folz

I do know that Brees and Rodgers each appeared in and won one Super Bowl. My point was that they each only made one SB appearance in 20 and 21 years playing, respectively (and they are both top-5ish QBs of all-time). This board would be going nuts if that were Josh. Also, in 15 years, Payton and Brees missed the playoffs 6 times (40% of their time together). Missing the playoffs that much with a top 5 all-time quarterback? This is the 8th year with Sean and Josh. Let's just say they made it to and won a Super Bowl this year. To match Payton's record with Brees, they would have to miss the playoffs 5 of the next 7 years (and not make another SB appearance). Yet Payton is lauded as a great coach for that one Super Bowl. If that is how the McD era played out, Super Bowl and then missing the playoffs that much, what would be his legacy? Sure, we would be grateful for the Super Bowl, but I'm sure there would be plenty of posters saying if we had a different coach, Josh would have had 5 Super Bowls. Rodgers has missed the playoffs 9 times in 21 years (43% of his career). And I know it was many different coaches and regimes, but the Packers had Favre and then Rodgers for 34 years in a row. Three Super Bowl appearances (two wins). That is one Super Bowl appearance every 12 years (or one Super Bowl win every 17 years) with two phenomenal quarterbacks. Sometimes you guys make it sound like just having a top 5-10 quarterback should automatically equal consistent Super Bowl appearances and wins. It doesn't. Fair enough on the Shula/Marino point. I could see giving a coach who has won that much previously the benefit of the doubt. But what was that team's issue? Oh yeah, they couldn't get past the Bills. Similar to the Bills and Chiefs recently, or the Colts and Pats (in the Brady/Manning era), etc. And point taken on Reeves. He and Elway did make some Super Bowls but couldn't win one, and then after Reeves was fired, they did win with Shanahan. So, that is a point in the fire McD, someone else might be able to do it side. But at the same time, (much like Manning's last SB win) it wasn't really the quarterback that got them to and won those bowls. TD and Shanahan's run schemes carried that team those two years. Elway was a shell of his former self. And I'm sure at the time there was talk of firing Reeves because he can't win the Big One, but not sure if anyone was saying he squandered Elway's career, they had their shots. Yes, I may have been stretching a bit with McNabb, just trying to make the point, but he was a first round draft pick and an MVP (even if not to the caliber of the other players discussed). Yes, thanks, made a brain fart in my post. Because I was listing Shula in the not having won with Marino category, I accidentally included him in the not won at all category, when as you said he obviously had the two SB wins in the early 70s (with the undefeated team and no name defense).

Fun stuff...let's go guys. Has it ever been a thing for a quarterback before either? Or is it just a current Bills fans thing? I don't remember anyone ever saying that Mike McCarthy and/or Matt LeFleur squandered Aaron Rodgers' career. I don't remember anyone saying that Sean Payton squandered Drew Brees' career. How about Shula squandering Marino's career? Dan Reeves squandering Elway's career, Reid squandering McNabb's career, etc. Nope, never heard it. So, when did it become a thing for NFL fans to say that about any coach, squandering a QB's career? I think you guys blow out of proportion how bad the blunder was in relation to other coaches playoff mistakes simply because it happened to our team. And there is still no guarantee that we win that game even if he did everything differently (how you think he should have done them). Plus, coaches learn and grow from their mistakes as well. I'm not going to do it right now, too much work, but I guarantee if you look back through the playoff losses of even HOF coaches, you will find plenty of games that the fans and/or media blamed them for something. Almost every playoff losing coach gets blamed for some reason that the team did not win. Almost every single one. First of all, you can criticize the team and the coaching without wanting to fire the coach and GM. You guys look at things so one-sidedly. And this trope of "just being happy to make the playoffs" is inaccurate and has been repeated so many times now, it's like you guys don't have a real argument. You just say 13 seconds and then mock us. And I absolutely guarantee that if that happened to the Bills in the exact same way (The Minneapolis Miracle), you would all still blame McDermott for it, whether it was player error or not. Honestly, if that is how we exited the playoffs this year, would you use it as an argument to fire McDermott? You know you would. And again, I think you guys are selective in your memory. One of these days, when I have time, I will look back through the playoff losses and point out some examples. So, 31 teams and coaches fail every year? And coaches who never won a Super Bowl are all failures? Let me ask this, are Brian Billick, Barry Switzer, George Seifert, Bruce Arians, Doug Peterson, Gary Kubiak, and Nick Sirianni all NFL success stories, while Don Shula, Marv Levy, Bud Grant, George Allen, Don Coryell, Chuck Knox, Dan Reeves, etc. are all failures? The HOF doesn't think so anyway. And I don't understand why the anti-McDermott guys can not understand that no one (McDermott supporters) are ok with not making or winning a Super Bowl, especially with Josh as our QB, we all want it as much as you guys do...and some of us probably for many more years than some of you. We just still believe that this regime can do it. Believe me, I fully understand that you guys do not believe that (and I know the reasons why you think that). And that's ok. From our perspective, wanting to keep McD is not a concession that we do not want or care about winning a Super Bowl, i.e., "we know McD can never do it and we are ok with that". That is not where we are. There are just a few, last of us holdouts that believe they can still do it. Plain and simple. And we have some perspective on why it hasn't happened yet. Agree to disagree, but stop putting words in our mouths. I may end up being wrong, but I'm not delusional. I mean what the hell does "cult of personality trial" mean in this sense anyway. Do you really think that McDermott supporters are just brainwashed by propaganda from the organization? That we put McDermott above the Buffalo Bills (who we have rooted for for decades before Sean's arrival)? And we would never criticize him or see his faults, or the teams' faults? That is not our reality, that is just what you guys are projecting on to us. First of all, Tannehill had 4,085 yards and 40 TDs and only 7 INTs on 66% completions that season. That is some pretty good QB play. And secondly, you say "with Tannehill" as if Derrick Henry wasn't also on the team with 2,141 yards and 17 TDs that year. I mean, that isn't just a career year, that is an "of all-time" type of year. And again, you guys just put words in our mouths and exaggerate everything. Honestly who thought Thad Lewis was the answer. Absolutely no one. Did people root for Tyrod when he played, yes, but who was saying he was the long-term answer? For two years I screamed at my TV, throw the damn ball Tyrod. I was excited for EJ when we drafted him, hoping and wishing he could be the guy. But I didn't hold on to him when it became obvious he wasn't the guy. Trent had a few good games, if anyone was on his train it was for like half a season. I don't know where you guys come up with this stuff. It's like you have to pretend that we are crazy in order to prove your point. All this was about, initially for me, was contradicting Dr.D's statement that Vrabel is obviously a better coach than McDermott. Who knows, in 10 or 15 years we may look back on things and say, yeah, Vrabel was better (if he wins a couple of rings and McD does not, or whatever). But, currently, there is absolutely no stat that points to Vrabel being a better coach at the moment other than the Pats looking better than the Bills currently, this year---but the end of this season has not even been written yet, and it's just one season, so maybe we should hold his gold jacket for now.

Did Vrabel squander Derrick Henry's best years? A top-5 RB of all time should have a ring by now. And, yeah, that's your prerogative. You can go with whoever you think. I was just saying that there is no current metric to point to Vrabel being a better head coach than McDermott (as claimed by Dr.D). You could choose Vrabel over McD because you just want a change or because Sean made a blunder in a playoff game, whatever, but it still doesn't mean that Vrabel is the better coach. There is nothing to back that up at the moment. Sean has the better regular season record, the better playoff record, more playoff appearances, the better offensive rankings, the better defensive rankings---it's more than just that neither has won a championship yet. And you guys need to get over 13 seconds already. Let it go. Things like that have happened to every good/great coach. Look at Sean Peyton's departures from the playoffs with Drew Brees and New Orleans (the Minnesota Miracle comes to mind, among many others). How about Andy Reid's exits in Philly (he was torn apart for bad game and clock management, etc., i.e. losing the game for the team). If you look at every coaches history, you will find moments like 13 seconds, and yes, even HOF coaches, and even in the playoffs. This belief that Sean is the only good coach to ever make a mistake, or at least the only coach that you will hold their mistake against them, is so tiring. Plus, it depends on how you define squandering a career. Do Josh and Buffalo have a ring yet? No. But I have had a blast these last eight years watching the Bills. Doesn't mean I don't still want them to win it all, but not winning a Super Bowl is also not total failure. Breaking the drought, yes, the 13 second game---maybe the best playoff game ever played, the perfect playoff game vs. the Pats, Josh doing Josh things and breaking records, rallying together over the Damar incident, the battles with the Chiefs, our overall record and specifically our home record (that's a lot of fun games/wins we got to see)---I have enjoyed it all. If nothing matters except a Super Bowl, I think you may be missing out on some of the joy of life. It is the journey, not the destination. Do I look back on the 90s Bills with loathing because they never won a Super Bowl? Nah, as heart-breaking as it was at the time, I look back on those years with so much fondness. It was a lot of fun and brought me a lot of enjoyment and good times with friends and family, despite never winning the big one. Again, I'm not saying that I don't care if we win one. I want that as much as any Bills fan, I just don't think everyone sucks (except Josh) and it was all pointless if we don't. And Yes, I do still think this regime can get us there (while I understand that probably the majority at this point no longer believe that).

You could say that Maye currently (in the 2025 season) has better stats than Josh, but that is a much different thing than saying that Maye is currently a better quarterback overall (if that is what you meant). I mean, honestly, if you had to choose a quarterback for your team for the playoffs right now, are you really picking Maye over Josh? (We haven't even seen Maye in a playoff game yet to have any reference.) In a redraft, at this precise moment, are you drafting Maye ahead of Allen? Don't get me wrong, the kid is very good, but to say a second-year player is already better than an elite, 9-year vet, MVP quarterback seems not only premature, but a bit crazy. But let's look at their current overall stats anyhow. Current stats (2025 season): Maye: 3,731 scrimmage yards, 25 TDs, 6 INTs, 71.5% completions, 0 4th-quarter comebacks, 1 game-winning drive. QB rate: 111.9 Allen: 3,241 scrimmage yards, 30 TDs, 10 INTs, 69.1% completion, 2 4th-quarter comebacks, 3 game-winning drives. QB rate: 99.8. Also, Maye has played one more game than Josh at the moment. Josh's current game averages for 2025 are 270 scrimmage yards and 2.5 TDs. So, if we add one more game for Josh at his average, we get: 3,511 scrimmage yards, 33 TDs. Still 220 yards less than Maye (about 17 yards less per game), but with 8 more TDs (about .62 more TDs per game than Maye). And if you are taking team record into account, well, if we win while the Pats are on BYE (at home vs. Cincy) and then beat the Pats in the rematch, we are only one game behind them (with three games to go). I do think Maye is a very good Qb and we will be contending with him and the Pats for the next few years at least, but in no way is he currently a better QB than Allen. He may have better stats at the moment (for this year), but a second-year guy still has a lot to learn, a lot of things he hasn't seen yet, etc., etc.

Just curious, what metric are you using to evaluate coaches? Sure, the Pats look good this year...but how is Vrabel (in your opinion) an obviously better coach than McDermott? Mike Vrabel 8 years as head coach. 65-47 reg season (.580%). Three (will soon be four) playoff appearances in 8 years. 2-3 in the playoffs (.400%). Two first round playoff losses (in three tries). 1 AFC Champ game appearance. Sean McDermott 9 years as head coach. 94-49 reg season (.657%). Seven (will soon be eight) playoff appearances in 9 years. 7-7 in the playoffs (.500%). Two first round playoff losses (in seven tries). 2 AFC Champ game appearances. Now of course the response will be...yeah, but Sean has had Josh. Fair enough. But let me counter with. (1.) Sean did not have Josh in year one, and Josh was not Josh in year two or year three of McD's tenure. So, he has had prime Josh for 6 years, not 9 years. (2.) While no one is going to compare Ryan Tannehill to Josh (other than that they were chosen 7th and 8th overall in the draft their respective years), he was not a horrible QB (average). BUT, Vrabel did also have a generational talent on his team in a prime Derrick Henry. Despite missing 9 games in 2021, Henry still averaged (AVERAGED) 1,576 yards from scrimmage and 14 TDs/year while Vrabel was his coach. Now, of course, QB is still the more important position, but having Henry sure does balance things out a bit. Taking QBs out of it for the moment, well, they are both defensive coaches right? So, let's look at how their defenses have fared. Here are their team's defensive rankings for both yards against and points against. Vrabel McDermott Yds against Pts against Yds against Pts against 20 32 26 18 8 3 2 18 21 12 3 2 28 24 14 16 12 6 1 1 23 14 6 2 18 16 9 4 7 5 17 11 8 13 Average Rankings: Vrablel: Yards Against: 17.1; Points Against: 14.0 McDerm: Yards Against: 9.5; Points Against: 9.4 And if you are curious on the offensive rankings in their tenures, well: Vrabel: Yards for: 18th; Points for: 16th. McDerm: Yards for: 12th; Points for 10th. And again, the Pats look very good this year, no doubt. But can they maintain that? Many coaches can come in and make a difference right away (just because a culture change was needed), but can they continue to play at the level they are now as the message gets stale, as they have to pay Maye big money, as Free Agency and age starts gnawing at their roster. I do think Vrabel is a very good coach and he might be able to weather those storms (it does help when you have your QB), but again, I ask you, by what metric are you saying that he is a better coach than Mcdermott? There isn't a stat in his favor at the moment, other than their record this year---3 more wins than the Bills, but also having played one extra game---and they have the head-to-head this year...but we'll face them again, at least once more. And if we win while the Pats are on BYE and then we win the rematch, the Pats will only be one game ahead of us. I just think that there is a lot of "the grass is greener" mentality amongst Bills fans right now. Yet as we know, that is usually not the case.

Josh already has the record of total TDs before the age of thirty by 29 TDs...and he still has the rest of the season (5 more games) to add to that total (as he does not turn 30 until May). He has averaged 2.37 TDs/game in his career, so, 11 or 12 more TDs likely, to make his lead over Mahomes (2nd place) about 40 TDs. Mahomes, Goff, and Stafford are already over 30 years old, so their counts are done. Lamar is the only other active guy on the list still under 30. He will still be under 30 years old all of next season. Yet, he is 77 TDs behind Josh, and his average TD total per season is ~27 TDs. Last year was his best year ever, with 45 TDs. But, even if he repeated his best year next year, he would still be about 32 TDs behind Josh. He might catch Mahomes, but not Josh. Now to be fair, Josh had 8 more starts than Mahomes over that span---before 30 yo---(and by the end of the season, Josh will have had 13 more starts than Pat over that span). But, Pat has averaged ~2.3 TDs per game across his career. So, even with eight more games, his total would be 281 total TDs over the same 122 starts as Josh. Even then, he would still be 11 TDs behind Josh. I looked up the older guys too (shorter seasons and all), but Marino only had 3 fewer starts than Josh before 30 years old, Manning had 6 more starts than Josh prior to turning 30, and Favre had 13 fewer starts than Josh. None of which would affect things much (Favre is 69 TDs below Josh, 13 more starts would only get him about 21 more TDs at his career average). (Just FYI, to round out the list, Goff had 1 fewer starts than Josh before 30, Stafford had more starts than Josh before 30.) Josh has 122 starts in his career. So even if you said who has the most TDs in their first 122 starts (rather than younger than 30 years old---to make things fair with number of starts), Josh would still easily be in first (Mahomes would just be a little bit closer in 2nd). It really is kind of crazy that he's our QB... Josh is currently 43rd all-time in the NFL in passing TDs. With just 3 more seasons at his current average, he would move up to 17th place all-time, just ahead of John Elway. It would take him 7 more seasons at his current average to break into the top 10 (taking into account that Mahomes and possibly Goff/Prescott could stay ahead of him as they are now---kind of crazy to think that Goff is probably going to finish in the top 10 all-time in passing TDs). Josh is already currently 25th place in rushing TDs amongst all players in NFL history. At his average, he will likely have 3 more rushing TDs this season. That would move him up to 23rd place, passing Tony Dorsett and Ricky Watters. If Josh maintains his average of 9.875 rushing TDs per season for just 3 more years, he would move into 7th place all-time in rushing TDs between Walter Payton and Jim Brown. I mean, what? We very well may have the first player in NFL history who will retire in the top 10 all-time in both passing TDs and rushing TDs.

I rewatched it a bunch of times in the moment to try and see what happened. Josh is on the ground on his back with his knees bent up and Heyward on top of him. It was tough to see with all of the bodies, but it did not appear to be a kick or anything, just Josh extending his legs to kind of push Heyward off of him...something that happens in tons of pile ups. Maybe Hayward felt Josh pushed a little too hard (Heyward was also being pulled off of Josh by Bills linemen at the time too), but it wasn't a dirty move, it was a "get off of me" moment that happens all the time. He just took offense to it as if Allen was trying to purposefully do something. I could not see anything egregious in any way, imo.

It is really hard to stay at the top of your conference for 6+ years (10 for K.C.). There are going to be ups and downs, and dips, even within that stretch, or between two such stretches maybe. It is inevitable due to salary cap, contracts, players aging out, drafting late, other teams getting better, other teams being younger, healthier, hungrier, etc. Yes, there are teams on the rise, but it is foolish to think that the Mahomes, Allen, and Jackson era is over when they are only 28-, 29-, and 30-years old. Most good QBs are productive into their late 30s. There have been 18 NFL QBs to play into their early 40s. These guys all have 10-12 more productive years ahead of them. The talent of the team around them may fluctuate, but they will all still be deep in the hunt most years. And then the next question is can Denver, New England, and Chicago maintain that success for multiple years (as they have to pay their QBs, start drafting later, get FAs poached, have tougher schedules, etc.). As to the QBs themselves, obviously, the young guys will need to prove it in the post-season too (which we have yet to see), but I thought that I would look at the overall stats in comparison, just out of curiosity. Here are the QB stats for each QB's first 25 starts in the league (Williams only has 25 starts thus far, so I used that as the base number for all--even though Nix and Maye have 29 and 28 starts, respectively, to this point). FIRST 25 STARTS IN THE NFL Player Total Yards Total TDs INTs Mahomes 8,260 71 14 Jackson 6,761 57 9 Nix 6,179 51 17 Maye 6,134 40 11 Williams 6,127 34 10 Allen 6,068 45 21 Caveat for Josh...he was the most raw of those QBs coming into the league and by far came to the worst team (least amount of talent around him). K.C, Baltimore, and Denver were all pretty solid teams when they drafted their QBs. And I venture to say that Chicago and New England both had more talent last year than the 2018 salary-capped purged Bills. But, yeah, statistically the three young QBs have started well. But, let's see if they can continue to grow and produce as circumstances change around them (over a few seasons), before we put them at the same level or ahead of the big three (or four, if you include Burrow).

And obviously it is only because our coach and GM suck, right, and nothing else? Over the last 9 years, there has been only one team other than New England and Kansas City to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Call it what you want, but having been in the same conference with two dynasty teams that the NFL completely fauns all over, does make a difference. I'm just not sure how you guys dismiss that like it's nothing. And for God's sake, the last three times we played KC in the playoffs, we basically lost to them by a combined 6 points (OT, missed FG, 3-point loss with a ton of bad calls by the refs---the NFL definitely has it's favorites, and you can't convince me otherwise at this point). Heck, K.C. probably shouldn't have even been in the position they were (or even in the playoffs) if the refs didn't help them all of last season. How many one-score games did they win where people complained about the officiating/a bad call that gave them the game. Had the refs called a fair game in the AFC Championship last year, we would have been in the Super Bowl last season. How would that affect everyone's opinions this year. You do realize that we should have been in the Super Bowl last year (save for the refs, and the NFL wanting to make sure all of the Swifties were watching the SB). Would we still be wanting to fire everyone if we had made it to the dance last year (win or lose, but not blown out)? Would we still be saying McD and/or Beane can never and will never get to a Super Bowl or win a championship, guaranteed, no questions asked? Year AFC Super Bowl representative 2016 New England 2017 New England 2018 New England 2019 Kansas City 2020 Kansas City 2021 Cincinnati 2022 Kansas City 2023 Kansas City 2024 Kansas City

Just seeing this thread now. Wow, I guess I really am a Homer in that 82% of the fans in this poll seem to want Beane and McD gone and are willing to sacrifice/miss the playoffs in order to do so. Believe me, I understand the frustration with the team right now, but I can't ever imagine not wishing to make the playoffs, especially with Josh Allen at QB. A few of my still optimistic thoughts: 1. It's never as bad as it seems, and it's never as good as it seems (and that goes not just for the Bills, but for all of the teams in the league). 2. We have had slumps in the middle of seasons before and come out of them. And despite the slump and the WR room, we are still 6th in points scored and the #1 rushing team. 3. I'm not basing any opinions on the Houston game: Thursday night games are always bad/struggles, always weird and more injuries. We were on a short week and on the road against the #1 defense in the NFL (playing for their season/playoff lives basically), and with a number of injuries. I'll wait a week or two before assuming that is how our team will look for the rest of the year vs. every other opponent. 4. I honestly believe that if it weren't for some very bad refereeing, we would have made the Super Bowl last year (flame me all you want for that, I just believe it to be so---there were a number of videos at the time pointing it out. It wasn't just the 4th down they didn't give Josh, it was all game). Maybe we don't win vs. Philly, but I think we would have been more competitive than K.C. was at least. 5. Since Mahomes has been starting (2018---7 years), Kansas City has prevented 17 teams from reaching or winning a Super Bowl. Just sucks that we were 4 of those teams. But, let's not pretend that having an all-time team in your conference that is also the darling of the NFL isn't a factor. 6. It is really hard to maintain consistent success in the NFL. There will be ups and downs---turnover, players aging out, injuries, contracts, free agency, having to pay a franchise QB, etc., etc. Yet, the Chiefs and Bills are the only teams to make the playoffs in each of the last 6 seasons (K.C. is on a 10-year run). Since the start of free agency and salary caps in the early '90s, only 4 other teams have made the post-season more than 6 times in a row. Yes, I understand it is because of the QBs, but they still have to have a good team around them. Sean Payton missed the playoffs 6 of 15 seasons (40%) with Drew Brees as his QB (for example). 7. We are still going to make the playoffs this year. And as we all know, the playoffs are a new season. Anything can happen...and the AFC is still pretty wide open (meaning I think the Bills could beat or lose to any of the prospective playoff teams, but none of them scare me...makes me think we wouldn't have a chance). One game season going forward. Just beat Pitt on Sunday. If so, we are 2 games up on both Pitt and Balt, with a head-to-head victory over each. Chiefs don't have an easy road (Cowboys, Texans, Chargers up next). Houston still has to play the Colts twice, the Chiefs, and the Chargers. Jax still has Colts twice and the Broncos. Plus, some of those teams will be giving each other losses. We're still in good position...it will just be from a wild card spot this year. [Do division titles still seem irrelevant now, as I have heard argued so often?] Just trying to keep some hope alive. I get it, some of you are done with the current regime and have been done for a while and save a Super Bowl win this year, your position is pretty firm. I'm just at a point of, it doesn't look good right now, but let's see how it plays out first. I know, that's what we homers say every year...but it still makes sense to me. If we go on a run, great for all of us. If we crash and burn somehow (miss the playoffs, lose bad in the playoffs or to an inferior opponent), maybe the last of us Homers will be sliding over to your side.

And yet, Dallas is 5-5-1; K.C. is 6-5; Cinn is 3-8 (obviously w/o Burrow). Not saying I wouldn't gladly accept a stud #1 WR on the Bills---but all three of those teams may not make the playoffs this year. The Bills have 7 wins and are still 6th place in scoring (despite the up-and-down slump). K.C., Cincinnati, and Philadelphia have all scored fewer points than the Bills. Only Dallas has scored more (9 more points across 11 games, or 0.8181 points/game). Again, I'm not saying I don't want a stud receiver on the team, but having a stud receiver or even two stud receivers still does not guarantee anything. And before you say we have Josh, those teams have Mahomes, Dak, Hurts, and Burrow/Flacco...not chopped liver. Plus, the 2025 draft was not great for receivers. We were not going to go up to #8 for McMillian, if we went up to #19 from #30 for Egbuka, we would have had to give up at least a 2nd rounder as well---but that seems to have been the only move to make, and who knows if we could have gotten up there or not if we tried). Only 3 other receivers were drafted in the top 50 (Jayden Higgins, Matthew Golden, and Luther Burden). Judging by their stats on their respective teams, I'm not sure any of them would have been help this year. In 2024, the only real move to make was to go up to 23 for Brian Thomas, Jr. (which is what I was hoping for at the time). He had a very good rookie year, but hasn't quite lived up to it in year two. So, who knows. I guess we also could have drafted Ladd, but I understand them thinking he wasn't the type of receiver we needed. That's really it (I'm not sold on Worthy yet). I doubt we could have moved up to spots 4, 6 or 9 from 28 for any of the top three guys (we would have needed another first round selection, which we didn't have, or give up say 2025 1st and our 2024 4th round picks or our 2024 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th round picks). In 2025 free agency, Davante Adams was the only stud WR available (going to LAR). In 2024 free agency, Calvin Ridley was the only big WR available. One each year, with 32 teams. As far as trades: 2024: Keenen Allen and Davante Adams (other name WR trades included Deandre Hopkins, Cooper to Bills, and Diggs). 2025: Pickens and Metcalf (Meyers). So, between FA and trades, basically three stud WRs each of the last two years moved (again, with 31 teams each whom may want them). I mean, maybe it isn't as easy as we think to just go out and get a stud #1 WR. And that's before even talking about contracts and cap. But, having said all of that, I also have no issue with fans wishing Brandon took more shots at the WR position at least.

Because when adding mid-season replacements, it's easier all-around if the player already knows your system (provided that the talent level of a different player you could add isn't better than equal). Plus, Shaq never became a good pass rusher, but he has been pretty good against the run in his career (setting the edge, TFLs, etc.)---and that is an area where we have been having problems, so I'm good with bringing him back.

I'm not saying there aren't issues right now, but what if this team goes on a run and makes it to the Super Bowl? How will you feel about the coaching at that point? Will you still feel bad for the fans and their hard-earned money? It's a week-to-week league. Teams look great one week beating a tough opponent, only to lose to or just squeak by an inferior opponent the next week. That's the NFL now. So, it depends on which game/week you are watching as to how the coaching appears sometimes. I know we have been up-and-down of late, but Thursday night games always suck (teams are often off, always a lot of injuries, etc.). Plus, we were on a short week, on the road against the #1 defense in the league, and with a lot of injuries. I'm not excusing the loss, but I'm also not going to pretend like that is how we will look for the rest of the season against every other opponent. And I know we have not reached the promised land yet, but I think you guys sometimes forget how hard it is to maintain success in this league, consistently, over a stretch of time (no matter who your QB is). Only the Bills and Chiefs have made the playoffs each of the last six seasons (K.C. is on a 10-year streak, Buffalo is at 6 years). Only 10 teams in the history of the NFL made the playoffs more than 6 years in a row. And 6 of those 10 teams did it before free agency and the salary cap (most in the '70s and '80s, the Browns did it in the '40s and '50s). There are a lot of changes and turnover, players aging out, cap and contracts, paying your QB big money, injuries, etc. over a 6-8 year period. It is not easy to remain in contention every year, even with a stud QB. I'm not saying that consistency is the be-all-end-all, but you have to give the management/coaching some credit for that at least. Interesting too that after hearing for a couple of years now that division titles don't matter, who cares about winning the division, it doesn't mean anything---that now many of those same people are whining that we are going to lose the division to the Pats. We are not going to miss the playoffs. One game season. Just beat Pitt on Sunday. If so, we are 2 games up on both Pitt and Balt, with a head-to-head victory over each. Chiefs don't have an easy road (Cowboys, Texans, Chargers up next). Houston still has to play the Colts twice, the Chiefs, and the Chargers. Jax still has Colts twice and the Broncos. Plus, some of those teams will be giving each other losses. Our season is not over...so yeah, let it play out.

Man, you guys can be brutal after losses. It was a short week, we had a lot of injuries, playing the #1 defense in the league on the road, who were fighting for their playoff lives (with the win, their playoff chances are 47%, with a loss last night their playoff chances would have dropped to 22%) and we were still just half of Gabe Davis' foot away from winning it or a Prater XP away from tying it (no matter how brutal it looked at times). Teams always get up a bit extra for us, and for the Texans, this was like a playoff game. I'm not saying there aren't problems and issues with both sides of the ball right now, but... To say this is a sub .500 team (with no talent and bad coaching), without Josh, seems a bit much. First of all, who would be the replacement at QB? You mean if we didn't have Josh and Trubisky was our starter (or a bottom barrel starting QB)? Well, sure, you could say that about any team with a good QB. Any team with a stud QB is going to be worse without said QB. [In the 5 years Reid was in K.C. before Mahomes, they missed the playoffs one year, and lost their first round playoff game 3 of 4 times. Their playoff record was 1-4. And that was with a #1 overall pick at QB---though he never quite lived up to that level]. Now, if you put another good QB (not elite, just above average) on the team, that is a different matter. Are we a sub .500 team no matter who is QB? What if the QB was Mahomes, or Jackson, or Burrow, or Maye, or Hurts, or Herbert, or Mayfield, or Prescott, or Stafford, or Goff, or Alex Smith even...are we still below .500? It is silly to assume that if we didn't have Josh, we would automatically be playing with one of the worst QBs in the league without the team trying to upgrade the position. No coach wins consistently with a bad QB. Also, if we didn't have Josh, the makeup of the team would be different. We wouldn't be paying Josh his huge salary and could use that money elsewhere, we probably wouldn't be drafting as low as we do (I know that was part of your post Guns), their might be more emphasis on getting a stud receiver to help compensate for the worse QB, etc., etc. Over the last 5-1/2 seasons, we are 68-26 (.723% win percentage). We would need to lose 5 more games per season (across 6 seasons) to be below .500 with this staff. If we had one of the worst QBs in the league, sure, we might lose 5 or more extra games per year (most teams/coaches would), but again, if it wasn't Josh, but instead another competent (above average---not even elite) QB, I just don't see us being one of the worst teams in the league. We would still have a top 5 O-line, a top 5 RB room, a top 5-10 TE room. The offense would be called differently, etc. Just seems like a bit of disappointed hyperbole to me to say we would be one of the worst teams in the league without Josh.

Like the thinking OP (strange how that works out sometimes), but yeah, as others said, Tyrell was signed in 2023 and Coleman drafted in 2024. So, I guess, technically it would be more: We drafted WR Justin Shorter in the 5th round, and found WR Tyrell Shavers as an UDFA.

Not saying he'll become as good by any means, and I hadn't thought of it myself, but as soon as I read just the title of the thread, I instantly thought, oh yeah, I can totally see that comparison. Something about the way they run, move, catch. Good call OP. And with coach saying, about Shavers, "No job too big or too small" for him...I wonder if that isn't a veiled reference as to why Keon is in the doghouse. Shavers did not attend the NFL Draft combine. So, there are only two official times for him for the 40-yard dash. At his pro day in college, he ran a 4.59. When he was recruited out of high school, his official time in the 40-yard dash was 4.38. Interesting that Stallworth had a similar situation with difference in timings. He was dealing with a hip pointer at the Combine and ran a 4.8 second 40-yard dash (in the rain). His only other known timing was by a Pittsburgh scout after his junior year of college, at which time Stallworth clocked a 4.5 second 40-yard dash.

I was just looking into this... I'm really happy for Ray, he, and the rest of the special teams units were amazing! -Ray had 4 kickoff returns for 158 yards, an average of 39.5 yards per. The team's average drive start after a KO return was the 44-yard line. On the first 5 KO returns of the game (the last one by Samuel only went to the Bills 19 for 15 yards), the Bills' average drive start was the 49-yard line (48.8 to be precise). -Hardman had the big 61 yard KO return (though the fumble may keep him from getting another call up---it was a bad decision not to fair catch it there). -There was the blocked FG that should have been (wasn't much of a hold, he did touch his back, but didn't seem to hold or push down) -Prater made all 6 of his Kicks (5 PATs obviously) -Mitch had 2 punts for an average of 41.5 and downed one inside the 5-yard line and another on the 20. Neither punt was returned. -KO coverage wasn't great, but not bad either. Tampa's average drive start after a KO return was the 33-yard line. Slightly better than a touchback. But, in this instance, Einstein does have bit of a point. Tampa's special teams have struggled this year. https://bucswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/buccaneers/2025/10/06/special-teams-cant-be-ignored-by-the-bucs-after-week-5-performance/86543900007/ That article was after week 5 (vs. the Seahawks). The Bills game has been the worst for the Bucs special teams since week 5 (when they tried to fix things). But they haven't improved much since then (one decent game vs. the Pats). The Bucs are currently ranked 28th in kickoff return yardage allowed. But, having said that, the Bills still did quite a bit better in comparison to Tampa's other opponents: -Tampa held two of their opponents (NE and NO) to an average of 23.1 yards on KO returns. -Their other seven opponents have averaged 27 yards on KO returns. Their worst game of that batch was vs. the Eagles, who averaged 29.6 yards on KO returns and had a blocked punt/return TD. -But, the Bills averaged 39.0 yards per KO return. A full 9.4 yards more per than the Bucs second worst effort (vs. the Eagles). And almost 13 yards more than the average of all of the Bucs' other opponents (including the Eagles, but not the Bills) combined. So kudos are still well deserved.

Not sue why you expect those teams to collapse. Denver (9-2 currently, on an 8-game win streak) went 5-2 down the stretch last year and made the post season. And Nix and their young players are a year older with a year's more experience. Their remaining schedule is: Wash (3-8), LV (2-7), GB (6-3-1), Jax (6-4), KC (5-5), LAC (7-4). That should be at least two more easy wins, which will probably wrap up the division. Plus Denver and LAC play week 17, so that is a another win for one of those two teams. Chargers (7-4 currently) went 8-3 down the stretch last year (or 4-2 in their last 6 games). Yes, in the past they have been known a bit as chokers when it comes to reaching the post season---but they made it last year. Their remaining schedule is: LV (2-7), KC (5-5), Philly (7-2), Dal (3-5-1), Hou (5-5), Den (9-2). K.C. probably needs to go 6-1 down the stretch (with two of those wins being vs. LAC and Houston). I don't see them making it in with just 10 wins (since they are on the wrong side of a lot of tie breakers currently). And even going 6-1, they would still need help. -They would need both Baltimore and Houston not to match or better their record down the stretch (not too tough, I don't see either of those teams getting 6 of 7 more wins). -And they would need either Jacksonville to not to win 5 games (of their last 7) or have the Chargers go 3-3 or worse down the stretch....or hope that Buffalo goes 3-4 or worse down the stretch. K.C.'s remaining schedule (FYI) is: Colts (8-2), Cowboys (3-5-1), Texans (5-5), Chargers (7-4), Titans (1-9), Broncos (9-2), Raiders (2-7). Three (should be) easy games, three tough games, one game in the middle. I don't think K.C. will win 6 of 7 or 7 of 7 (tough to do even if every game was a poorer opponent, but they have at least 3 or 4 more tough games to play---not to say they aren't capable of it, of course). Now, if they do go 6-1 down the stretch, I expect they'll probably be the #7 seed (possibly #6...if both Jax and LAC fall).

Week 4 vs. New Orleans. Offense went dead in the 2nd quarter and then came back. Won the game. Week 5 vs. New England. Offense was bad for the entire first half. Week 6 vs. Atlanta. After opening drive TD, offense was bad the rest of the game. [Week 7 we beat Carolina 40-9; Week 8 we beat K.C. 28-21.] Week 10 vs. Miami. Offense never gets going, bad all game. It seems strange that the slump happens around two big wins. Is this a second slump, or a delayed reaction? Is it more team attitude and intensity? The slump has been spotty, with 11 bad offensive quarters of the last 24 quarters (almost half). It is so hard to know exactly what the problem is with so many factors and with us not having any inside info. But, I obviously do not think that it is one thing only. I mean, has anyone looked at how those six teams played us defensively? Did the four that had more success do anything differently? That could be another factor. I'm just guessing like everyone else here, but the two things that I keep leaning towards is: 1. Has Brady become a bit too predictable over the last 6 weeks or so (with the screens, dump offs, not taking a lot of downfield shots, etc.). Could it be less about the receivers not getting separation and more about them just not getting their numbers called or Josh being coached to take the underneath stuff? I don't watch closely enough to see if defenses have changed against us. Have they been getting more out of their shell defenses and coming up closer to the line to defend the run and short passes? If so, you need to start going over them to back them off again. There is something to be said for the "we do what we do well, and we are just going to out execute you doing it" type of offense. The 90s Bills were that type of a team. But I feel that Brady needs to get back more to game-planning (and changing things up) per each opponent specifically (and making better in-game adjustments , obviously). I'm not opposed to the McD philosophy of how he wants his offense run overall (bigger, ball control, run game, etc.), I mean, look at what having a smaller, more finesse, more open offense got us come late-season and playoffs. Nothing. But, they need to be able to open it up when called upon. Which they haven't been able to do consistently this year. As Mikie2times said, it's hard to just pull it out late in a game (when a defense can pin their ears back), if it isn't really part of your overall identity anymore. And I think they have to be careful with this philosophy that they don't make Josh feel stifled. I'm not saying we need to change the offense or completely open it up, we just need to be more multiple (to completely oversimplify with a football cliche). 2. Which leads to the second point. We know that over the years, it has been tough for Josh to reign things in, stay patient and just take what the defense gives you. He has done it very well for stretches of his career, but he always seems to fall back out of it at some point. I don't think it is ego, he just wants to play ball the way he has always played ball...gunslinger mentality. It seems that this year (even as opposed to last year), Brady has reigned the offense in even more (everything closer to the line of scrimmage, much fewer designed QB runs, way more screens, etc.). Almost as if the team was saying, if we just don't make mistakes, we'll coast thru the regular season, keep Josh safe for playoffs, etc. And between that and Cook going off, taking a lot of carries, has it just been less fun for Josh? Has he just been a little less enthused about game plans, etc. feeling more like a game manager than "the guy"? Josh is a big kid, he needs to be having fun out there. Now how much it is personal (off the field) and how much is football (Xs and Os) is anyone's guess. As I said, it's all total speculation on my part. And obviously it didn't help that Cook was on a bum ankle and Josh was missing Kincaid and Palmer for Miami too. Plus the heat, maybe a letdown after beating the Chiefs in a big one, etc. Like I said, so many factors...which makes it hard to pinpoint how to fix it. I'm not saying we couldn't have used some improvement to our WR corps. But, I'm just not convinced that they are the main problem. Nor do I think Josh or the team were depressed about the trade deadline passing with no new help. Josh and Brady have plenty of weapons to work with overall (some that they aren't even using as well as last year: Ty Johnson for one). But Josh isn't the type of guy to be down on his teammates, I think he has the mentality that he can win with anyone and always supports the guys that he does have. And if Josh is on his game, he should be elevating the receivers' play. Our WRs suck seems like too easy an answer, imo, for what is going on with the offense right now. But, I'm not discounting other factors that have been raised in this thread as possibilities as well. It is almost never just one thing. Josh and McD have pulled out of slumps before, hopefully they can figure things out and do it again. Not a lot of room left for error this year if we want a decent seed (not because of our record, but because of the records of the rest of the AFC: Pats, Denver, Colts, Chargers). As things stand at he moment, we would be the #6 seed and headed to a road wild card game in New England vs. the Pats.

My question is what does Steve Smith have against Keon Coleman? Is it personal? He trashed him before the draft. After week 8 last year (of his rookie season), he put out a similar "hit piece" video to the recent one calling Keon a bust (just 8 weeks into his career). After the Baltimore game week 1 this year, he made sure to put out a quote to tell everyone to "pump the brakes on the Keon Coleman hype train" (because Keon had a good game), and then this most recent video trashing Keon. I mean, I know this is the era of podcasts and everyone has an opinion, but, I have a hard time thinking of another former NFL receiver trashing a young receiver so much and calling him a bust after the first 8 games of his career. I remember breaking down Smith's video last year (didn't even watch the recent one, no reason to), he was trying soooo hard to point out problems that he even talked trash on positive/good plays that Keon made. It seems unusual to me how aggressive he is in his stance. I mean Keon doesn't play for his former team or anything. Their colleges weren't rivals. They grew up in different states. Why does he care so much to continually trash him? If he sucks, he'll find his way out of the league. Why give him so much attention if you think he is trash? He wasn't a high draft pick that everyone is praising. He's a second round receiver trying to find his way. Why does Smith feel the need to go out of his way to tear Keon down? All I'll say, in regards to the thread, is that I haven't given up on Keon. Exactly. Back in the day, we understood that some players took longer (2-3 years) to develop. Not every guy is ready to break out as a stud week one of his rookie year. Terrell Bernard, Spencer Brown, Connor McGovern, Khalil Shakir, Dalton Kincaid, Cole Bishop Now it's Keon Coleman, DeWayne Carter, TJ Sanders, Landon Jackson, Do they all work out? No. But have a bit of patience either way, because some of them will.

Agreed, in reality, you go for the #1 seed no matter what and let the rest of the chips fall as they may. A team would be insane for purposefully giving up the one seed for the five seed, even if it appeared to be an easier road. And you are also correct that a scenario where both KC and Balt are out of the playoffs is unlikely. But, in this hypothetical situation, I think not having to face Jackson/Henry and Pat/KC---possibly back-to-back (granted at home) would be an easier path than even three road games vs. Rodgers/Pitt, Nix/Denver, Jones/Colts. [Maybe it's based on past trauma 🙂, but we often have a real tough go against Derrick Henry and obviously vs. Pat/Reid/Kelce too, while none of those other QBs scare me.]

Great question. It is so 50/50 for me. #1 seed Pros Cons -One less game to play -Having to face either Mahomes/Chiefs or Jackson/Baltimore -home field advantage -Possibly having to face both KC and Balt back-to-back (tough to win two of those types of -To be the best you want to beat the best games in a row, and if you do, how much do you have left in the tank to beat the NFC's best team---granted 2 week layoff for SB. #5 seed Pros Cons -Not playing Mahomes, Jackson, or Henry -Have to win 3 games instead of 2 -Weaker competition (QB play, experience) -May have to play 2 or 3 of those games on the road -Refs might favor Bills in this scenario (no KC/Balt) It seems insane not to choose the #1 seed. But, gun to my head, I think the #5 seed might actually be the easier path. Yes, winning 2 or 3 games on the road is really hard, but not as hard as beating say Baltimore and KC back-to-back at home. And with the way those teams are this year (KC and Balt), sure, there is a chance that one or both of them get knocked out before they get to us (but then again, are we really going to count KC out when it comes to the playoffs?---playoff Chiefs vs. Indy, Denver, Pitt, LAC, Pats...yeah I'm not counting on them losing). Conversely, as it stands now, the playoffs would look like this: 1 Broncos, 2 Colts, 3 Pats, 4 Pitt, 5 Buf, 6 LAC, 7 Jax. If the favored teams win WC games, and we beat the Broncos (in DEN), our path would be: @Pitt, @Denver, @INDY or @PATs. But, let's say the Chargers beat the Pats in the WC round (doable), then we are: @Pitt, @Indy, and either @Denver, or Home vs LAC (Chargers could beat the Broncos) IF, big if, the Chargers beat Pats, and Jax beats Indy, then our road is @Pitt, Home vs. LAC, and either @Denver or Home vs. Jax (unlikely Jax beats Broncos, but...). If the odds are the same either way on which teams we may or may not face (#1 seed vs. #5 seed), then here is another question. Pitt should be a fairly easy win if we have to face them, so, worst case scenario for each seed---which is the harder road? Balt at home KC at home or @Denver @Indy Road games are tougher and Taylor is a monster, but Daniel Jones vs. Mahomes? or Nix/Jones vs. Jackson/Mahomes. Yeah, give me the #5 seed.

Nice post OP. My favorite line was: "On To The 2027 Draft: New York Jets" 😂 The AFC is wide open. There is no reason to not still have Super Bowl aspirations. There is no team that scares me in the AFC. Indy has looked good and Taylor is a stud, but Daniel Jones is their QB; we proved once again we can beat KC (still gotta do it in the post-season of course if we meet up with them); Baltimore may not make the playoffs; Pittsburgh is a paper tiger; Jacksonville, please. And I still think we are a better overall team (and obviously more seasoned and with the best QB) right now than the Pats, Broncos, and Chargers (although they are all good teams with good QBs). No other AFC team has more than 3 wins currently. I'm not saying we couldn't lose to any of those teams listed above, just that none of them scare me like Baltimore last year or K.C. for several years. This is a good year to make a run. And the NFL is funny. Perceptions change every week with every win or loss. The Bills were ranked 9th in the Power rankings before the KC game (did anyone really think we were only the 9th best team in the league?)---after beating KC, we jumped back up to #4 (KC fell from #3 to #6). Seattle jumped 5 places into #1 overall with a win against the 3-6 Commanders, The Rams jumped up 5 spots into 2nd place in the Power rankings after beating 1-8 New Orleans. I know Power Rankings don't mean anything, just using it as an example about how fickle people's perceptions are of teams throughout the season. And as far as having an easy easy schedule, well, that is starting to balance out a bit now. Here are the win percentages of teams that the current top four AFC leaders (by record) have beaten. Colts' (7-2) wins: Miami (2-6), Denver (7-2), Tenn (1-8), Las Vegas (2-6), Arizona (3-5), Chargers (6-3), Titans (1-8). 36% win percentage of opponents. Denver's (7-2) wins : Tenn (1-8), Cinn (3-6), Philly (6-2) Jets (1-7), Giants (2-7), Dallas (3-5), Houston (3-5). 29.82% win percentage of opponents. Patriots' (7-2)wins: Miami (2-7), Carolina (5-4), Buf (6-2), New Orleans (1-8), Tenn (1-8), Cleveland (2-6), Atlanta (3-5). 33.33% win percentage of opponents. Bills' (6-2) wins: Baltimore (3-5), Jets (1-7), Miami (2-7), New Orleans (1-8), Carolina (5-4), Kansas City (5-4). 32.69% win percentage of opponents. If the Bills had won the Patriots game (they lost by 3 points), the win percentage of teams they beat would be 40.35% and the Pats win percentage of teams they beat would be 26.92%. Obviously you could do that with any team...well, if they had won that game...I'm just trying to point out that perception is such a moving target in the NFL. If the Bills win that game, they are a 1.5 games ahead of the Pats and with a much stronger win percentage of teams they beat. The Bills are still one of the best teams in the league, regardless of other factors. It could still be our year.

Nice highlights, good player. But not sure what you mean by proven difference maker. How are you defining that? Also, the video says '25 highlights, but it is at least '24 and '25 (based on the teams shown in the video). Provided, Shaheed only played 6 games in '24 due to injury. But this season, as far as deep shots go, Shaheed has three (20+ receptions) for 26, 39, and 87 yards in 9 games. In 8 games: Shakir has four for 20, 26, 43, and 54 yards. Palmer has four for 23, 32, 32, and 45 yards. Moore has three for 28, 30, and 31 yards. Coleman has two for 20 and 25 yards. Kincaid has nine for 20, 20, 20, 22, 23, 23, 23, 28, and 47. Knox and Hawes have two combined for 29 and 30 yards. I'm just not sure what he would have added really. Are you calling him a difference maker because of the handful of deep shots in the video, or because he has proven himself consistently in crunch time of big games or when his QB is desperate, or whatever (two very different things). There were 5 deep shots in the video (bombs). And even if the video is just '24 and '25 (and not his whole career), that is 15 games played. So, an average of 1 deep shot every three games. If we make it to the Super Bowl, that would most likely be three playoff games. Is that one bomb in the playoffs something that he can provide that one of our other players can not? And would that one bomb be the difference in us making and/or winning a Super Bowl? I'm not so sure. I would have been in on adding receiver help if it was an obvious upgrade to what we have. That is what people are really clamoring for. A true #1 that can come up big in crunch time for Josh. I don't think Shaheed is that guy, so just not worth the price for a rental, imo.

Well, Beane did find Shakir in the 5th round (not saying you'd hit on every WR drafted rounds 3-5, as far as odds, but there are guys out there): Shaheed (6'0", 180 pounds---4.43 40-yard dash time) 3-1/2 years played; 28 starts; 138 receptions on 216 targets for 2,055 yards and 12 TDs. Catch % 63.9. Suc rate 48.6%. yds/rec 14.9; yds/target 9.5. Shakir (6'0", 190 pounds---4.43 40-yard dash time) 3-1/2 years played; 28 starts; 163 receptions on 214 targets for 1,992 yards and 10 TDs. Catch % 76.2%. Suc rate 56.1%. yds/rec 12.2; yds/target 9.3. Pretty similar guys. Sure, maybe Shaheed is better at deep sideline catches, but Khalil is better at screens, stuff over the middle (short and intermediate), and YAC. Plus, it's not just the 4th and 5th round picks, or 3rd round pick (if you are looking at it that way), but Shaheed was still owed $2.125 million dollars this year, and he is a free agent at the end of the season. That's a lot to give up for a 10-12 game rental, unless you are sure that he can help put you over the top. And if you do resign him, you are probably going to over pay for him. Now if you draft a rookie in the third round, you have him for at least 4 years on a rookie salary. A lot more goes into it than just how good the player is.