folz

Yeah, not sure why I was assuming the original post was regular season only (which is what my list was). But even adding the playoffs (for just Josh and Aaron), I still get Rodgers just barely ahead in TDs/Touch for some reason (they both have performed well in the playoffs over the years). But as I said before, it doesn't really matter either way, it's so close, and because Josh will be clearly in front at some point this season, if he isn't already. And I'm not trying to take anything away from Josh. Obviously, in just 7 seasons, one of the best ever already. Rodgers 16.7274 Allen 16.8203

I'm not sure how the original Twitter/X poster came up with his stats. I went to check on turnovers (per rajinka's post) and decided to look at TDs as well, but in a slightly different format. I did a TD per how many touches. After doing that (including passing/rushing attempts and receiving targets---all touches), I came out with Aaron Rodgers still being slightly ahead of Josh---if my numbers are correct (no doubt though that Josh will probably take the lead early this upcoming season). Bradshaw and Young also got a slight bump up on my TD list for whatever reason. Doc Brown mentioned Drew Brees, and Figster mentioned Kurt Warner, so I looked up those guys too, as well as Tom Brady. Brees came in at 18.5, Brady at 18.8, and Warner at 20.1 on my TD/Touch list. Just FYI. Anyhow, here is what I came up with for Turnovers and TDs per touch for the 8 players in the original post. Player Turnovers Per Touch Player Touchdowns Per Touch Terry Bradshaw* (TO every) 14.8 (touches) Aaron Rodgers (TD every) 16.71 (touches) Steve Young* 27.8 Josh Allen 16.75 Tony Romo 31.8 Peyton Manning 17.6 Peyton Manning 36.6 Steve Young 17.7 Josh Allen 39.9 Terry Bradshaw 17.8 Lamar Jackson 48.0 Patrick Mahomes 17.8 Patrick Mahomes 53.0 Tony Romo 18.1 Aaron Rodgers 57.3 Lamar Jackson 18.1 It really shows you how good Aaron Rodgers has been to be top of the TD list and bottom of the turnover list (surprising that has equated to only one Super Bowl appearance in 20 seasons). And on that note, it's interesting that 5 of those 8 QBs have a combined 2 SB appearances (as starting QBs), while the other 3 QBs have appeared in 13 combined Super Bowls...kind of shows that it is still a team game and how hard it is to actually reach a Super Bowl. [*For Bradshaw and Young (only), I could not find separate fumbles vs. fumbles lost lists. Not sure when the NFL started differentiating between a fumble and a lost fumble. So, their turnover/touch numbers may be better than they appear above (I assume back in the day a fumble was a fumble no matter who recovered it). However, if I include all of Josh's fumbles and not just lost fumbles (and he had a lot of fumbles that the Bills recovered), his number is still better than both of those older players. So the two players in question probably have slightly better numbers than are shown, but it wouldn't really affect their ranking. For all other QBs, I used fumbles lost stats, not total fumbles...because a recovered fumble is not a turnover.]

Barnwell's article seems like a pointless experiment. It is basically, which teams have the most stud/household name skill players (preferably WRs). It by no means determines how any of these offenses will be in 2025 (with or without their QB). And pretty much any fan could look across the teams and say who has more studs than others with a quick glance. No need to even bring analytics into it, it is a pretty obvious task. But that is fantasy football type of stuff, not team building. And even though he claims to have used metrics/analytics, etc., a lot of his decisions were obviously made on pure opinion (particularly in regards to injuries, rookies and second/third-year players, etc.). And why weight receivers higher? Yes, it is a passing league (and they get paid more, not sure what that has to do with it), but many teams went back to a heavier/more balanced run game over the last couple of years. And if you look at total yards from scrimmage in 2024, in the top 32, there are 21 RBs, 10 WRs, and 1 TE. There are only two WRs in the top 18 (all the rest are RBs). Eight of the non-QB touchdown leaders in 2024 were RBs, with only 2 WRs. Both receivers and RBs are reliant on the QB and offensive line to get their jobs done. Plus, there are many teams with a better player at RB1 and TE1 than WR2 or WR3, etc. Weighting WRs higher automatically shoots teams with say two stud WRs up the rankings. But maybe because they are paying those two WRs a lot, their offensive line isn't as good, or their RBs and TEs are a step down, or they're lacking in depth. Or maybe it's because they aren't paying a franchise QB yet, or their defense suffers for it. Plus, he's comparing three players of one group (WRs) vs. only 1 player in the RB and TE groups. So, he's almost adding a double-weight to the receivers. Why not just make the article, who has the most stud receivers, or the best receiving group, instead of making it seem like he is comparing all skill groups evenly. In 2024, 15 different skill players touched the ball for Buffalo. In 2023, 14 different skill players touched the ball. Our offense spreads the ball around to more than just 5 players. As does every offense to some extent. Most teams run tandems at RB, all teams have two-TE packages, guys get injured, many teams rotate guys based on the game or opponent, etc. By not including depth, he is definitely skewing the picture. Yes, if you were to rank only TE1s, Kincaid (based on current production, not potential*) would probably be in the 12-15 range. But when you add Knox, Davidson, and a true blocking TE in Hawes, I think our TE group will definitely be top 10, maybe top 5ish. Same goes for the running back room when you add Davis and Johnson to Cook. [Plus a top 5 O-line.] [*Barnwell's opinion also shows through on which "potential" guys he thinks will improve and which won't.] So, the article basically comes down to who would have the best offense if you remove the OC, QB, all offensive linemen, all RB depth, all TE depth, and WRs 4-6 and then you add extra weight to the top 3 wide receivers. How at that point are you even comparing offenses or being able to assess how much a GM has helped their QB? For the Bills at least, with how we run our offense, that is like saying how would the Bills offense fare if you removed Brady, Josh, the offensive line, and 66.6% of their skill players. Or if you think, QB, 5 OL, 3 RB, 3 TE, 5 WR as your main guys, Barnwell is removing 70% of the offense and comparing the rest to try and determine who would be best if you removed only the quarterback. Just not understanding the point of the article. [And from a Bills perspective, it just perpetuates the false narrative that Josh is doing it all on his own.] Either rank receiving corps as a whole (where the Bills would currently rank low), or all skill players as a whole, or the total offense without the QB (in both cases, the Bills would rank much higher). Or do a big three skill positions ranking (best WR, RB, TE trio). This in between is just some fantasy land and is misleading (according to his article's title and mission statement). [P.S. I do expect our WR corps this year to be much better than most outsiders are currently projecting. But, I understand the reason for the current projections as well and would not expect us to be more than average at best in most WR only rankings.]

Just noting some positions where the Bills had great players, and who the writer selected over them (Obviously, the Bills didn't draft every player on the list below---Bennett, Poyer, Hyde, etc.---just wanted to see why some very good Bills players didn't make the list). The writer also noted that he didn't want to overweigh QBs just based on the importance of the position. [NOTE: None of the 64/65 AFL Champ team players were eligible for the list. The list begins at the 1967 (common era) draft.] Bills on the list (played more than one season for the Bills---so not counting guys like Gore, Owens, Anderson): #86 Andre Reed, #134 Kyle Williams, #148 Khalil Shakir, #185 Christian Benford, #250 Ryan Fitzpatrick, #253 Roland Hooks. A few great Bills that missed the list and who was selected over them (according to the writer of the article): #1: Peyton Manning (over Bruce Smith and O.J. Simpson) #2: Lawrence Taylor (and many others: Faulk, Peppers, C. Johnson, Von Miller, Barkley, Bosa---all over Cornelius Bennett). #6: Walter Jones (then Tim Brown, then Julio Jones...and then James Lofton) #14: Darrelle Revis over Jim Kelly (reason: Revis had more All-Pros and won one Super Bowl). #24: Ed Reed (+Aaron Rodgers)---at least those two are over Eric Moulds. #26: Ray Lewis over Joe DeLamielleure. #32: Drew Brees (+Lamar Jackson)---at least those two over Fred Smerlas. #39: Ed White (Chargers Guard) over Darryl Talley. (Reason: White had two more Pro Bowls than Talley) #40: Michaels Strahan [over Thurman Thomas]. Picked Strahan because of the single-season sack record and one Super Bowl win. #146: George Kittle over Stefon Diggs #159: Miami Safety Jake Scott (over Micah Hyde) #218: Tom Nalen, Denver center [over Jordan Poyer] #226: Picked KC Guard Trey Smith (drafted 2021) over Steve Tasker [No explanation for guys this low on the list.] Strange that a 4-year lineman was higher than any players picked here who already finished a full career (looks like the writer heavily weighted SB wins and Smith has two already being drafted by K.C). And granted its a low pick, so may not be a lot of choices...but at least Tasker was there as another option.

Playoff Stats: Record Win% Total Points Points/game Point Differential Total TDs TDs/Gm Headto Head Teams lost to Lamar Jackson: 3-5 37.5 149 18.6 Even 13 1.6 0-2 K.C. (1), Buf (2), LAC (1), Tenn (1) Josh Allen: 7-6 53.8 356 27.4 +44 32 2.5 2-0 K.C. (4), Cin (1), Hou (1) Also note: Four of the Bills six playoff losses (66.6%) were either Overtime or 3 point losses; only one of the Ravens losses (12.5%) were by 3 points or less.

Yeah, I think frostbitmic nailed it for me...while also acknowledging that I didn't get to see players such as McGuire, Moody, and Gogalak. Don't think they'd make the BB Mt. Rushmore, because I assume a lot of their ST tackles came with other teams (Jax and Minn, respectively), but there are two Bills on the All-Time Special Teams Tackles list: Paul Posluszney (at 13) and Antoine Winfield (at 17). Again, not Mt. Rushmore worthy, but other guys who came to mind (with a little digging): Siran Neal, Tyler Matakevich, Taiwan Jones, Roscoe Parrish, Jeff Burris, Leodis McKelvin, George Wilson, Mario Hagan, Marcus Easley, John Wendling, Scott Norwood, Chris Mohr, Reid Ferguson, Garrison Sanborn, Adam Linger, Sam Aiken, Lorenzo Alexander. FYI: John Wendling led the league in ST tackles in 2009 (he was second in the league in ST tackles in 2010, but with Detroit at that point). Marcus Easley led the league in ST tackles in 2013.

The question is who is Lucy this time? Kansas City? Baltimore? The NFL/refs? Our coaches/FO? The football gods? I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this analysis, just condensing some of the info as far as who the OP sees as SB contenders: Based on the OP's optimistic views for teams, he has 13 teams as SB contenders (listed as at least making a conf. title game, optimistically---2024 playoff teams are in bold): LA Rams, KC, Philly, Washington, Pitt, Houston, Detroit, Denver, Atlanta, SF, Tampa, Green Bay, and Buffalo. (the only 2024 playoff teams not in contention are the Chargers and Vikings, replaced by Atlanta and SF). OP's best optimistic views: Buffalo wins the SB Philly wins the SB Ravens SB appearance OP's best realistic results: Buffalo makes a SB appearance Baltimore makes AFC Championship Philly make the NFC Championship Washington makes the NFC Championship So, seems like similar results to last year (as far as the playoff teams go), except (I would surmise) with Buffalo advancing to the SB (over Balt) and probably facing Philly (with either team winning the SB, but Buffalo being a slight favorite in odds).

Not sure what you are debating. The fact that the Diggs trade came after free agency began only enhances how strapped they were for spending dollars. Apologies for lumping things together (as one offseason) rather than laying out the exact timeline of everything in detail. The team was $41 million over at the start of the NFL year (so before the Diggs trade, which only made things worse when it happened). The team released a number of players and restructured a number of others, so they could "work around the cap" as Beane stated. So they would have some money to spend. [Note: Tre wouldn't be released until April 1st, Diggs traded on April 3rd.] In the end, the Bills were 22nd in free agency spending last year (they were worst in the NFL in being over the cap at the start of the new year). So, are you trying to say that they had plenty of money/cap room in 2024 and chose not to use it or used it poorly? Or that the Diggs trade didn't also affect their offseason (he was $3.2 million more against the cap traded than if he stayed---$31 million against the cap total--- and he had to be replaced with another player and their salary and cap hit)? So, not sure what you mean by "misleading" and "revisionist history." I'm not sure what point you are actually questioning or how Samuel being the 4th highest paid FA WR weighs into it?

I was at that game...it was electrifying. That team was GREAT (difference makers all over the field), and that whole season was magical, right up until the last few seconds, of course. But I always laugh watching that clip. It literally looks like Gary Kubiak (the holder for the FG) dies on the field chasing after Bennett (no disrespect to Damar). See :21 to :26 seconds into the video. 😄

Some of you guys act like this is fantasy football. It is much more complicated for real teams and there is always context. Do you not remember that because of the Stefon Diggs trade and because we kicked the can down the road a bit to try and keep the team together over the previous few years (because we were close), the Bills were 41 million over the cap at the start of the 2024 offseason? How many great players did you expect the Bills to bring in under those circumstances? Everyone knew it was going to be a tight year without the ability to add any big names or whatever (while having to release/trade some mainstay players as well). The Bills decided to take the hit of the Diggs trade all last year, which severely strapped them in 2024 (but made things easier in 2025). Yet, they still won 13 games and made it to the AFC Championship in what was supposed to be a down/rebuild year because of lack of funds and aging veterans. So, yes, 2024 does not appear to have been a great offseason, but there is a reason for it. Plus, I would say that Mack Hollins, Keon (before the injury), Curtis Samuel (at the end of the year), Amari Cooper (sporadically), D. Carter (was coming on before his injury), and Ray Davis (631 yards and 6 TDs) were all contributors. And I think you could safely say that at least Hollins and Davis made an impact. They had 11 TDs combined last season (and did much more than just scoring). Many teams can't maintain success through the inevitable reset year(s), but the Bills did. Almost seems like Beane and McD should get praise for that, not derision.

Maybe I buried my lead. Some posters say McDermott's record or success as a HC is only because of Josh, i.e. Josh is carrying the team, and McD would not be a good coach without him. It gets brought up around here a lot. I have heard people knock McDermott as a bad coach and in the same breath praise Sean Payton as a great coach. Yes, Sean Payton won one Super Bowl (his only appearance). He had future-HOFer Drew Brees for 15 years (5 of which were losing seasons). I never hear anyone say Drew Brees carried Sean Payton. And yet, if McD went 15 years with Drew Brees as his QB with only one SB appearance (and five losing seasons), he would be tarred and feathered here for wasting a HOF QB. And Payton has had some doozy playoff losses as well. It just seems like there is a double standard when it comes to McDermott. And no, I wasn't saying McDermott is as good of a coach as Don Shula. Just that Shula had 3 HOF QBs play for him (2 of the greatest QBs of all time), but no one says his success was only due to those QBs. We acknowledge that he was a great coach as well as having great QBs. And I wasn't trying to say that McDermott is an All-Time NFL coach by posting that list, I was just pointing out that all of these guys that we label as excellent coaches (who have won a lot of games and SBs or whatever) almost all had elite QB play. So, again, why do we not knock them for having great QBs, but with McDermott, all of his success is Josh and he would be terrible without Josh. There's no proof of that. He had an excellent run as a DC in Carolina, his one year as HC w/o Josh he took a bad team to the playoffs, besides last year, his defenses have been top 5 in scoring against, turnovers, etc. for like 5-6 years. If he were fired from Buffalo, he would be hired by another team very quickly. Just seems to me that there is more evidence that McDermott is a very good coach who is elevated by Josh, rather than a bad coach who would be nothing without Josh. And no, helping to find and develop Josh does not give McDermott a free pass by any means, but he also wasn't just a lucky bystander in the whole process, as some like to post.

Yes, Fisher has exactly one more win than Parcells. Hard to imagine, right? Also, a couple of updates upon review: John Harbaugh (QBs: Flacco, Jackson) should have been slated in ahead of Sean Payton (Harbaugh has two more wins)...and to note, Pete Carroll, Mike Shanahan, and Tom Coughlin all had the same number of wins as Payton (so, if I included Payton, I should have included them too). But the point still stands.

This first part is in response to some posters here, not the PFF ranking: Coaches with the Most Wins in NFL History (and their main QBs): 1. Don Shula - QBs: Johnny Unitas (HOF), Bob Griese (HOF), Dan Marino (HOF) 2. George Halas - QBs: George Blanda (HOF), Sid Luckman (HOF), Bobby Layne (HOF) 3. Bill Belichick - QB: Tom Brady (f-HOF) 4. Andy Reid - QBs: Patrick Mahomes (f-HOF), Donovan McNabb 5. Tom Landry - QBs: Don Meredith, Roger Staubach (HOF), Danny White 6. Curly Lambeau - QBs: Curly Lambeau (HOF) and Arnie Herber (two guys who pioneered the passing game in the NFL) 7. Paul Brown - QBs: Otto Graham (HOF), Ken Anderson 8. Marty Schottenheimer - QBs: Bernie Kosar, Joe Montana (HOF), Steve DeBerg, Drew Brees (f-HOF), Phillip Rivers 9. Chuck Knol - QB: Terry Bradshaw (HOF) 10. Dan Reeves - QBs: John Elway (HOF), Phil Simms, Chris Chandler, Michael Vick 11. Chuck Knox - QBs: Ron Jaworski, Dave Krieg, Joe Ferguson, James Harris 12. Mike Tomlin - QBs: Ben Rothlisberger (f-HOF) 13. Mike McCarthy - QBs: Aaron Rodgers (f-HOF), Dak Prescott 14. Jeff Fisher - QBs: Chris Chandler, Steve McNair, Nick Foles, Jared Goff, 15. Bill Parcells - QBs: Phil Simms, Drew Bledsoe, Vinny Testeverde, Tony Romo 16. Sean Payton - QBs: Drew Brees (f-HOF) Why is it that most coaches are considered great when they win a lot (despite having elite QB play), but McDermott is only good because of elite QB play? The only other coach you ever really here referenced in such a way is Bill Belichick (questioning how good a coach he is/would be without Brady). But every other coach who wins is just considered great. Don Shula is the winningest coach ever. After that statement is uttered, I never hear, yeah well he had three Hall of Fame Quarterbacks. He probably would have sucked without them. Most "great" coaches had excellent to elite QB play for the majority of their careers (it appears to be a very symbiotic relationship). I'm not saying that every QB on the list above is as good as Josh (and not all of those coaches are considered great), but there are 17 HOFers. I wonder if that helped most of those coaches be great? And even when Sean Payton gets brought up, I never hear people say, yeah, well he only made 1 Super Bowl despite having a HOF QB for 15 years...what a waste. And currently (yes, with fewer seasons/games) Sean McDermott's winning percentage is better than all but four of those sixteen coaches (Shula, Halas, Landry, and Brown---and those 4 coaches had 8 HOF QBs playing for them). This McD is only good because of Josh sentiment, needs to be retired. Would he be AS good without Josh, of course not, but he also wouldn't suck...he's a very good coach. Two other notions that need to go away are McD lucked into Josh and McD had no part in Josh's development: First, they did not luck into Josh. Brandon, Sean, and the entire organization did exhaustive research on all of the QBs that year. They decided that they wanted Josh. They made two separate trades sending picks and players away to move up to #7 to get Josh. They tried to move up to as high as #2 to get him. There were a lot of QB hungry teams that passed on Josh or didn't try to go up and get him. It wasn't just the media and fans that weren't sold on Josh and thought he might be a bust in the waiting, a lot of teams did too. But the Bills identified Josh and did everything in their power to get him. Sure there is some luck involved (other teams ahead of us not picking him), but the Bills busted their butts to get him, he didn't fall into our laps. And secondly, did McD work on Josh's mechanics, footwork, throwing motion, etc. Yeah, probably not. But he and Beane did put a plan of development together for Josh, they gave Josh the tools, they hired the right people to work with him, they empowered him, they tried to design the team around him, etc., etc. And if you don't think that a good culture, a stable organization, and a good relationship between HC and QB doesn't weigh in to a QBs development as well, well, you haven't been watching the NFL very closely over the last 10-50 years. Could Josh have been successful elsewhere? Of course. But are their some organizations where maybe he wouldn't have reached his full potential, yeah, that is probably true also. Ok, one last gripe: Others already dispelled the playoff points in the last five losses, or whatever. that was brought up earlier in the thread as a knock against McD. But, even if that stat had been correct, how many of those other teams had to face Kansas City (or a similar dynasty team) 4 out of 5 years? Kind of makes a difference---rather than say losing to a 10-7/9-8 #4 or #5-seed in the Wild Card round. As to the PFF rankings, if they are discussing where do the current coaches stack up All-Time/career, then sure Super Bowls and longevity should weigh in to the rankings (which pushes McD down a bit---fine). But, if they are talking who are the best coaches right now heading into 2025, then McD should be much higher on the list---definitely Top 10, probably somewhere in the 4-7 range, imo.

Fair enough...and yes, I was thinking mostly offense in comparison. But the 2020 defense was much better than the 2024 defense. Hopefully we will see big improvements on the defense this year. But you are probably correct that with the defense added, the 2020 team was a better/more-talented team overall. Yet the 2024 team did get just as far as the 2020 team did and with almost the same total number of yards and points. Who knows? Hopefully we will be improved this year on defense and at least a bit in the WR department. But, at this point, I guess we'll just have to wait to see how it all plays.

Are you really trying to say that the 2024 and 2025 WRs are as bad as the 2018 WRs were? 2018 WRs (in order of rec yds): Zay Jones, Robert Foster, Kelvin Benjamin, Isaiah McKenzie, Andre Holmes, Deonte Thompson, RayRay McCloud. 2024 WRs (in order of rec yds): Khalil Shakir, Keon Coleman, Mack Hollins, Amari Cooper, Curtis Samuel, Tyrell Shavers, KJ Hamler, MVS. 2025 WRs: Khalil Shakir, Keon Coleman, Josh Palmer, Curtis Samuel, Elijah Moore, Laviska Shenault, Tyrell Shavers, Jalen Virgil, KJ Hamler, Kaden Prather. And maybe I overstated my case regarding spending assets on WRs. I didn't mean we don't need any good receivers (as you made it sound), I meant more that the team now doesn't think that paying a top WR big money is a good use of their assets. That is philosophy in itself, in regards to team building. Do we spend a ton of money on a couple of players, say a stud WR and TE, or two top WRs, or whatever, and let the rest of the weapons suffer a bit because we don't have as much money to go around? Or do we try to have as many solid/very good (not elite) weapons for Josh to distribute the ball too? Two different ways to skin a cat. One team could have 2-3 elite players and then 1 or 2 very good players, but then have say 5 average players at other spots, while another team could have 10 very good players (no elites, but no weak links). And I agree (as I said) that some of last year was about problems in the WR room (injuries, Keon being a rookie, Amari adjusting to a new team mid-season, etc.), as to say the RBs getting so many targets, etc...but, it also actually worked. So, yes, at times last year it was a bit about playing into our strengths, away from our weaknesses. But, as far as the change in philosophy, do you not remember McDermott getting on both Daboll and Dorsey for throwing the ball too much/not being balanced enough? That balance is what McD had been looking for for a long time. That was the type of team that he and Beane wanted to build. Also remember in 2020/2021, defenses started playing teams like Buffalo and KC differently. Mover cover zero, etc. to try and stop these juggernaut offenses. So, both teams had to adapt as well. You can see it in our point totals that I posted. From 2020 to 2023, we went from 31.3 points/game to 28.4, to 28.4, to 26.5. What we had been doing wasn't working as well as it used to. Some of that was obviously moving on from Beasley and Diggs declining, but a lot of it had to do with how the NFL was changing. How many more running focused teams were there in 2024 as opposed to 2020/2021? Also, when we had that smaller, more finesse lineup, they didn't always fare as well in the cold weather or against stronger, tougher teams. The cold weather was no longer an advantage for us. The Bills made a concerted effort to get bigger and stronger, to use the running game and RBs more, and finally to last year with the everyone eats. It was definitely a gradual, purposeful change in philosophy by the team, not just that we didn't have a true #1 WR or out of desperation because our receivers sucked. And it looks like it worked, with 2024 being our best season (offensively and team-wise) since 2020. As to say inserting Stroud into either the 2020 or 2024 rosters, you could just as easily say that Stroud would fare better with the 2024 roster because he wouldn't be asked to do as much. He could lean on the running game. He would have a short passing game and outlets, so he didn't have to hold on to the ball too long. You wouldn't be asking him to go toe-to-toe in passing with a 2020 Mahomes/KC (like Josh had too in 2020). Much easier to ask Stroud to go for 3,731 passing yards and 28 passing TDs than to ask him to match 4,544 yards and 37 passing TDs (Josh's stats in 2020 and 2024 with almost the exact same overall team results). And our receivers might not be as good as in 2020, but I would venture to say that our offensive line, RBs, and TEs are all significantly better than in 2020. It seems you are just too focused on the WR room only, imo. Here are the difference in offensive players other than WRs (and guys still holding their position from 2020, like Dawkins and Knox): 2020: Singletary, Moss, A. Williams, Tyler Kroft, Lee Smith, Ike Boettger, Mitch Morse, Feliciano/Winters, Darryl Williams 2025: Cook, Davis, Johnson, Kincaid, Davidson/Hawes, Torrence, McGovern, Edwards, Spence Brown