BillsVet
-
Posts
10,490 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BillsVet
-
-
38 minutes ago, Utah John said:
I never had a contract like Romo does. It would cost CBS a fortune to fire Romo, and it would embarrass their own organization to demote him. Not to say they aren't having discussions behind closed doors, but Romo has sucked for three years or more now (after such a hot start) and nothing CBS does seems to help.
I had no issue with Romo before CBS told him to stop talking deep football observations and focus on happy-talk because that's what most fans can understand.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:
No offense works when you are playing against 40 points without the Quarterback being excellent. That goes without saying.
Brady has without question raised the floor of this offense since he took over and he has done it without affecting the ceiling that was there under Dorsey or Daboll.
Sure the defense getting better would help. But that isn't on Joe Brady.
Being better than Daboll and Dorsey is a pretty low bar to set, particularly with an improved Josh Allen in 2024-25 versus 2020-23. As an aside, Brady keeps designing runs for Josh which McD essentially ended for Dorsey in the first half of 2023. Been back in their playbook since then, but I digress.
The philosophy is what it is and that calls for synching the offensive and defensive schemes closely together. No one opposes the concept on offense of wanting to keep the ball, physically punish the opposing defense, having an offense which doesn't turn it over, keeps a run-pass balance, passes to max YAC/RAC, etc. This paired with a defense which gets turnovers, can put pressure on the QB, and forces throws into that zone is all good....
But it's still a low margin for error philosophy no matter who the OC is and what he calls. Particularly when the receivers are meh and struggle to get open. Requires Josh to do more, put himself in the line of fire running it, and is so-so against better competition particularly in the playoffs, as we've seen the last 2 years.
Brady has schemed the offense McD wants and Beane staffed. It is what it is.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sweats said:
I was listening to a podcast yesterday and they brought up this exact thing, however, what they mentioned is that the play calling may not be flashy, it is actually quite brilliant when you consider that the Bills are playing a "grind it out" style and forcing teams to beat themselves.
Works well against teams with inferior QBs like the Jets. As evidenced by the Division or Championship Game level, not so much unless Josh dials it up like he did in Week 1 versus Baltimore or against KC in the 13 seconds game.
Larger point is, playing this style is about keeping defense off the field, as healthy as possible, beating up an opponents' defense, and maintaining possession. When it works, it's good. When it doesn't (because the enemy always has a say) then the offense has to score a lot of points.
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Yeah they were.....until the last few drives. And I agree the Bernard extension was dumb. Made no sense. This is not a guy who is likely to start in the NFL for the length of his extension even.......he is almost inevitably going to get hurt enough times from bouncing around in that traffic and then the nose for the ball won't matter because he will become physically limited, IMO. Even if he repeated his historic splash play season from a couple years ago not many teams were going to sign up for a MLB that size with a history of being too banged up late in the season. The Bills weren't going to have to pay him more than they did, IMO so Beane just took a bad risk there like he did when he foolishly extended Eric Wood for 2018 back in summer of 2017 when there was basically ZERO chance he would leave Buffalo for numerous reasons..........and then ended up eating $10M when he failed a physical in January.
Beane's re-signing all 5 guys not named Josh this off-season at or nearing the decision to extend would have surprised me a couple years ago, but not now. Seems like that have an organizational goal of not having players who push back on leadership. It's why I think they caved a little on Cook because he was becoming a distraction and McBeane obviously want to avoid that. The Shakir extension seemed off as well...he's an injury waiting to happen with how he plays.
By my count, Buffalo re-signed 17 of the 22 drafted players taken in the 2017-2022 drafts who were at or within 1 year of an extension. To me, it appears that contract extensions are given by OBD based less on positional value, injury risk probability, etc. and more about loyalty.
-
1
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
For sure. But every season is a referendum on the approach every team has taken. That's the sport. You build your roster in March and April. You find out whether it worked between September and February.
Well, if that defense is largely healthy and it's still yielding 40 points to higher-caliber teams then their off-season was a miss...again. But we got a long way to go.
Still, it wouldn't be the first time that their off-season changes were insufficient. And that should prompt people to ask whether what HC and GM believe in can work.
Especially with this QB and how he is still getting better after an MVP season.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
I mean, sure. Every season is in a way. There is more pressure on McDermott and Beane every year they don't win a Superbowl. Ultimately only one philosophy a year succeeds.
When you continually revamp defensive personnel and that unit falters in critical moments, then their governing philosophy is up for criticism. More now than any other season based on significant DL and a fair amount of secondary investment. This while wanting a run-pass balance to wear teams down on offense.
There's little margin for error, and when it doesn't work then they need hero ball from Josh. He's mostly been up to the task, but when his low-moderate receiving talent aren't you get the AFC CG last year. Or, the Week 1 game against Baltimore.
-
15 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
McD's coverage schemes on the backend are more complex than anything Rex ran. Now Rex's D was more complex up front, that is fair. They are just different styles.
That may be. Still doesn't remove the larger point that this season is a referendum on the HC, GM, and their philosophy on how to win.
-
24 minutes ago, FireChans said:
To me, McD had an elite 2017 offseason.
Found 4 cornerstone defensive players. Had some great defenses.
Now 8 years later. Half gone, the other half shells of themselves. And the defense kinda sucks.
Is this a lesser version of the Seahawks being nasty because they acquired the whole LoB at the same time, and then when they all got old, their defenses fell apart? Was their DC some secret genius or did he just have great players?
I compare this more to Rex's schemes in New York effectivity around 2009-10. Those were more complicated to run, but needed the exact right players who had the smarts and physical ability.
I think we're trending closer to that in Buffalo, except I don't see that McD's defensive scheme as so complex. Still needs a certain kind of player, which he found in 2017 for the secondary.
Huge win or not on Sunday night, we're still debating the philosophy the HC and GM operate under. As in, whether a highly-resourced defense, particularly at DL combined with an offense featuring Josh, a very good OL, and an average-ish skilled talent group can win a SB. Buffalo's 2025 will answer that question.
-
6 hours ago, Thrivefourfive said:
Nah, you're listening to your mom yelling to you in the basement that the meatloaf is ready.
-
1 hour ago, Thrivefourfive said:
@Coach Tuesday is dangerously dehydrated
Some of you are insufferable and the season hasn't even started yet. Saturday Night Live addressed you back in the 80s before some of you were even born:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUL7q8eyig8
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, PrimeTime101 said:
Every year They bring Vets the the practice squad to help push these young players to the top of their potential. They not just there to look pretty till/iff they called up.
We have a better group of WR's this year then last year.. and how that work out? Just saying..
Those vets are largely washed up and if their presence is to push the younger players it's not a good thing.
I'll agree the 2025 WRs to start the season are better than those to start 2024. But it's a low bar...especially after the 2024 group's inability to get open almost got Josh KO'd in the Baltimore game. We're talking world record limbo bar low.
Too many if's, hopefully's, and maybe's heading into the season that, once again, people are banking on Josh to raise their production.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:
First Off.. I defend my pukes..
This is a horrible take... Im not sure if you think we will be hurt by week and need WR's or just wishing it...
or
is it cause you do not like who we have?
Davis will be called in well before any phone call is made to Cooper. The dude wants to retire a Raider.. so be it.
You may be the only one who defends their pukes like a man. Good for you.
Every WR on that roster is a limited option. Cooper may be shot...but after seeing Buffalo bring back Phillips, Poyer, and Gabe Davis back in short succession it's not surprising they'd call back a guy who they liked last year.
The WR group is a hodge-podge of underwhelming. No one is opening things up for anyone. Not Palmer and not Coleman at this point in his career despite the hype-machine in full force this off-season.
-
1
-
-
And Beane will be in touch by about Week 6 when he needs a WR...again.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, HappyDays said:
I would actually like to know what kind of cost people would see as fair? If $522 is too expensive, how much lower do you think it would have to be for the large majority of illegal streamers to start paying for it? I'm genuinely curious.
My take is that almost no price drop would be enough to reduce the number of illegal streamers. Because once you've decided that you're entitled to the content for free, there's no reason to pay any amount of money for it as long as you have that free access.
Agree HD. Much of this thread can be summarized as a debate between 2 types of people. Those who reason through moral, ethical and legal considerations to these streams and those who are limited to:
I like football because it makes me happy. What makes me happy is good. I deserve good things. Good things should not cost money. Greedy people charge money for football. Therefore I am entitled to free football because it is good, makes me happy, and bad people are bad.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Simon said:
In a civil society, at what point are we longer obligated to treat the unethical ethically?
A civil society without commonly held values trends toward legalism in outlining ethical standards. And legalism alone won't hold together long enough when debates like this surface.
In this case, just saying that these NFL game streams is wrong because the law says so can get into the mud like it is here. And that's because the issue of taking a product for free isn't considered along any moral lines by a larger cross-section of people. We're so fragmented on that it's never going anywhere, so we go back to the legalist framework which inevitably leads to people trying to justify something or make a case that it's not legal.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, K-9 said:
Yes, mixed. As for having to go all the way back to Josh’s second season, are we not supposed to judge Beane on his entire body of work? This is not a defense of Beane in the least, as he has more than his share of warts, but there is no denying that Brown and Beasley were solid FA signings at the WR position.
6 off-seasons ago is an eternity in NFL years. And then to pay then-market rate for UFA WR's is not the coup you think it is.
Beane's best WR acquisitions were in trade since then.
-
3 minutes ago, K-9 said:
Poor UFA WR signings? While the track record is mixed and school is not yet out on Palmer and Moore, John Brown and Cole Beasley say hold my beer.
A mixed track record? That's some serious revisionist history if it takes going all the way back to Josh's second season in 2019.
If we're gonna go that far back, let's throw in Kelvin Benjamin, Jordan Matthews, and Jeremy Kerley from 2017-18.
It's funny because I haven't heard people refer to Beane as a "wizard" this off-season. It's really a noticeable decline these past couple years.
-
34 minutes ago, RoscoeParrish said:
My suspicion as well.
The leash on Shavers/Samuel/Moore just got a lot shorter.
That's what the GM and HC think of the WR group Beane got flustered about having to defend a few months ago.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:
Why would you rather have them gamble when we're in a position to win now? Most of the players you mentioned would be no worse than the 7th best WR of the 2020 draft, and many would rank higher.
The 2020 draft was less of a mess than many drafts for the WR position, but it still underwhelmed. I wouldn't want Ruggs, Reagor, Juedy, and Aiyuk wouldn't have solved our problems either leaving Jefferson and Lamb as the only guys who would've moved the needle for us in the first round. Looking at the rest of the draft, only Higgins, Pittman, and Davis have been material players over the next 13 picks, and we walked away with one of them.
Too much luck involved here to want to go down this road, imo.No one's talking about historical draft evidence, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
The issue is Beane's poor UFA WR signings which is his response to insisting at not taking them in the draft.
Every draft pick is a gamble. I've been hearing for years on this board how the draft is a "crap-shoot" because there's no predictability to whether a pick will succeed.
OK. You pay a GM and his front office to get it right...as they did with Josh. You don't pay them to avoid something for years because it's scary.
People who want things guaranteed in life before making the decision are living in another universe. I suspect there are more every day who are scared. Time to put on big-boy pants.
-
10 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:
A rookie WR wasn't a good move for us at that time, and I'd argue Diggs had a bigger impact for us than Jefferson would have due to veteran experience and leadership. Diggs stepped in and was instantly the most impactful WR the team ever had. Rookie WRs are a massive gamble.
Beane essentially admitted this off-season that college WR evals are difficult. And when you look at their 2021-2025 drafts they clearly avoid the position for that and likely other reasons.
It's how you end up with UFA signings since the Diggs trade like Emanuel Sanders, Jamison Crowder, Deonte Harty, Trent Sherfield, Curtis Samuel, Mack Hollins, MVS, Josh Palmer, and Elijah Moore. They've wasted so much cap room all because their amateur scouting people and the GM are scared at the risk of college WRs.
I'd rather they have a Day 1 or 2 pick underwhelm at WR than not try at all because they're scared of a bust and don't know how to evaluate them. That's a guarantee you'll have nothing in development at WR...because they refuse to draft them unless it's absolutely necessary.
Compare and contrast that mindset to about 31 other NFL teams.
-
2 hours ago, May Day 10 said:
There are like 7 billion people on this planet, yet they keep signing the exact same guy
I don't know why people are complaining. They drafted Josh Allen.
-
45 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:
I am admittedly jealous of the Eagles who have an active, cutting-edge, first-class pro personnel department making a slew of trades at the waiver deadline in an effort to upgrade depth. Versus Beane’s guys who clearly have run out of new ideas and cannot help but squander their remaining cap dollars on over the hill defensive linemen every single freakin’ year. These small differences often make big differences late in the season.
Goes to a point you made after the draft about the DL. With Beane, it's a become this annual exercise to revamp the DL or add multiple contributors to it. Yeah, there's having a rotation, but they've signed 4 UFAs and drafted 3 more while having a 3-4 from last season who'll be in the rotation for 2025.
-
1
-
-
Welcome to Buffalo Grant. Here's your injury settlement and have a nice flight home.
-
1
-
-
Just now, dorquemada said:
Fair. We know he's capable of having big games though. Like I said, as long as he's not the #2, which God help us if he is.
If he was capable of "having big games" Jacksonville would have not eaten that 20M in cap across 2026 and 2027.
Just say no to drugs...like previous players who are a shell of what they used to be...which wasn't much.
-
1
-
Bills vs Chiefs WR investment
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
I researched around the draft ending how much draft capital Buffalo has used at certain positions, factoring in traded picks. That showed from 2021-2025, Buffalo used 12.4% of their draft value (or 779 points) on WRs.
KC used 1,463 points during that same period including traded picks. Assuming a similar amount of draft capital, KC would be around 23% used at WR.
The difference with KC is they're continually building the position with younger more highly regarded players whereas Buffalo does not. The Bills are content to draft one guy and just assume he'll perform and while it's still early with Coleman, issue remains doing this with Josh is odd.
I've believed the Bills don't invest in WRs because they're not confident in their draft evals, but they prefer to go with what they know as evidenced by the 29.4% on DL and 23.1% on secondary they've used of their draft capital from 2021-25.