BillsVet

Like a claymore mine in the darkness...

The chronic worriers group on TBD has significantly grown though in that time. I've wanted to start a thread on the things that keeps me up at night like: Who will be the 3rd string TE? And, how they'll round out the ST unit? Or, will McD's personal assistant be up to supporting the HC now that he's wearing the DC hat? I'm worried. Really worried.

Yeah, I'm not buying that about WR projections. NFL personnel people with loads of data on guys can't accurately predict a guy's ceiling and I'm pretty confident as a result you can't either. I'm not totally averse to a TE, but Buffalo is already paying one 13M AAV to be their receiving guy. As to receiving options, be they WR or TE, Buffalo is behind KC and CIN for now and the reason is because they don't continually invest there. And that's not unexpected, they traded for one guy and his then contract, but have committed mid round picks and signed lower tier WR UFAs to short term deals.

Read TBD's best posters and they'll reference how Buffalo's scheme flexibility is pretty limited on both sides of the ball. Perhaps that is evolving, but I haven't seen much evidence to support this on offense. If you're investing a big/moderate resource, i.e. a RD1/2 pick, that player should present a matchup disadvantage. All too often, Buffalo's pick have not provided that benefit and it limits their game-planning. If they did go WR there, this player should elevate the play or permit those new offensive looks...and that means interchangeability. Because by season's end, if you're limited in how to use a WR, it gets awfully difficult to throw new looks at opponents.

I'm not seeing a lot of change right now from OBD. More of the same with the rationale that they were cap poor. If there's a DE prospect at 27 or thereabouts who can be a solid pass rusher in a couple years, that's better than a reach for a lesser WR. I'm still skeptical their board is skewed toward defense like a weighted roulette slot(s).

If the city did not insert language in the contract that the Bears would be on the hook for remaining stadium debt costs should they move before paid off, then the city did it wrong. Chicago is an absolute mess right now and I'm not getting in to that. The team is re-locating because this situation has become untenable and contractually it appears as though they are not obligated to pay off this debt. Fans should not have to pay for the city's incompetence.

Franchises are largely separated by ownership/executive/administrators and QB. Some create a solid franchise, some are middle of the road, some are TBD, and others are behind the curve and on the verge of being fired. Then there's the small group of teams that share characteristics of the first and second groups like Buffalo. There's no question this franchise is in much better shape than they were 6 years ago. They made the leap from fringe playoff/mediocrity to perennial playoff appearances. Question now is do they take the next step to SB appearance. That remains to be seen after they exited the playoffs the last 2 seasons. Bill Walsh once said there are about 7-8 teams each season who are legitimate contenders and that holds true over a regular season. Even with 14 playoff teams now, some of those aren't SB contenders. I expect them to make that leap and anything short of that is failure...but then again it's all about the ride.

Kick his a$$ Sea Bass!

So many inane threads need this included:

My dad gets these all the time. Like Lamar Jackson re-signing with Baltimore for 2 years and 110M. Or Rodgers being traded. I have to tell him that's click-bait garbage from low grade outfits and check a true source like ESPN or, dare I say it, TBD.

The same guys largely running it back in '21. '22 and now '23 are the ones who spent themselves into that cap situation, yet insist their plan only needs minor tweaks 3 years running. Their cap challenges are a self-inflicted wound resulting from a refusal to prioritize away from the defensive side and toward the offense. Not an abdication on defense, only to reduce using their best resources elsewhere at this point in the McBeane tenure. Consider that a defensive 1st this year would make it 6 of 8 years using their best draft picks on a defensive player. This is Ted Thompson territory. Fastest way to being a championship team is to get the QB, surround them with top-end skill players and block for those guys. Defense isn't winning championships anymore and it's not debatable. You get the guys who can rush the passer, cover, and everything in between isn't that crucial compared to the offensive side. As long as this franchise invests as much as they do in defense with picks and UFA dollars, they'll always short-change their best player. You can't be elite on both sides and of late, the regular season defense wilts in the post-season, putting more on an under-talent offense to make things happen.

Predicting a team will go need with their bottom of the 1st round pick is the easy move. Then again, it's McBeane and they're not all that imaginative so maybe not far off using that pick for need. They've used plenty of 2nd round picks in that way. And, their board amazingly lands on a defender more often than not although grades don't indicate the talent is there for 30 first round picks.

This thread is another example of how the SNL skit with William Shatner at the Star Trek convention telling the trekkies to get a life was ahead of its time. Way ahead of its time.

I'm interested in hearing from those advocating about a traditional 0 tech or another 1T how the defense will push the pocket. Because any decent QB facing zero pressure up the middle will have no fear stepping up and making throws downfield.

Yeah, it's time for them to up their game on draft day. I'd like to think they learned their lesson drafting for need in 2019 picking Cody Ford but then last year they went straight-up need in rounds 1-2, so I'm not confident much has changed. Their drafts all seem engineered to be safe. Not a lot of calculated risk, aside from the move to take Josh 5 years ago. Aside from that, it's been a lot picks with limited ceilings, though I thought Rousseau was an excellent decision 2 years ago.

This is just flat out false equivalency. Based on pay rates and where they're drafted, QBs are much more valued than MLBs. And, I'm pretty sure you could tell me the top 3 QBs in the NFL off the top of your head, but could not identify the top 3 MLB/ILBs. Buffalo's defense was 16th in points and 14th in yards allowed in 2020, but made the AFC Championship. The following year, they improved dramatically to 1st / 1st, but lost in the Division Round. This past season, 2nd / 6th, yet blown out in the Division Round. It's funny to see the latent anxiety here because there isn't a clear starter at MLB and a 1st round pick makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Still doesn't mean you use the highest pick this team owns on that position.

There is something fundamentally wrong with drafting players high and then financially not being able to retain them. If they swung and missed on a guy that's not good, but the idea of using a top-10 pick (EDIT: who has performed) and letting them hit UFA is almost worse. Definitely gives me pause about OBD's decision-makers using another high pick on a DT...or LB. But it's emblematic of a trend over the years...their so-so track record on draft weekend bleeds over into using too much cap on UFAs which means you have less cap flexibility in subsequent off-seasons. And here we are, where a lack of cap room is talked about as a legit reason. Sustaining a high-performing team, even with a franchise QB, is a lot harder than building one from what McBeane inherited in 2017.

You were a big fan of mandatory fun day, weren't you? Have fun or else!

Cincinnati's OL was crippled with injuries so it was something of a draw there injury-wise. Somehow, Bills fans always forget that. The other excuse, predictably, was citing their lack of cap room for not improving the offense as much this off-season. It's hilarious the grand canyon level reach people are making to defend them. Or, that McBeane didn't create that problem themselves. Most of you rubber-stamping the McD vision of NFL football just throw up mental roadblocks and go full automaton whenever someone asks about the value of taking defense at this point in McBeane's football management lifecycle. Besides, how does Cincinnati manage to go to the SB and then back to an AFC Championship? I guess it was because they had JaMarr Chase as Beane said in January.

I'm not as concerned about the technical aspects or training...it's a team game headlined by the QB. The end result, i.e. the W-L record, is all that matters, not the new drills a player is running. That's small picture stuff, which is often off-season puff piece stuff that fills the void fans have. The discussion centers around building a roster that can compete with now 2 teams in the AFC that own them in the post-season. And, how to overcome their failures in those games. Because if the wheel gets spun on draft day and it magically ends up taking another defensive player or two highly...you're not helping the QB and it's Ted Thompson v2.0 happening all over again.

I didn't make any observation about their roster's average age. My point is, people expect the team to at least remain as good or perhaps improve from one season to the next. It's not within the worldview that they could regress. E.G.: They were 13-3 last season, not much changed...ergo, they'll be about that next year.

Players get older, slower, don't heal from injuries as quickly, and generally are degrading every year. It's the NFL. Contracts are closer to expiring and new players must be integrated to replace those older players on the decline. Which means what worked last year is not a guarantee to succeed this coming season. People don't like change, but if you're not improving you are regressing. Status quo doesn't get it done in this world.

The only doubling-down on disappointment would be using another premium asset for McD's defense. Coming off the Cincinnati loss going defense again is like a business revising an aging product line despite their opponents innovating and gaining market share. If Beane concludes from the Cincinnati and Kansas City losses the last 2 years that they need more defense the result is they'll continue losing track meets against top-end NFL offenses. There's stubborn and then there's stupid. McBeane are trending away from the former and pointing more toward the latter if they go defense in RD1.

I used to follow them for UFA news years ago, but they went full click-bait garbage level writing and I could care less what he says. But more than that...Mike Florio is the NFL's version of TMZ and acts like a clown on air.

"Obviously, a trade hasn’t occurred yet. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. A team hoping to draft a quarterback could pivot to Jones, if that team doesn’t get the guy it wants." This passes for journalism in 2023. Then again, it's PFT so not surprised.