Bills sign Dawson Knox to 4-year $53.6 mill extension ($31 mill gtd) through 2026

[ColoradoBills]

11 minutes ago, Bandito said:

 

Just pointing out the hypocrisy and homerism. Everyone cried about the heat but the Vikings won given very similar circumstances. The Bills should've won the game. I was there. They just didn't execute when they needed to.

 

I'm giving you a time out for a week.

 

[jkeerie]

16 minutes ago, Bandito said:

 

Just pointing out the hypocrisy and homerism. Everyone cried about the heat but the Vikings won given very similar circumstances. The Bills should've won the game. I was there. They just didn't execute when they needed to.

You do have a point regarding the heat.  The heat factored in more so with the Bills because of all the injuries to starters.  It really hurt the depth which was needed because of the heat.  I think Morse being out of that game especially hurt the offense.  The Vikings also faced the backup QB.  

[Mango]

A lot of talk of "he is really good, but the play caller, play, QB, etc". But isn't that sort of the point of the people arguing against the Knox contract? Lets say Knox is a top 5 TE. We don' utilize him as a top 5 TE, so why allocated that kind of cash to a really good player in a role that we don't focus on? 

On the Bills of 10 years ago we would certainly bicker about how to get Knox involved. But right now the offense is humming at an elite level, so why change the offense just to get more value out of your contract? 

 

I like Knox. I am hoping he lives up to his valuation. Given the year he has had I am trying not to be too critical, but I also understand other frustrations. I think his valuation will end up being a lot more fair as others renew. Right now Knox (15/148 yards/1 TD) is slightly less productive than McKenzie (17/162 yards/ 3 TD) and slightly more productive than Shakir (6/112 yards/ 1 TD) in the passing game. Knox (273) as taken 101 more snaps than McKenzie (172) and 179 more than Shakir (94)

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Mango said:

A lot of talk of "he is really good, but the play caller, play, QB, etc". But isn't that sort of the point of the people arguing against the Knox contract? Lets say Knox is a top 5 TE. We don' utilize him as a top 5 TE, so why allocated that kind of cash to a really good player in a role that we don't focus on? 

On the Bills of 10 years ago we would certainly bicker about how to get Knox involved. But right now the offense is humming at an elite level, so why change the offense just to get more value out of your contract? 

 

I like Knox. I am hoping he lives up to his valuation. Given the year he has had I am trying not to be too critical, but I also understand other frustrations. I think his valuation will end up being a lot more fair as others renew. Right now Knox (15/148 yards/1 TD) is slightly less productive than McKenzie (17/162 yards/ 3 TD) and slightly more productive than Shakir (6/112 yards/ 1 TD) in the passing game. Knox (273) as taken 101 more snaps than McKenzie (172) and 179 more than Shakir (94)

For so many, it’s no big deal what we pay people because we are “good,” but that’s not how this game is played.

[EffKCChiefs]

3 hours ago, teef said:

have you thought about starting a podcast with @ArtVandalayand @EffKCChiefs?  you could call it the think tank.  it would be marvelous.  

Do you ever come here to talk football? 

[teef]

2 minutes ago, EffKCChiefs said:

Do you ever come here to talk football? 

what up meat stain!

[Royale with Cheese]

24 minutes ago, Bandito said:

I am sorry this is happening to you and you can't admit the hypocrisy. Facts matter.

 

Facts also state that we were down 9 starters and even 2nd string players....plus multiple players couldn't finish the game because of the heat.  

Would the Vikings have won if they were down that many people?  It would be hypocrisy if the Vikings players were dropping like flies....

 

We saw the players falling on the field, you don't want to acknowledge that.  You have this "who cares if they have heat exhaustion" attitude.  

 

You also don't seem to think QB matters because the Vikings played against Teddy Bridgewater and Skylar Thompson.

"Back up QB's are just as good as the starter!" - Bandito

Edited October 26, 2022 by Royale with Cheese

[teef]

2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Facts also state that we were down 9 starters and even 2nd string players....plus multiple players couldn't finish the game because of the heat.  

Would the Vikings have won if they were down that many people?  It would be hypocrisy if the Vikings players were dropping like flies....

 

We saw the players falling on the field, you don't want to acknowledge that.  You have this "who cares if they have heat exhaustion" attitude.  

 

You also don't seem to think QB matters because the Vikings played against Teddy Bridgewater and Skylar Thompson.

"Back up QB's are just as good as the starter!" - Bandito

tell me you wouldn't download and listen to "the think tank".

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, teef said:

tell me you wouldn't download and listen to "the think tank".

 

As long as I get to listen to it while I'm eating a McDouble or 3.  

[FilthyBeast]

I would have a bigger issue with Knox's current lack of production if he was playing like he did his first few years and dropping a lot of passes but that hasn't really been the case.

 

But he did deliver in a pretty big moment in KC when it mattered most and have to believe he'll become more involved in this offense sooner than later.

 

Do think it's telling though that we chose to extend him when we did instead of Edmunds/Poyer/etc.

[GunnerBill]

25 minutes ago, FireChans said:

For so many, it’s no big deal what we pay people because we are “good,” but that’s not how this game is played.

 

That is certainly not my position. I'd have paid Knox because I think Knox is really good. And I'd get him the ball more too. 

[2003Contenders]

22 minutes ago, Mango said:

A lot of talk of "he is really good, but the play caller, play, QB, etc". But isn't that sort of the point of the people arguing against the Knox contract? Lets say Knox is a top 5 TE. We don' utilize him as a top 5 TE, so why allocated that kind of cash to a really good player in a role that we don't focus on? 

On the Bills of 10 years ago we would certainly bicker about how to get Knox involved. But right now the offense is humming at an elite level, so why change the offense just to get more value out of your contract? 

 

I like Knox. I am hoping he lives up to his valuation. Given the year he has had I am trying not to be too critical, but I also understand other frustrations. I think his valuation will end up being a lot more fair as others renew. Right now Knox (15/148 yards/1 TD) is slightly less productive than McKenzie (17/162 yards/ 3 TD) and slightly more productive than Shakir (6/112 yards/ 1 TD) in the passing game. Knox (273) as taken 101 more snaps than McKenzie (172) and 179 more than Shakir (94)

 

I hear what you are saying. But some things to consider...

 

1. Knox has provided value in the offense as a blocker.

 

2. He is playing the role that the coaches have asked -- it is not as if he has dropped numerous passes or failed to get open as the #1 option on passing routes.

 

3. While the numbers overall have not been eye-popping, he has come up huge with clutch catches in the two victories that went down to the wire. That would be the key long reception against Baltimore on the game winning drive -- and, of course, the TD catch against KC.

 

4. Right now the passing game is built around the talented WRs and dump-offs to the RBs -- and it has been quite successful. Eventually some defense (possibly the Packers on Sunday, who do actually have a strong secondary) or weather conditions, etc. are going to dictate another plan of attack. That is when I think you will see a big game from Knox.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, FilthyBeast said:

I would have a bigger issue with Knox's current lack of production if he was playing like he did his first few years and dropping a lot of passes but that hasn't really been the case.

 

 

Exactly my position. If his catch % was down and he was dropping balls like his rookie year I'd be the first to say "man they went too early on that Knox deal."

 

For now I am going to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because a) Knox has been hurt and b) Dorsey is still only 6 games in as an OC has done a good job overall and will no doubt be aware he needs to find more ways to get one of his best weapons the ball. 

3 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:

 

4. Right now the passing game is built around the talented WRs and dump-offs to the RBs -- and it has been quite successful. Eventually some defense (possibly the Packers on Sunday, who do actually have a strong secondary) or weather conditions, etc. are going to dictate another plan of attack. That is when I think you will see a big game from Knox.

 

Personally I think too much running back usage and not enough Knox usage. Some of that is the way teams defend us but I think they need to get the ball to Dawson more as they go. 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Bandito said:

It is because of the heat! You know, the same heat that the Vikings had to deal with and won in MIA!

 

Big differences were a) the Vikings played the Sunday before (not Monday Night), b) they were totally healthy and c) they faced the Dols' backup QBs.  You give the Bills any of those, much less all 3, and they win.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Doc

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:

 

I hear what you are saying. But some things to consider...

 

1. Knox has provided value in the offense as a blocker.

 

2. He is playing the role that the coaches have asked -- it is not as if he has dropped numerous passes or failed to get open as the #1 option on passing routes.

 

3. While the numbers overall have not been eye-popping, he has come up huge with clutch catches in the two victories that went down to the wire. That would be the key long reception against Baltimore on the game winning drive -- and, of course, the TD catch against KC.

 

4. Right now the passing game is built around the talented WRs and dump-offs to the RBs -- and it has been quite successful. Eventually some defense (possibly the Packers on Sunday, who do actually have a strong secondary) or weather conditions, etc. are going to dictate another plan of attack. That is when I think you will see a big game from Knox.

IRT the bolded, that's not good enough. I would be mad if they paid Singletary like a top 12 RB and then gave him the ball 8-12 times a game and split him with Moss per usual.

 

Either use your good players or don't pay them.  Don't pay them and not use them.

 

I think they will use Knox more in the future, and maybe it's a combo of injury/off the field for his slow start to the year.

 

We paid Diggs and the reason we paid him is because when he gets 12-15 targets a game, he is awesome.

[teef]

24 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

As long as I get to listen to it while I'm eating a McDouble or 3.  

is there anything you don't do while eating?

[Royale with Cheese]

14 minutes ago, teef said:

is there anything you don't do while eating?

 

Last Friday, I had 3 straight meals at McDonald's.  Lunch, dinner and then Saturday morning breakfast.  I had two McDouble's last night.

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

7 hours ago, Bandito said:

Right now. but not the big contract he received. 

 

 Which has absolutely nothing to do with this year. The kid lost a sibling at a very early age and is still probably in mourning. I'm sure most will give him a pass for this year, just as I am.

[Chicken Boo]

Knox coming out party *Sunday night.  You heard it here first.  

Edited October 26, 2022 by Chicken Boo

[Warcodered]

Just now, Chicken Boo said:

Knox coming out party Thursday night.  You heard it here first.  

Don't we play on Sunday?