finn

There's a chance that Amos would have reportedly struggled in camp, just like Hairston and Elam. Bedford aside, a small suspicion is growing in me that McDermott is demanding to the point of intimidating the secondary players he drafts, not allowing some players to develop as they would under more supportive coaches. My niggling suspicion will grow stronger if Elam turns into a star and Hairston is another "bust."

I get it, thanks. I guess the answer is to win a Super Bowl, but I get that many receivers are more interested in their stats and paycheck. Thanks.

First I head anything like this. Is Brady's offense somehow unappealing to some receivers? If so, how?

There's a danger of him coming back too soon because of the pressure and the injury worsening. I hope McDermott knows what's up with the injury and isn't just venting his frustration. We can afford to do that, he can't.

Is he the best athlete out there? No. Is he fast enough for the position? No. Will the defense ever stop third and forever with him out there? No. Will the offense finally be able to have even a single down game with him out there? No. Does he know the defense backwards and forwards? Yes!

So taking a hard line on the Cook negotiations is not only wrong but weird and hateful. Would you prefer all posters check with you ahead of time to be sure their views align with yours? That way, you wouldn't have to vent your spleen nearly as often. Gotta watch that old blood pressure, right?

Fine. Pay him commensurate with Shakir's bargain contract, which might be on the table already. Shakir didn't ask to be paid like Ja'Mar Chase, and Cook should not be paid like Saquan. No, I would play hardball. He's saying, "Pay me more than I'm worth," so fairness has nothing to do with it. Let him sit for the first half of the season, see if he realizes he's blowing one of the four prime years he has left and not getting paid at all. If he wants to miss the whole season, fine, only franchise him next year and trade his selfish, me-first carcass. Every passing day of his holdout is more evidence he's no Buffalo Bill.

But my impression (no more than that) from last year was that the D-line was doing pretty well and the secondary just wasn't giving them enough time. Between Douglas losing a step, Hamlin playing back in the cheap seats, and various injuries, we were seeing opposing quarterbacks constantly finding wide open receivers. That's why I was hoping Beane would take Malaki Starks last year, Cooper DeJean the year before, and Kyle Hamilton the year before that. Rapp is adequate when healthy, and thank god Hamlin is benched. But I don't have a lot of faith in Bishop playing free safety. Has he shown anything at any point? I hope I'm wrong, especially with Hamlin lurking in the shadows. I do foresee a nice one-two punch in Hancock at free safety and Bishop or Rapp playing strong, but that's likely next year. In short, I think the rush will be much better this year, but it will be mostly wasted because of poor play at free safety, which will once again be the Achilles heel of the defense. But fear not! Allen by himself will be enough to compensate for a weak secondary AND a weak coach. Just watch.

Right, but you got to wonder if McDermott could win in KC in January even with a defense made up entirely of All-Pros. I've really lost faith in this guy. I'm at the point where I hope he gets the flu in January and has to stay home in bed.

Speaking as a fan, not as any kind of expert, I agree. McDermott has fielded high-EPA defenses, but allowing third and long completions appears to be a feature, not a bug, of his philosophy, a baked-in outcome of a philosophy that assumes, usually correctly, that the other team's offense will make a mistake at some point. So you keep the action in front of you, rushing four (ineffectually) and hoping for a dropped pass, penalty, or turnover. Playing not to lose. (Yes, yes, he's aggressive on offense.) To be fair, that approach can and does work in the regular season, at least if you have the best quarterback in NFL history on offense. But even Allen can't make up for the wheels falling off on defense year after year after year after year. I see no sign of change, either. Maybe Bosa will deliver what Miller did in those short eight weeks, but that won't be enough when the face KC in January. In short, it's Groundhog Day, again. Come January, we'll watch McDermott once again turning into a little boy in KC, clapping on his defense to another collapse. The only hope we have for our team is if Allen and the offense can in fact score more than the 33 points McDermott's defense surrenders to KC like clockwork every year. If The Bills succeed in the playoffs this year, it will be in spite of their head coach, not because of him.

I suspect it's not so much Cook wanting a premier salary as much as wanting respect. Shakir, Brown, Bernard, Benford, Rousseau...everyone is getting extensions in their last contract year except him. It's hard to be isolated, and his feelings are hurt. He seems like a good guy, but emotionally he strikes me more of an adolescent than a grown man, sweet but stupid, to be blunt, and he's probably particularly susceptible to his idiot brother and agent egging him on. They might see the Hard Knocks spotlight as leverage. The Kyren Williams contract, given that Beane is offering something similar, is perfectly fair and in fact is a better deal than Benford got, given that Benford truly is top-five at his position and Cook is simply not. But Cook might have rejected it while he was feeling raw, and now he's stuck. So Beane has the tricky task of not offending him further but not giving in, either, massaging his ego until he sees what is in his best interests. What he, Beane, needs is to come up with some means to let Cook save face so he can stand up to his ass-hat retinue. Big performance incentives this year, for instance, and maybe more guaranteed money than is on the table. Taking a hardline stance--fining him, for instance, or negotiating via the media would backfire badly. With this "hold-in," Cook has foolishly painted himself into a corner. Now he needs Beane to come up with a way to bail him out without his (Cook) looking like the complete ass he is.

Three superstars on the team in Allen, Milano, and Benford, and at least six red-chip players: Dawkins, Brown, Shakir, Cook*, Oliver, Bosa (maybe), along with a lot of very good players just below them and others with real potential; plenty of depth. Not a lot of weaknesses. Free safety, maybe. Receivers hardly a team strength, but not a weakness, either. My only concern at this point, besides Cook being even more stupid than I thought, is McDermott in the playoffs once again facing his mentor. I suspect he'll never overcome whatever is going on, but I have hope that the players know that by now and will carry him. (Or lock him in the locker room.)

I sent you a challenge. (I'm bikopuccinni.) I made it three days, but I usually move within a few hours. No worries if that's still too slow for you.

Who needs coffee, right?

A welcome thread on an off day, Ethan, thank you. Like Steve Billieve, I play a lot of chess, although, oddly, I now prefer online correspondence games (i.e., one day per move) to over the board games. They're more like a puzzle to solve at my leisure than a tense battle. (I like the Sunday NYT crossword puzzle, too.) Doubles tennis, squash when I can, pond hockey especially. I'm by far the oldest out there every year, but I can still hold my own, at least in my mind.

Did you see my TNG reference in the Training Camp 7/29 thread? "There are FOUR lights!" I'm always quoting TNG to blank faces, sigh.

Could be Milano.

Great news, but I hope it's not a Cole Bishop-type situation where he's not much use because he missed most of camp.

Who needs left tackles when you have a deep bench of referees?

"There are FOUR lights!"

It's not petty, it's interesting and clever. This board could use more of both qualities--and less carping.

I think people will look back at Allen and Mahomes being the superstars of this era, with Lamar, Stafford, and Burrows in the next tier down, much like how Cunningham, Moon, and Bledsoe in the 1990s are now considered a level below Kelly, Marino, Elway, and Favre.

Thought experiment: If Mahomes ended up statistically dead last in every relevant category but the Chiefs still won the Super Bowl (bear with me), would these people still rank him number one over a quarterback who is best in every quarterback but whose team sucks? You see my point. Where is the line drawn? How much credit do you give the QB on a SB-winning team, putting aside his contributions? And how much demerit do you assign the QB who performs at an arbitrary fantastic level but doesn't "take his team" to the ultimate victory? I think you can make an argument that greatness requires victory, but there is a lot of lazy thinking out there that reflexively dismisses great QBs on bad teams.

I don't recall anyone being on Johnson's side at any point. Besides Ralph, I mean.