BillsFanForever19

Please show me where I said Rookies "can't" play well in their first year. I said you can't *rely* on that. That it's unlikely, especially with your first pick being around Pick 30, or in the case of this discussion, 33. And your gotcha's for last year prove my point more than yours. Of a field of 257 picks, you pointed to 7 players. I'll even add Brian Thomas Jr. to your list. Of those 8 players, only 2 were on the board when we picked. And we'd only be able to get 1 of them. Like above, you're taking words like "unlikely" to mean impossible. Statements like "you can't rely on Rookies in Year 1" to mean "Rookies will provide nothing". These are not things I'm saying. What I'm saying is to *expect* it is a lot to ask of them (especially where we're picking). To rely only on just them is foolish, which is why we don't if we can avoid it. The Defense will way more likely than not improve. But it's not all on the Rookies, like you're implying. And it's not all on the Veterans. It's in both. And also, it's in who they're replacing. At CB, from the field of Maxwell Hairston, Tre White, Dorian Strong, and Dane Jackson - to see an improvement they need to provide more than Rasul Douglas (who gave up a 144.2 passer rating when thrown on and is on the street bc he's toast), Kaiir Elam, and Ja'Marcus Ingram. At DE, from the field of Joey Bosa, Michael Hoecht, and Landon Jackson - to see an improvement they need to provide more than Von Miller and Dawuane Smoot. At DT, from the field of T.J. Sanders, Larry Ogunjobi, and Deone Walker - to see an improvement they need to provide more than Austin Johnson, Quinton Jefferson, and Jordan Phillips. These are not big asks of either the Rookies or the Veterans.

Not always. And this year, we have *so* many players dinged up, we can't really afford to do that - as we need to be able to field a team for the last Pre-Season game while also sitting a large percentage of the guys making the 53.

How do you consider it "dirty pool"? It's simply fact that most Drafted Rookies don't light the league on fire in Year 1. Especially when you're consistently picking at the bottom of Round 1. Yes, you need to be patient with Draft Picks. You can't rely on them to get the NFL game down immediately. And the Bills aren't doing that on Defense this year. They have fall back plans everywhere. We're not just relying on Maxwell Hairston and Dorian Strong. We signed Tre White and Dane Jackson. We're not just relying on T.J. Sanders and Deone Walker. We signed Larry Ogunjobi. We're not just relying on Landon Jackson. We signed Joey Bosa and Michael Hoecht. Of course you *want* to find 1st year impact players in the Draft. But the Draft is a crap shoot as is. It's an even bigger crap shoot if you're wanting to see major Year 1 impact. And an even bigger one still if you want Year 1 impact while consistently picking at the bottom of the Round.

The problem with that is what do you think the odds are that we'd pay Rousseau 80m with 54m guaranteed on one side AND pay the insane cost that an "elite guy" would cost on the other side - while also paying a top QB contract? To me, that's *incredibly* unlikely. This is why we took a chance on Joey Bosa on an injury prone discounted rate, signed Michael Hoecht, and Drafted Landon Jackson. With what we're paying Rousseau (on top of everything else), we need to hit on a cheaper option on the other side. Which is why I imagine this scenario has Rousseau involved in a Trade Offer for Hendrickson. We're scraping pennies together right now after all the deals we did. We're dead last on cap space and it's not looking good in future years, again, bc of all the deals and extensions we did. To fit a guy like Hendrickson on and pay him what he wants, we'd need to unload a big contract like Rousseau's. This is why I was out on extending Rousseau. If we need an Elite guy opposite Rousseau for him to be effective, why spend 20m a year on him? If he's something we absolutely needed back, why are we every year saying "we need a pass rush" and yearning for guys like Hendrickson? All that said though, I agree with you. I'm not giving up Rousseau and a 1st Round Pick for Trey Hendrickson. He's very good. But I don't think he's worth all of that. I'll take my chances on Bosa this year and Hoecht and Jackson in future years to be the answer. And bc of our Cap situation and all the deals we did, we're really going to need to rely on the Draft in the next couple years. We can't afford to give up 1st Round Picks, imo.

"Why don't we have any Year 1 Superstars with our highest pick being 33rd overall?!"

I'm sure a potential Samuel trade would just be something like Samuel and a 7th for a 6th, maybe even in 2027. It would be all about unloading the contract to make room. As we're currently Dead Last in the league with 1.7m for the 51. But we need to come up with a fair amount more to go from 51 to 53, pay the Practice Squad, and have some room for In Season Spending. But there's also some restructuring we can do to do that. You don't have to offer Special Teams as a 4th or a 5th WR, but it definitely doesn't help your chances if you're on the bubble if you don't. And that's where Moore kind of is. I'm getting an OJ Howard vibe from him. Down to the dollar amount in guarantees (2.5m isn't nothing, but it's not uncuttable), the lack of Teams, and a young guy on a minimum contract impressing underneath him while he isn't. Right now, I just as easily see him being cut as I do him sticking. If they have an actual interest in Davis and it's not just doing due diligence or helping someone they like out by manufacturing interest - I could easily see a scenario where down the stretch our WR core was Shakir, Palmer, Coleman, Davis, and Shavers.

Why is everyone assuming it's one or the other? First off, Gabe Davis won't be ready for Week 1. If signed, he'd be put on a list until he's ready. And by the time you're ready to activate him, who knows whether all of our WR's will still be healthy and active. Also, the only 3 WR's on this roster that you can say with 100% certainty are safe are Khalil Shakir, Josh Palmer, and Keon Coleman. Elijah Moore reportedly has not been impressing. Curtis Samuel has both Beane (who mentioned every WR on the roster *but* Samuel on McAfee) and McDermott (who said he needs to see urgency from Samuel down the stretch to see if and how he'll fit in the Offense) publicly not showing a lot of confidence in. Teams are openly in the vet WR Trade Market right now and if they can get out from his contract, I bet they would. At this point, it seems unlikely that both will stick on the roster and not completely out of the realm of possibility that neither do. I'd even go so far as to say I feel more confident that Shavers will stick than I do both of Moore and Samuel sticking together. And on top of all of that, 5 is what we carried last year. But we've carried 6 under the Beane and McDermott era more times than we've kept 5. So it's even possible to have Moore, Samuel, and Shavers sticking and Davis on PUP. All of this to say, you can easily come up with ways that both Shavers and Davis are here. And I find that to be a more likely scenario than only one or the other being here, if Davis were to be signed.

This is an exact re-run of Middle Linebacker in 2023. At the time, we had Tyrell Dodson and Terrel Bernard. Bernard was entering his second year and was hurt most of Training Camp. McDermott said the same thing about still figuring out the position and that he wanted to see someone step up, late into the Pre-Season. We all worried about how Bernard would handle the position, as we are now with Bishop. In the end, it worked out better than fine. Hopefully this ends up the same way with Bishop. Time will tell.

Yes. Mack Hollins' replacement is Josh Palmer. If he stays healthy and gets 15 starts and plays 20 games as Mack did, I'm willing to guarantee that he'll easily have more production than 482 yards. Beyond that, Palmer is a much better WR in every way. That's the crux of it. He wasn't going to supercede Shakir, Coleman, Palmer, or a healthy Samuel (with what we're paying him). And we're not going to pay a 2 year 8.4m contract with 3.5 guaranteed for WR5. For that role, we signed Elijah Moore to a 1 year deal worth 3.5m with 2.5m guaranteed. Moore has elite speed and more production in 4 years than Hollins has in 8. And if we could get out from under the contracts we have for Samuel (who was never supposed to be a 4th WR) and Moore, I think we would. It's likely the bottom of the WR roster gig will be held by Shavers, being paid the bare minimum. Also, Free Agency isn't a one way street. We can't *force* him to come back. It's not just the Bills who decide whether Hollins stays or doesn't - it's Mack himself and his agents. Who he reportedly told to "find him the best opportunity" and they came back saying New England. Even if we did decide to match the money (which we wouldn't) we'd also have to match the opportunity for playing time, which in New England, isn't the bottom of the WR roster like you said you were comparing him to here. Mack himself wouldn't (and didn't) turn down the opportunity for the kind of playing time he has in New England (where he could very well end up starting) to be a 4th (at best) or 5th WR with us. Like I said, it didn't make sense from our side to match the money and opportunity New England was offering. And at the same time, it didn't make sense from Mack's side to turn down the money and opportunity New England was offering. It's really as simple as that.

I'm 50/50 on it. I can see a scenario where he's cut. I can just as easily see a scenario where they expected he'd take a year or two of development and/or they like what they see in Practice and in Meetings. This board has zero patience for players who aren't lighting the world on fire as a Rookie. It wasn't too long ago Terrel Bernard was declared a bust after Year 1.

According to whom? We don't know what the development plans and expectations were for Olofoshio when they selected him in Round 5 last year. No one knows how long or how short his rope is with the team. It seems a pretty common practice around here for Day 3 Drafted players to be led to the gallows by posters after only one season if they haven't made an immediate impact as Rookies. When it's unlikely that they will, being Day 3 Picks. I'll never forget multiple respected posters on this board calling for Khalil Shakir to be cut for Andy Isabella after his Rookie year bc "what has Shakir done to earn a roster spot?". Long story short, he could be cut. But he could just as easily be given more than one season to see if he develops. It all depends on what they're seeing with him behind the scenes.

That may be true of his last game with us. I'm not defending that game and him dropping the ball there at the end. There's no question there was a fall off in his play and/or disconnect with the team at that point. And again, that was inexcusable. But the narrative of his Playoff "disappearing act" and my discussion of scheme is about much more than that game.

It doesn't mystify me in the slightest. Mack Hollins was never supposed to be relied on as heavily as he was. It was just a matter of Keon Coleman not being ready for primetime out of the gate, Keon dealing with injuries, and Curtis Samuel being hampered for the majority of the year with injuries. And ultimately, his even being here had to do with what we could afford at the time. Hollins was always brought in to be mainly a Blocker and Special Teams ace. He wasn't someone in their long term plans as a WR. Extenuating circumstances and him overachieving led to a bigger role and more production than expected. Even then, his abilities and what he did last season are greatly exaggerated by Bills fans. In 20 games and 15 of those him starting, he put up 482 yards and 6 TD's. That's a lot more than was expected of him. But that's still not great numbers. If you can do better than that (and we could this offseason), you absolutely should. When the time came that we could do more at the position, you want to have someone more talented there than Mack Hollins playing as much as he was. And as likeable as Hollins is as a character, Josh Palmer is world's more talented as a WR. We signed Mack Hollins to a 1 year 2.6m contract with 1.1m guaranteed. The Patriots signed him to a 2 year 8.4m contract with 3.5m guaranteed. That's a massive pay raise and a longer term contract. And that kind of contract means a decent role in the WR room. He may even start opposite Diggs. But we were already looking to upgrade from him. If Mack wanted to sign on for another 1 year deal with a slight pay increase and a role more in line with our original plans where he's not used as much as a WR, I'm sure they'd have brought him back. We were never going to match the kind of money and the kind of role NE was offering. And that was the right call for both Mack and the Bills.

Averaging 500 or so yards and 4 TD's more a year isn't really an argument? Like... what? That's a MASSIVE difference in annual production. On top of that Diggs' top years in production in Buffalo when it comes to yardage and TD's eclipses that of Moulds. The argument about him disappearing in the Playoffs to me is dismissing the fact that the game plan in big Playoff games was to go to the guys who weren't facing the heavy coverage. Many of those games he was flat out used as a decoy. Why do you think he lost it in the Cincinnati game? Why do you think Gabe Davis had the game he had in Kansas City? Should he have come down with the ball against KC at the end of the game? Absolutely. But the "disappearing act" everyone likes to point to was largely scheme. They wouldn't even look in his direction bc of the rolling coverage and McDermott being too conservative in big games and it was infuriating to me. I get not liking the guy. How he handled business. How things ended. His general Diva attitude. But to say Moulds was a better WR is just factually false. Stefon Diggs as a player will be remembered by fans of the NFL way more than Eric Moulds and no one but the most homer of Bills fans with an axe to grind would even try and make this argument.

I love Eric Moulds. But there's no question on who the more impactful WR was. In Eric Moulds 10 years in Buffalo, he put up 9096 yards and 52 TD's - for an average of 909.6 yards and 5.2 TD's a year. In Stefon Diggs 4 years in Buffalo, he put up 5372 yards and 37 TD"s - for an average of 1343 yards and 9.25 TD's a year. Moulds was great. Diggs was on a different level.

Apparently, the last person to wear it was former Tennessee Titans 2nd Round Pick WR Justin Hunter - who I honestly can't even remember being a member of the Bills...

Stop. I know his exit was bad. And that Bills fans dislike him bc of it. But he was great before his last year with the team. And he was great with us for the first half of that season. Even in Houston last season, he was on pace for a 1125 yard season had he not gone down after 7.5 games. Of course his numbers with Josh were better than with Teddy Bridgewater, Sam Bradford, Case Keenum, and Kirk Cousins. Josh is a much better Quarterback than all of them. And it took a couple years before he became who he became in Minnesota and he missed over half the year last season. Again, I get he's not well liked and for good reason. But discounting how great he was with us for 3 and a half years and how great he was before late 2023 is ridiculous. He was quite possibly the best WR to ever lineup for the Bills and the smoothest route runner I've probably ever seen.

I don't see any reason to do it now other than some sort of personal gratification for you. What distraction? Maybe a question or two from the local media? It's a moot point though. McDermott works a base defense and doesn't scheme during the Pre-Season. He doesn't have the Starters out there. We look HORRIBLE every Pre-Season. Hell, we played the Bears last year and lost 33-6. It means absolutely nothing. What I'm getting at is that with all the Safeties looking subpar, Bishop's penchant for getting dinged up, Hancock dinged up rn, and McDermott's belief in Hamlin - you're unlikely to see him cut IMO. Bad performances in the Pre-Season don't mean much to him when it comes to guys he believes in.

If that's how he played last year, no one is picking up that contract. If anyone's trading for him, the Pats would have to eat a fair amount of money along with it.

Hancock down. Maybe we could check on him rather than do a Caleb interview? 😡

I have the same roster down to your 52 and 53rd - except for one thing and it's a pretty important one: Dane Jackson out and one of Codrington or Shenault in. This roster has no Return man. Edit: @ganesh beat me to it.

Samuel's already returned to running routes and practicing. McDermott has said he wants to see some urgency from him so they can see how he fits in the Offense. Unless he gets hurt again, they can't return him to action and then IR him. It's either Samuel is traded or he'll be on the 53. If Hairston was someone they felt was going to be a long term thing into the season, they'd have PUP'ed him already. By all accounts, he should be ready to roll by Week 1. Even if they sat him as a precaution for Week 1 - he's far too important to shut down for 4 weeks if it isn't necessary. And with SVPG most likely sticking on PUP and Hoecht and Ogunjobi being Roster exempt, it's not really necessary to do things like this with Samuel and Hairston. If you look at the 53 projections or do your own, you can pretty easily fit everyone who should be here on to the Roster.

It's not an insane idea. But I think that would require both Tre looking terribly and Hairston looking less than after recovering from his injury (who should be ready to roll by Week 1 or not soon after).

That's not true. He played 16 games in 2023 and 17 games in 2022. In 2021 he battled COVID that had him only play 5 games. 2020 he played 15 games. 2019 he played 16 games. He wasn't some sort of Joey Bosa type or a guy that had people worried about his health in Free Agency. He was one of the more sought after WR's (especially on this board), who went in the first wave of Free Agency and we had competition. He was not damaged goods. I understand being down on him after dealing with the injuries last season and then seeing him be banged up this off-season. But I think saying "by keeping him you are just limiting the WR room with a guy that is likely to be out or limited for more of the season than the guys you would likely cut" is a little much. I think he is a very talented WR with speed that we just got unlucky with last year with the Turf Toe (which is a kiss of death with a WR) during a time he was trying to get acclimated to the new Offense. He tried to play through it but it lingered. At the end of the year, he started looking healthy and provided some spark. I know he's been injured and the brass is frustrated. But I personally wouldn't give up on him. His Training Camp injury is relatively minor and I'd expect him to be ready to roll Week 1. And as for cutting him limiting us, I pretty easily fit all of Samuel, Moore, and Shavers on my own 53. All that said though, listening to Beane and McDermott, I'm not sure they agree with me. And I think the shape of the cap has a lot to do with it. Like you said, cutting him is a lot of Dead Cap. To a point where you're essentially paying him to not be here. However, a trade gives us some relief. I think at this point they'd like to trade him. Even if it's just a deal where they take on over 7m and in return we swap a 7th for a 6th. But I don't see them outright cutting him.