Jump to content

75 players show up for voluntary workouts


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said:

How does 75 of 90 compare to other teams? Seems like a pretty good turnout to me. 
 


This is also what I’m wondering. I’ve seen it posted on several Bills sites but I’m not sure if 75 is supposed to be a substantial number or not. Like what was the number 2 years ago? I mean 75 out of 84 sounds really good to me 🤷🏻‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, CorkScrewHill said:

Bills have 84 players under contract plus 3 unsigned rookies .. so 12 not participating.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2021/05/19/75-show-up-buffalo-bills-voluntary-offseason-workouts/

 

Does anyone have insight into who is and is not attending?

We will know who doesn’t attend next week when voluntary OTAs begin. The media will be able to be there at certain times. Right now they are allowed in the facility, but nothing is happening

2 minutes ago, Brennan Huff said:


This is also what I’m wondering. I’ve seen it posted on several Bills sites but I’m not sure if 75 is supposed to be a substantial number or not. Like what was the number 2 years ago? I mean 75 out of 84 sounds really good to me 🤷🏻‍♂️

It is a lot. The Browns for example have 0 players attending, outside of their rookies. 

27 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said:

How does 75 of 90 compare to other teams? Seems like a pretty good turnout to me. 
 

Browns = 0

Chiefs = 80

 

thats what I’ve seen so far

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CorkScrewHill said:

Bills have 84 players under contract plus 3 unsigned rookies .. so 12 not participating.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2021/05/19/75-show-up-buffalo-bills-voluntary-offseason-workouts/

 

Does anyone have insight into who is and is not attending?

 

OTAs don’t start until next week?  So we don’t know.  

 

Right now I think McKenzie, Diggs, Sanders, and Hughes are not in B’lo but that’s not to say they don’t plan to fly in before Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brennan Huff said:


That’s a bad look for a team who some people have as a sleeper contender

I wouldn’t even call them a sleeper contender. That team is extremely stacked on both sides of the ball. The only people ignoring them are media and that is because they are Cleveland and for no other reason.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:

I wouldn’t even call them a sleeper contender. That team is extremely stacked on both sides of the ball. The only people ignoring them are media and that is because they are Cleveland and for no other reason.

 

I don't know what media you are following but I haven't seen anyone "ignoring" the Brownies.  They've been called a contender by everyone, with the only caveat being the play of Mayfield.

  • Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:

I wouldn’t even call them a sleeper contender. That team is extremely stacked on both sides of the ball. The only people ignoring them are media and that is because they are Cleveland and for no other reason.

Media isn’t ignoring them 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:

I wouldn’t even call them a sleeper contender. That team is extremely stacked on both sides of the ball. The only people ignoring them are media and that is because they are Cleveland and for no other reason.

People are ignoring them if you avoid like every news outlet. Plenty of people are already proclaiming that the Browns are the biggest threat to the Chieves in the AFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, eball said:

 

I don't know what media you are following but I haven't seen anyone "ignoring" the Brownies.  They've been called a contender by everyone, with the only caveat being the play of Mayfield.

Caveat also discussed a lot is their defense. 16 new players including 9 new starters. It’s not a negative per se because they upgraded in talent where it was sorely needed, within the secondary in particular. It is more of a question mark, as no one knows what the defense will look like with that many new players in the scheme. One reason why in-person OTAs would be more beneficial for that group than most teams but thus far doesn’t appear they are on board. Generally the thought is that because the Browns’ Center JC Tretter is the president of the nflpa, he’s influencing the vets to stay away. 

Edited by YoloinOhio
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

We will know who doesn’t attend next week when voluntary OTAs begin. The media will be able to be there at certain times. Right now they are allowed in the facility, but nothing is happening

It is a lot. The Browns for example have 0 players attending, outside of their rookies. 

Browns = 0

Chiefs = 80

 

thats what I’ve seen so far

 

Browns is a team listening to bad advice from head of NFLPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MiltonWaddams said:

I wouldn’t even call them a sleeper contender. That team is extremely stacked on both sides of the ball. The only people ignoring them are media and that is because they are Cleveland and for no other reason.

 

Careful there Milton...

 

Folks 'round these parts don't take too kindly to anyone saying somethin' nice about them Brownies...

 

😉

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...