can be good or bad, I didn't see anything in that analysis that made any distinction, one of my issues with it. Take Dareus for example. He'd be an example of a great draft pick in their analysis. But the opposite is true. A team full of "Dareus values" isn't going anywhere. But again, I'm talking about the players actually selected. You would have to put names and contracts of our drafted players to discuss that further. Without looking at the actual data who knows what the reality is. On this, we can bump of White because he wasn't a Beane draftee. Allen, yes, for sure. Even at 7th he's exceeded expectations. But Edmunds? Highly debatable. Also, in a prior post, we also have to discuss how the drafted players are used. Edmunds hasn't been placed in an optimal situation, which I speculate is why he prefers to go elsewhere now, not merely the money. Anyone that watched him at VA Tech understands this. I was jacked when we drafted him, but I've been PO'd at how we've used him. Very inefficently IMO. Oliver, for 9th overall, I'll ask the same that I asked in another thread, for both him and Edmunds, if we had the 9th overall and 16th overall picks right now, this year, is your expectation for the drafted players to be be what Oliver and Edmunds are now? Or more? For me it's more. As to Diggs, agree on the talent, but the purpose of the draft is to get players that perform at Diggs' level, on rookie contracts for 4-5 seasons. You can't stock your team across the board with free agents like that, trading away your entire draft, because you'd be over cap in no time. That's where good GMs earn their keep. Why did we even have to go out and buy a WR? I'll put it another way, which GM got the better of the Diggs for our 22nd pick trade? (plus at least three other picks) Minny's GM did. They got Justin Jefferson for just over $3M/season, we got Diggs for an average of what, $24M/season. Frankly, Jefferson's outplaying Diggs with an inferior QB. So how that bodes well for Beane in contrast is beyond me. But that highlights the fact that when you don't draft well, the only choice you have is to pay through your nose because you're not getting value for your day 1 & 2 draft picks to keep that cap down, one of the primary jobs of a GM. Elam, fine, no argument. Rousseau, not so much. He did little last year in his rookie season. He started with bang over the first three games, someone said he's "coming on," but that's not the case. After that fast start he didn't do much, average at best on a good day. For a 1st-round DE pick you expect some sacks, TFLs, and QB Hits, more than we're getting from Rousseau, and in particular more than we got from him over his last ten games. So TBD yes, but if the trend holds, we'll need DEs too. At the end of the day, how many impact players do we have on D going into the draft? With Poyer gone, I count Milano. That's it. White needs to prove that he can come back 100% or even 80%. He didn't play well this season, not at all. Left guys wide open consistently. So we have one impact player, sure, add another if you like, major OL issues, now WR issues, could use better TE play, an unsettled RB situation with more "hope" in the form of Cook, and significant cap issues. It is what it is. But I don't see how that's even approaching maximizing our Drafts. I see the opposite. Allen can't do everything all the time, he's not going to last like that.

Indeed, there's a lot of subjectivity there, and of course there are potentially as many standards for evaluating that as there are people doing the evaluating. That's why I always consider the end-product in the analysis. Also, keep in mind that my comments are centered around getting the value of the pick used for the player selected with that particular pick. If a player is chosen 5th overall, but develops into an average starter, that's not what was supposed to happen with that pick. The fact that draft picks often don't pan out really has nothign to do with that angle. And I for one am in the camp that it's only a few people that put together these pre-draft rankings, Kiper, Mayock, maybe one or two more, that rarely disagree other than that one says "mid-1st" while another says "late 1st or early second, and that just about everyone else doing rankings and mock drafts goes by that standard. There are players every year that I ask myself "why so high," or conversely, how come no one's talking about this guy before day 3. But that's another thing too. Anyway, let's between you and I create a simple system here on the players that you mentioned, and see what pops up. I'm doing this for the first time as I write this. So let's start with your players mentioned, and we'll assign them a "0" if the spot where they were drafted matches their performance to date, a "-" if its' less than that, a "+" if it's better, a "--" if it's really bad, and a "++" if it's a diamond in the rought. For example, and not in this discussion because it's pre-Beane, Milano's a ++ for a 5th rounder, a late 5th at that. So ... Rousseau (30th) - As I remember, and I could be off, but it was a weak year for DEs, and being a U Miami fan myself, I know that Rousseau was used in an odd way down there, which the team recognized, but which also made it more difficult to tie him to a particular position. Having said that, His rookie season was lackluster, not bad, not good. This past season his first three games were fire but after that he did next to nothing. There was even a lengthy analysis by someone prominent that showed how when Von Miller wasn't there he played poorly. Either way, he put up half, HALF, of his numbers in the first three games when the entire team was on fire and filled with emotion. We averaged 36 PF and 8.5 PA in the first two games. The third was his collegiate home field Miami. After that he was pretty pedestrian averageing 1 sack every other game with two of them being against Mike White and the Jets and another vs. Jones. I'm not sure what "coming on" means in this context. If anything he regressed, he didn't "come on" as the season wore on. So I'd have to assign him a (-) here. I expect more from my 1st-rounders drafted to be pass-rushers in their second seasons. But let me ask you, if we had the 30th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Rousseau is at his position? Edmunds (trade-up 16th) - I expect a lot for a pick like this, I expect an impact player. We cannot overlook the opportunity cost of the picks involved either. "Getting paid" and performing are often two different things, and we know that players in free-agency often get paid more than they're worth. And we'll see what he gets. I like Edmunds and as with you don't understand the hammering he's taken here. IMO he's a fish out of water, which I won't go into, but it hasn't been fair to him. Having said that, much like Oliver, he disappears for games. He's also hard to grade because of the way that they use him, which IMO is incorrectly having watched him at VA Tech, but because he didn't play very well for 4 seasons but kicked it into another gear this season. For all five seasons I'd give him a (-). For this season alone, maybe a (0). I was impressed, but again, for a mid-1st-rounder, trade-up no less, I expect more. I will say that I expect him to do more elsewhere in a more traditional D scheme. So this is a tough one. I really think we could have helped Edmunds be much better and I question the pick for a team that was going to used him as they have, so it's not all on him IMO, ... as well, we're now getting into Beane and how good Beane is. Edmunds has been good, but he's far from being an impact player. Like Oliver he's also streaky. There are games when you don't even hear his name. But I'll ask the same thing here, if we had the 16th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Edmunds has been over five seasons is at his position? Phillips (96th overall, late 3rd) - I really like Phillips and would have kept him. To get a perennial solid starter from a late 3rd pick is good value. I'd give this a (0) or a (+) If Spencer Brown were playing at the same level for a 92nd overall ... But then we let Phillips walk. [shrug] Again, ... Beane. I don't think it's fair for someone (others here) to talk about Beane's drafts, and use a player that we let walk for cheap that is cited as a good draft pick. OK, let's say we all agree, then why let him walk? That's on Beane. We could have had him for less than the Vikes paid too. Oliver (9th overall) - BTW, I noticed that you only cited the 1st rounders and Phillips in your defense of Beane here, and none of the 2nd rounders or early-mid 3rds. Just sayin'. At 9th overall, top-10, I expect a lot. I expect an impact-player. I expect an impact player even in the mid-1st. (Edmunds) There was a whole lotta talk about Oliver being like Donald. He's been nothing close. Would you say that he's an impact player? I would not. I would say that he's a solid starter, at best. He'll take over a game from the DL perspective here and there, like a lot of players, and like he did two or three times this season, but he's not a player that takes over games regularly. Again, like Edmunds, there are games, streaks of games, where you don't hear his name at all. I'd give that pick a (-). Again, doesn't mean that he's not good, but it means that he hasn't lived up to the 9th overall. And again, I'll ask, if we had the 9th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Edmunds has been over five seasons is at his position? If you continue to do this for our 2nd and 3rd rounders, you're going to have some (-) and (--) rankings. I'll give you mine. Ford (--), Singletary (-), Knox (0), Moss (-), Epenesa (--), Basham (-), Brown (-). I won't touch Elam, Cook, or Bernard because they were rookies, but I will say this, Elam at 23rd I expect an instant solid starter which he wasn't, and given the state of our RBs coming in, for a late 2nd round RB I also expected the same from Cook and he wasn't that either. Coaching can be blamed, but then blame coaching. People defend one by blaming the other interchangably which is funny. And BTW, as per Brown above, it's also important to recognize that the two OL-men taken immeidately after him, and numerous others on day-3, are much better than Brown, which should also introduce questions into Beane's draft methodology. Anyway your rankings will likely be different. But again, on all of those, if you have the draft picks associated with where they were drafted this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as [that player] has been over five seasons is at his position? As for me, I expect more. If we're not getting more, then I certainly think that it's quite reasonable to assess why we aren't.

But right away I can tell you that my very first question is going to be if we've done even an average job at drafting, then why do we have all the holes that we have in so many positions, why is our OL so mediocre, which is what we're talking about here, the OL, AND are in cap trouble like we were when he inherited the team. A good GM should be able to at least stay out of cap trouble if he hasn't built a lights-out team, and we're far from that. We'll see ...

OK ... I'd be interested in your analytical rebuttal more than just your dissatisfactions of my analysis.

Thanks, I'll look that over in detail when I have time. I don't care the source, good analysis is good analysis. I'm curious what their base criteria(s) is/are. I'll get back to you ...

No, of course not, but you have to hit some of 'em. Say you have three picks, one each in the first three rounds, it's not unreasonble that at least one of those three equal or exceed their related draft spot. We've not gotten that, not even close. Other than Allen, jury's out on Rousseau, but otherwise a swing-and-a-miss. Either way, that's how good teams are built so that they don't get into cap hell. If it's reasonable to get all starters on day 3, great, but where are they here. Beane hasn't done a good job, that's why we're regressing and in worse cap shape than we were when he got here, or the same anyway.

For the sake of discussion, I'll address this part of your original post. What's the criteria you use to draw that conclusion? Many people, fans and media alike, recognize that the team hasn't gotten X-th pick value out of their X-th picks. To me that would determine how "solid" a GM's/Team's drafts are. Day-3 picks that turn into starters happen to all teams, so unless there's a bunch of 'em that's a wash. So I'm curious how you arrive at that conclusion? It's the premise of your entire post which is why I ask.

I thought that it was simpler the other way, I could be amiss, ... apparently I was. LOL Either way, I try not to clutter up analyses with anything but the most pertinent points for reasons that you can imagine. BTW, there's "Metrics," as in the programs that the teams use, which IMO is putting faith almost exclusively into detailed analyses, but good analysis always includes perspectives that the numbers don't always wash out in the numbers and that "DVOAs" don't always account for despite the perception otherwise.

BTW, Brown was taken at the tail end of the 3rd-Round, only 4 picks before the compensatory picks began. That feeds into the point that I made as well. Also, the two picks immediately following Brown are better than he is. Ben Cleveland and Robert Hainsey. Also, two Centers taken afterwards, are better than he is. Quinn Meinerz and Drew Dalman. Numerous OL-men taken on day 3 are better too. I'd take any of them over Brown. Centers can always play G, an easier position. It isn't necessary, but it emphasizes it. Again, add Brown into the mix, per above, it doesn't help Beane, it actually makes him look even worse given that the two immediate OL picks behind Brown are both already playing at starting levels, well, it simply kept the analysis more simple. Never good to complicate things here. LOL As to the other three singular picks, per my post above, the only other three teams to have drafted only 1 OL-man in the first 92 picks. They're all better than the one that we got, Ford.

OK, not sure what you want me to say at this point. Play for play for seven seasons until '78 Mitchell gained more yardage per game altogether than Harris did. So if instead of 96.2 YPG on average YFS people would rather have 87.4 YPG on average, OK. I have no problem with that. I can see the appeal the game was different back then with "3-Yards-and-a-Cloud-of-Dust" RBs being more valuable in general. I simply remember watching Mitchell and he was the overall more versatile RB, which back then was somewhat more novel than it became later on. Your reference to the Super Bowls is irrelevant. Baltimore had Bert Jones at QB whose career was also plagued with injuries. Bradshaw was far more reliable from an injury perspective. Baltimore also didn't have nearly the talent at WR that Pittsburgh had with Swann, Stallworth, Grossman, etc. Mitchell also didn't have the support that Harris got from Bleier either. And comparing Defenses during those years is ridiculous. Sounds like you're saying that the Steelers won four Super Bowls primarily because of Harris, which would be ridiculous given the legendary Steel Curtain D with wall-to-wall talent, much of which is in the Hall of Fame, and Bradshaw/Swann/Stallworth also. You say that as if Harris carried the Steelers to 4 SB wins on his back. The reality is that he had a monster postseason in '74 and contributed heavily to that SB win, but in the other three not nearly as much rushing 67 times for 196 yards in the other three games, averaging a mere 65 rushing YPG on fewer than 3.0 YPC. If you want to engage there, let me know. My point was very simply that Harris wasn't runaway better on an apples to apples comparison that you laid it out to be. If you want to think differently, great, I'll respect that. To each his own. Frankly, it also depends upon the team. Harris IMO wouldn't have done as well as Mitchell in Baltimore for that very reason, the lack of support just mentioned, on both sides. At the same time, the Steelers didn't really need a versatile RB that Mitchell was, they needed Harris, a bruiser. They had all of the other components of a well-rounded offense, unlike Baltimore at the time. It was fun watching both of them at the time. The more versatile of the two however was clearly Mitchell, even at PSU. There's not much of an argument to the contrary, Harris simply wasn't the receiving RB that Mitchell was. First 92 picks ... Brown (93rd and bottom of the 3rd round) hasn't been what the other three singular picks are either regardless. Beane has neglected our OL more than any other team in the NFL.

No, but I was responding to your comment below ... My point was, while trying to be respectful, that that's entirely debatable. Mitchell, by Yards-from-Scrimmage was the more productive player over the first 7 seasons. His career was simply shortened due to injury, and Harris really wasn't all that afterwards. In fact, his time in Seattle was an embarassment, he didn't even pretend that he was trying, averaging 2.5 YPC. The moment he got the ball he headed for the sidelines just there to get his 12,000 yards. He averaged a pedestrian 3.8 YPC in his last 5 seasons. Frankly, I'd rather have had Mitchell back then. Had he not gotten hurt and had he been able to play longer, he'd have done better than Harris IMO. More importantly, as I said above, for us to draft a RB is to put the cart before the horse. Apparently few Bills fans understand that Beane on his watch has devoted fewer top resources to OL-men than any other team in the league. I simply don't see how that can continue to be overlooked if Beane is to keep his job.

If the Bills don't take an Offensive Lineman in the first three rounds, under Beane the Bills will have selected only one (1) Offensive Lineman among the first 92 picks in 6 Drafts, once. Cody Ford at 38th overall at the top of the 2nd. As it is, only three other teams have drafted only one Offensive Lineman in the first 92 picks over the past 5 Drafts. One of them is the Rams who've, for whatever reason, only had three 2nd-round picks and no 1st-round picks in in those five years. The Chiefs' one OL was Creed Humphrey, who's one of the best interior OL-men in the league. The Rams got Joseph Noteboom, a decent OL-man. The Cards got Josh Jones, a very good tackle. (The "Josh's" are lighting up the league.) They all start. We got Ford, who was horrible and has been a backup. Those three teams also spent more resources in the 50 or so picks after that than we have on the OL. In short, we've spent fewer resources on our OL than ANY team in the league during Beane's watch. I think it's ridiculous to even hint at a notion that that's meaningless given our circumstances, which include that we can't run the ball and that Josh gets hammered at times and has to adjust his play as a rule to compensate for Beane's failures there. Drafting a RB at this point is to put the cart before the horse.

Interesting comment. Different take though ... Mitchell's career was shortened due to injuries. He was a more versatile back, one of the most exciting in the NFL to watch at the time. Harris was more bruiser and less finesse. Mitchell was also a dual threat RB. In twice the career starts Harris only had 50% more yards-from-scrimmage, or so. Mitchell averaged 29 receiving yards-per-game, Harris only 13. Through 1978 Mitchell had nearly a thousand more yards from scrimmage. Harris' overall numbers came from playing longer. Mitchell was finished after that while Harris went on to play a bunch more seasons, he was only average at best after that tho. It's more like comparing Thurman to Christian Okoye.

It feels like the Levy years to me, when he was coaching that is. He just wasn't good enough to beat the likes of Parcells, Johnson, or Gibbs. We had to hope that we had such an advantage in talent that we could overcome him. Then they shitcanned Polian who built that phenomenal collection of talent. McD's similar to Levy in that regard, out-coached by his peers that we'll see in the playoffs, and Beane's no Polian.

You just hit the nail on the head. I don't remember when the last time I watched a Super Bowl was. What everyone goes Gaga over I don't care about, namely the halftime show and the commercials. In fact I don't both to be irritating. ("Get off my lawn!" LOL) But it's a pop-culture event, designed not for football fans, but for the masses and mass consumption. It's designed to be a cultural extravaganza to maximize TV reasons and generate interest outside the states. The NFL cares about money, not the fans, other than milking them for their money. I no more watch it than I would any other game in not interested in. The only reason why I watch the playoffs anymore is to see who we're playing next.

A "dance of luck" yes and no. Again, this is one of those areas where you can "make your luck." It's important when you scout to consider who the player you're looking at went up against. If they're small school and logged all their stats and yards in situations that typically don't occur often in the NFL, it's probably a good idea to factor that in heavily. Also look at the caliber of players that a player went up against, if those he didn't do anything against teams featuring individual opponents that are likely headed for the NFL, there's a good chance he'll struggle in the NFL as well. Only makes sense. You can help yourself by drafting players that did well against other players that are headed for the NFL and against teams that often field them. IOW, if a player logs a ton of stats against Kent State, Akron, and Ball State, but does hardly anything against other teams, but putting up gawdy numbers and overall very good numbers against weaker competition, don't take 'em high. Zay Jones was one of those for example. He also played in a lot of games with 5 WR sets and when his team was hopelessly down. This information is statistically available publicly, for teams not to avail themselves of it is remiss.

Thanks! Having said all that, I guess that the eternal optimists always have the possibility that we'll just get one of those "lucky seasons" that propels us to a championship, like LA a little in '21. But if rather rely on talent and good coaching, which we're short on. What's strange is how some teams, like ours, don't consider making similar changes in their coaching ranks like they do for the roster/depth chart. It's a business, nothing should be off the table, and unless you've achieved perfection, and we haven't come close, then there's always room for improvement.

Thank you! 🙄😂🤣😂

Agreed, but at the same time I'm not penciling is in for 13 wins again either, I think that the holes in our Defense are going to cost us this season. Also, I'm thinking that the Jets & Fins are both going to improve and they were already competitive this season.

Great read! If those are the only two options, pursuing option 2 doesn't seem as if it would be particularly productive. For that one to be productive, both short and more importantly longer term, it would require good drafting, something that Beane has done anything but proven a propensity for. Even in free-agency he's hit-n-miss on "proven" players. Either way, I wouldn't put a lot of money on the notion that we win the division this coming season, which is disappointing as most of us had assumed that we'd be winning the division for years to come as was I. Oh well ... I'm also not in the camp that prefers to have a weak division so that we can win it, like the Pats for 20 years. I prefer some competition, although I wouldn't want to be in the same division with both Cinci and KC for example, but having the Fins, Jets, and meh, maybe even the Pats be competitive IMO is a good thing and helps come playoff time.