Media coverage of Diggs trade before and after

[BarleyNY]

Is anyone else more disgusted than usual with the media regarding the Diggs trade? Virtually every Bills centric media member was dismissive about the possibility of him being traded beforehand. Some went so far as to be rude about it and acted like people making the suggestion were idiots for even thinking it was a possibility.

 

Fast forward to the aftermath and I’ve yet to hear one utter anything in the way of a mea culpa. I literally heard one of the more dismissive ones start off their podcast with “Well, it finally happened!” Like it was something he’d been expecting.

 

It’s a good reminder that so many media people are just playing a game. I shared here that an NFL reporter who’d been in Vegas for SB week had said that the big rumor among teams that week was that the Bills would be trying to trade Diggs this offseason. I don’t write that here to LAMP. But if it’s something that can make it to someone like me, how do they not hear it. They’re supposedly so well connected. Or is it that they collectively kept a lid on it? I dunno, either way it’s not a good look. I lost a lot of respect for many of them. 

[Warriorspikes51]

I don't bother to listen to any of the talking bobbleheads.  It helps. 

[SydneyBillsFan]

I agree that the usual suspects are as boring as batshit.

 

This, on the other hand, is definitely worth listening to (the Tim Graham podcast):

 

 

[BillsPride12]

Meh.  It's the media.  I wouldn't let their thoughts on anything ruin your day

[ddaryl]

just like social media, it chock full of people with opinions. 

I honestly didn't see it coming and would of said it wasn't going to happen.

[PBF81]

21 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

I dunno, either way it’s not a good look. I lost a lot of respect for many of them. 

 

They blather to make money.  They make money because people listen to them blather.  Always rely on your own assessments, ignore them completely.  

 

As to the look, it's not a good look from several perspectives.  

 

First, it was more sudden and seemingly driven by dissention between Diggs & the team.   It wasn't planned this way by Beane.  

 

Secondly, despite contrary narratives, this leaves is in a hole, a big one.  One that further challenges the narratives on Allen (right or wrong) and the "window." 

 

Third, it wasn't planned this way, but at the same time, Beane didn't seem to have even the slightest backup plan or contingency for the somewhat imminent diminishment in Diggs' skills at any time, and regarding the only WR on Allen's watch that has made a big impact.  

 

It's also big news and it's Diggs.  It's controversy, which sells.  More blather, more money.  

 

It's definitely going to be an interesting season.  The emergence of Houston, our situation with the WRs, Brady, etc.  

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

[BarleyNY]

34 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

I don't bother to listen to any of the talking bobbleheads.  It helps. 

 

I stay away from the “shouty shows” but sports radio is good white noise for me. I don’t really have to pay attention and it is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things so it doesn’t have the same strain as the important stuff. 

[AmishRifle]

34 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

I agree that the usual suspects are as boring as batshit.

 

This, on the other hand, is definitely worth listening to (the Tim Graham podcast):

 

 

I tried to listen.  I really did.  I find Tim Graham to be a tough listen.  

[Logic]

The thing that bothers ME, if anything, is this:

When Diggs was a Bill, all we heard about was how he was a diva, a malcontent, a headache, and was maybe showing his age last year and no longer a number one receiver.

Now that he's a Texan, he's the weapon that's gonna put them over the top, they're favorites in the AFC, he's still a #1 WR, and the Bills got fleeced.

Like...which is it? Pick a lane.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

46 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Is anyone else more disgusted than usual with the media regarding the Diggs trade? Virtually every Bills centric media member was dismissive about the possibility of him being traded beforehand. Some went so far as to be rude about it and acted like people making the suggestion were idiots for even thinking it was a possibility.

 

Fast forward to the aftermath and I’ve yet to hear one utter anything in the way of a mea culpa. I literally heard one of the more dismissive ones start off their podcast with “Well, it finally happened!” Like it was something he’d been expecting.

 

It’s a good reminder that so many media people are just playing a game. I shared here that an NFL reporter who’d been in Vegas for SB week had said that the big rumor among teams that week was that the Bills would be trying to trade Diggs this offseason. I don’t write that here to LAMP. But if it’s something that can make it to someone like me, how do they not hear it. They’re supposedly so well connected. Or is it that they collectively kept a lid on it? I dunno, either way it’s not a good look. I lost a lot of respect for many of them. 

There was one guy on WGR, some young kid, was like anyone that calls to say Diggs can be traded is getting hung up on.

 

It was really bad. None of them are really connected.

[PBF81]

29 minutes ago, Logic said:

The thing that bothers ME, if anything, is this:

When Diggs was a Bill, all we heard about was how he was a diva, a malcontent, a headache, and was maybe showing his age last year and no longer a number one receiver.

Now that he's a Texan, he's the weapon that's gonna put them over the top, they're favorites in the AFC, he's still a #1 WR, and the Bills got fleeced.

Like...which is it? Pick a lane.

 

Isn't it kind of like that everywhere though?  Consider here, when a player's here, he's great, much better than they typically are in reality, especially upon us signing them.  When the leave, if they didn't perform, not to historical patterns, but to unfounded narratives, then they're worthless, a cancer, a detriment, "good riddance," etc.  LOL  

 

That's just human nature.  Trying to slice through it all is where the work is.  Most people don't put in the time.  I'll give one good example.  

 

Most people, everywhere, talk about draft prospects as if they know all about them, but most people merely read a few draft profiles and carry those.  There's zero personal risk that way.  If they're wrong, oh well, everyone was wrong, even Kiper or whomever.  It takes a ton of time to evaluate a draft prospect.  Back in the day you could order the offensive/defensive coaches' view video from sideline and endzone of every play that a particular player had, by player.  Call/write the school, tell them you're a journalist, and they'd send them to you free of charge.  I'm sure they'd still do that today.  Today there's youtube, but that's far from comprehensive.  But evaluating that video takes time, but it also allows you to come to your own conclusions.  

 

I love those highlight reels of some player from a Power-5 school beating up on Bowling Green, but is that a really good data point?  How many players on Bowling Green are headed to the NFL, especially from that team for example.  Who cares how a top prospect performed against the NCAA equivalent of a JV team.  A better approach is to look at the tougher games against similar P5 competition that features opposing players that are headed to the NFL, right.  

 

But all that takes time, lots of time.  By my estimation it takes a good 10+ hours to properly evaluate a player as if I were on a staff considering drafting him.  But think about the ramifications.  For just 30 players, at a 40 hr. work week, that's about two months of work, for someone doing it full-time.  Reviewing most of the draft field is not even remotely possible for any single person.  Hence, most people simply refer to the draft profiles, which are really all more or less scripted from one another in one or more forms.  All of these "independent" draft sites, if you look, really don't have much different info than nfl.com's draft site, Kiper, etc.  

 

Any player can be made to look like he should be the first overall pick from highlight videos.  Any player can be made to appear to be among the most overrated.  That's where teams should be earning their keep, in their independent analyses.  It's why, for example, anyone looking back in the day, could easily see that Mike Evans would be the far better overall prospect than Watkins.  Watkins made his collegiate living as a man among boys and largely on plays that simply do not work at the NFL level.  So why would it be any different simply because a bunch of draft analysts said so.  And on that note, how much work, on top of all the other stuff that they do, are those analysts really putting in besides highlight reels, which again, are often against week and feeble opponents.  The very first thing that anyone should look at for top prospects on highlight reels, is the helmets of the team that they playing, and how good the opposing players on that team are.  The second thing is how well they performed in their biggest of games.  I'm not a big Caleb Williams fan for that reason, to me he's got a high percentage to bust.  BJT OTOH hits those notes.  That's not to say that he's a "can't miss" prospect, but if he's there he'd be a good choice but I wouldn't trade up at the cost of additional relevant pics to get him either.  

 

Anyway, again, just my two cents.  

 

 

[BBFL]

57 minutes ago, Logic said:

The thing that bothers ME, if anything, is this:

When Diggs was a Bill, all we heard about was how he was a diva, a malcontent, a headache, and was maybe showing his age last year and no longer a number one receiver.

Now that he's a Texan, he's the weapon that's gonna put them over the top, they're favorites in the AFC, he's still a #1 WR, and the Bills got fleeced.

Like...which is it? Pick a lane.

Year one is always blissful. Probably even more so that they voided his remaining contract years…

 

Diggs will play nice, do all he can to get himself another contract come 2025. 

No one walks into a new job or employer with a sour taste to the “fresh start”. Even more so if they did indeed want “out”. 

[Sweats]

54 minutes ago, Logic said:

The thing that bothers ME, if anything, is this:

When Diggs was a Bill, all we heard about was how he was a diva, a malcontent, a headache, and was maybe showing his age last year and no longer a number one receiver.

Now that he's a Texan, he's the weapon that's gonna put them over the top, they're favorites in the AFC, he's still a #1 WR, and the Bills got fleeced.

Like...which is it? Pick a lane.

 

 

 

That's exactly the same point i was going to make.

Diggs in B-lo was a distraction, a big-time diva and a headache for the franchise, has lost a step, is aging, but he goes to Houston and holy ****, he's the king. He's exactly what a team needs to put them over the top.

 

The media flipping both ways, saying that Buffalo doesn't really need this frustration on its hands and yet, they turn around saying what the hell are the Bills doing, they're tanking this year, they've given up, throwing in the towel, etc.

 

If it wasn't so blatantly obvious that the media has no idea what they are talking about or just creating some click-bait, it would almost be comical.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

But all that takes time, lots of time.  By my estimation it takes a good 10+ hours to properly evaluate a player as if I were on a staff considering drafting him.  But think about the ramifications.  For just 30 players, at a 40 hr. work week, that's about two months of work, for someone doing it full-time.  Reviewing most of the draft field is not even remotely possible for any single person.  Hence, most people simply refer to the draft profiles, which are really all more or less scripted from one another in one or more forms.  All of these "independent" draft sites, if you look, really don't have much different info than nfl.com's draft site, Kiper, etc.  

 

 

Sure, to do it to like NFL team level it takes at least that time in all likelihood double. My rule is nobody goes on my draft board without evaluating AT LEAST three full games of theirs. That takes somewhere between an hour and a half and three hours per play depending on whether one of the cutup databases has done some of the work for you by cutting out the plays they weren't on the field (i.e. when the other side of the ball was out there) or you literally have to scroll through an entire game film finding the relevant plays on offense or defense etc. It's why even though I really like the highlight videos and clips I have seen on the Yale tackle this year he won't be on my board. I just don't have enough material to make any kind of educated analysis on him and therefore I won't take a view. I have estimated before that I spend about 300 hours watching draft prospects between 1 Jan and draft night. It works out at about 18 hours a week or thereabouts. It's a geeky hobby I confess but I enjoy it. 

[JerseyBills]

i rather get opinions on here. These guys have no clue like us but think they're big shots. Only one i like is cover 1 cause they break down the plays n what not

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, Logic said:

The thing that bothers ME, if anything, is this:

When Diggs was a Bill, all we heard about was how he was a diva, a malcontent, a headache, and was maybe showing his age last year and no longer a number one receiver.

Now that he's a Texan, he's the weapon that's gonna put them over the top, they're favorites in the AFC, he's still a #1 WR, and the Bills got fleeced.

Like...which is it? Pick a lane.

That's because the media need a new yet not necessarily truthful narrative that promotes Stroud. I think deep down they know in their hearts Stef could underperform or even "demand" targets but they're too afraid to admit it. Jones on "Speak" had the conviction yesterday to say this trade doesn't necessarily make Houston better and he thought the Bills made the right move.

[Mat68]

Imo it was 50/50 money and wanting to be elsewhere on Diggs end.  This was the last year of guaranteed money but also locked in for 4 more years.  He forced a trade and was not welcomed with a bunch of new money when he arrived in Hou.  They took off the years so Diggs wouldnt be a problem.  Basically, to get the money you are asking for you have a year to show out and get it here or elsewhere.  
 

Take the off the field stuff out of it.  He is top 5 in the league in targets and pay.  The offense was more efficient and better overall when not feeding Diggs targets.  Going forward the offense would be funneled through Kincaid, Shakir and Cook due to their catch % and Allens rating when targeting them.  So now if Diggs is not getting 160 targets but closer to 100 his production will go down.  He will still be good but not elite.  Sprinkle that in with everything else off field I think trading is the best option.  Dead cap is for money already paid to him.  Is he worth another 25 mil this year of new money they will pay him? I think the conclusion was no.  Would Diggs make thing tougher for everyone around him if he was not the main read on most plays?  After the win streak to win the division and make the playoffs, after the season he was still questioning the change of philosophy mid way through the year pointed to I was a pacing career but I dont know what changed and why.

[MJS]

I have said pretty strongly that Diggs wouldn't be traded, but I usually added the caveat that it would take him basically forcing himself off of the team being a malcontent. Still, I thought the enormous dead cap hit, one of the largest in NFL history of it happened, was pretty prohibitive.

 

So, I don't really blame members of the media for taking that logical stance. However, they do lose some credibility if they don't talk about being wrong. That's just common sense.

[SoonerBillsFan]

34 minutes ago, Sweats said:

 

 

 

That's exactly the same point i was going to make.

Diggs in B-lo was a distraction, a big-time diva and a headache for the franchise, has lost a step, is aging, but he goes to Houston and holy ****, he's the king. He's exactly what a team needs to put them over the top.

 

The media flipping both ways, saying that Buffalo doesn't really need this frustration on its hands and yet, they turn around saying what the hell are the Bills doing, they're tanking this year, they've given up, throwing in the towel, etc.

 

If it wasn't so blatantly obvious that the media has no idea what they are talking about or just creating some click-bait, it would almost be comical.

The one guy I want to hear from is Rich Eisen.  He seems more neutral than most, and he is a huge Allen guy.

[Kaenon]

What is the point of social media?

I don't get it ...

[Buffalo03]

2 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

Is anyone else more disgusted than usual with the media regarding the Diggs trade? Virtually every Bills centric media member was dismissive about the possibility of him being traded beforehand. Some went so far as to be rude about it and acted like people making the suggestion were idiots for even thinking it was a possibility.

 

Fast forward to the aftermath and I’ve yet to hear one utter anything in the way of a mea culpa. I literally heard one of the more dismissive ones start off their podcast with “Well, it finally happened!” Like it was something he’d been expecting.

 

It’s a good reminder that so many media people are just playing a game. I shared here that an NFL reporter who’d been in Vegas for SB week had said that the big rumor among teams that week was that the Bills would be trying to trade Diggs this offseason. I don’t write that here to LAMP. But if it’s something that can make it to someone like me, how do they not hear it. They’re supposedly so well connected. Or is it that they collectively kept a lid on it? I dunno, either way it’s not a good look. I lost a lot of respect for many of them. 

I think it was because it was a complete shock. When you looked at the money factor, it almost seemed a virtual impossibility. I can see why they felt that way

[PBF81]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Sure, to do it to like NFL team level it takes at least that time in all likelihood double. My rule is nobody goes on my draft board without evaluating AT LEAST three full games of theirs. That takes somewhere between an hour and a half and three hours per play depending on whether one of the cutup databases has done some of the work for you by cutting out the plays they weren't on the field (i.e. when the other side of the ball was out there) or you literally have to scroll through an entire game film finding the relevant plays on offense or defense etc. It's why even though I really like the highlight videos and clips I have seen on the Yale tackle this year he won't be on my board. I just don't have enough material to make any kind of educated analysis on him and therefore I won't take a view. I have estimated before that I spend about 300 hours watching draft prospects between 1 Jan and draft night. It works out at about 18 hours a week or thereabouts. It's a geeky hobby I confess but I enjoy it. 

 

That's more than most people that cite how good a draft prospect is do by a longshot, even as a geeky hobby.  LOL  If you haven't done so, contact the schools for the players you're interested in, tell them that you do this in a journalistic sense, and ask them for the game videos for every player for any games that you're interested in.  They used to send them out on DVDs, not sure how they'd get them to you today, maybe online download or something.  You'll get both views of every play that the player is on the field for, both from the endzone and the sideline.  It'll save you a ton of time.  You can likely even get it for that Yale tackle, if you really want, and you can ask for them by game, just contact the Yale athletic department, tell them that you're a draft profiler and that you want his video of whatever games you want.  Indeed, every play does not carry meaning, but you can easily sift through the ones that do.  I don't follow the Draft like you do, I only care who we draft anymore, and I'll do an "after" review for our 28th and 60th, but that's about it.  I'll PM you to compare.  I don't care that much anymore.  LOL  I file it under no sense in discussing things that aren't current or have no bearing on the Bills.   

 

 

[jkeerie]

43 minutes ago, Sweats said:

 

 

 

That's exactly the same point i was going to make.

Diggs in B-lo was a distraction, a big-time diva and a headache for the franchise, has lost a step, is aging, but he goes to Houston and holy ****, he's the king. He's exactly what a team needs to put them over the top.

 

The media flipping both ways, saying that Buffalo doesn't really need this frustration on its hands and yet, they turn around saying what the hell are the Bills doing, they're tanking this year, they've given up, throwing in the towel, etc.

 

If it wasn't so blatantly obvious that the media has no idea what they are talking about or just creating some click-bait, it would almost be comical.

This...most don't.  They only look at the surface of things.  I was watching Around the Horn on ESPN the day of the trade, and the most knowledgeable and reasoned opinion came from Mina Kimes.  She sighted his stats the last half of the season and in the playoffs each season, whereas the others looked at Diggs overall statistics over the four years.  Mina agreed with the Bills move.  The others thought it a mistake.

[PBF81]

33 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

That's because the media need a new yet not necessarily truthful narrative that promotes Stroud. I think deep down they know in their hearts Stef could underperform or even "demand" targets but they're too afraid to admit it. Jones on "Speak" had the conviction yesterday to say this trade doesn't necessarily make Houston better and he thought the Bills made the right move.

 

Demeco Ryans isn't going to put up with crap from Diggs.  They're not committed beyond this season, Diggs knows it too.  

 

It'll be interesting to be sure.  There's a lot of "sour grapes" here positing that their WR corps is too crowded, but Cincy did just fine with Chase, Higgins, and Boyd, which we seemed to envy.  Houston will be fine, at least for this season.  The bigger question is how Stroud plays this season, but he appears to be for real and the next top QB.  

 

 

45 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Sure, to do it to like NFL team level it takes at least that time in all likelihood double. My rule is nobody goes on my draft board without evaluating AT LEAST three full games of theirs. That takes somewhere between an hour and a half and three hours per play depending on whether one of the cutup databases has done some of the work for you by cutting out the plays they weren't on the field (i.e. when the other side of the ball was out there) or you literally have to scroll through an entire game film finding the relevant plays on offense or defense etc. It's why even though I really like the highlight videos and clips I have seen on the Yale tackle this year he won't be on my board. I just don't have enough material to make any kind of educated analysis on him and therefore I won't take a view. I have estimated before that I spend about 300 hours watching draft prospects between 1 Jan and draft night. It works out at about 18 hours a week or thereabouts. It's a geeky hobby I confess but I enjoy it. 

 

BTW, you should perhaps get an external hard drive if you're going to ask for the videos.  LOL 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Demeco Ryans isn't going to put up with crap from Diggs.  They're not committed beyond this season, Diggs knows it too.  

 

It'll be interesting to be sure.  There's a lot of "sour grapes" here positing that their WR corps is too crowded, but Cincy did just fine with Chase, Higgins, and Boyd, which we seemed to envy.  Houston will be fine, at least for this season.  The bigger question is how Stroud plays this season, but he appears to be for real and the next top QB.  

 

BTW, you should perhaps get an external hard drive if you're going to ask for the videos.  LOL 

 

 

On the Diggs stuff my question for Houston is still "do they have a #1?" And it is the question we were asking here as recently as last week. If Diggs was just banged up / disenchanted / not featured so much in Joe B's offense and can round back to form then they absolutely do. If he is slightly on the decline I still think they are in a bit of a no-mans land where they have two very good #2s in Collins and Diggs and they have Tank who I think is a stud but isn't an archetypal #1. There is no doubt they have a nice balance though - Collins as the vertical guy, Diggs as the route runner and Tank as a speedster and YAC guy who can play from the slot. It is one of the better WR groups in the league if they can all stay healthy. 

 

And on asking for videos I think I'll stick with the cutups and streaming services.  

 

 

14 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

That's more than most people that cite how good a draft prospect is do by a longshot, even as a geeky hobby.  LOL  If you haven't done so, contact the schools for the players you're interested in, tell them that you do this in a journalistic sense, and ask them for the game videos for every player for any games that you're interested in.  They used to send them out on DVDs, not sure how they'd get them to you today, maybe online download or something.  You'll get both views of every play that the player is on the field for, both from the endzone and the sideline.  It'll save you a ton of time.  You can likely even get it for that Yale tackle, if you really want, and you can ask for them by game, just contact the Yale athletic department, tell them that you're a draft profiler and that you want his video of whatever games you want.  Indeed, every play does not carry meaning, but you can easily sift through the ones that do.  I don't follow the Draft like you do, I only care who we draft anymore, and I'll do an "after" review for our 28th and 60th, but that's about it.  I'll PM you to compare.  I don't care that much anymore.  LOL  I file it under no sense in discussing things that aren't current or have no bearing on the Bills.   

 

 

I imagine the shipping costs to the UK would make that an expensive do! And my draft fandom is separate to my Bills fandom. Sure it's fun to think about who the Bills might take, but team building strategy is the thing that makes the NFL so fascinating to me. So trying to find out how and what teams are thinking through the way they draft is really interesting. 

[PBF81]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

On the Diggs stuff my question for Houston is still "do they have a #1?" And it is the question we were asking here as recently as last week. If Diggs was just banged up / disenchanted / not featured so much in Joe B's offense and can round back to form then they absolutely do. If he is slightly on the decline I still think they are in a bit of a no-mans land where they have two very good #2s in Collins and Diggs and they have Tank who I think is a stud but isn't an archetypal #1. There is no doubt they have a nice balance though - Collins as the vertical guy, Diggs as the route runner and Tank as a speedster and YAC guy who can play from the slot. It is one of the better WR groups in the league if they can all stay healthy. 

 

Yeah, that sounds about right.  

 

 

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

And on asking for videos I think I'll stick with the cutups and streaming services.  

 

Just realize that you have options.  

 

 

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I imagine the shipping costs to the UK would make that an expensive do! And my draft fandom is separate to my Bills fandom. Sure it's fun to think about who the Bills might take, but team building strategy is the thing that makes the NFL so fascinating to me. So trying to find out how and what teams are thinking through the way they draft is really interesting. 

 

Yeah, good luck with that.  LOL  I say that affectionately.  It's clear that while people like Kiper, who devote their careers to this stuff, are decent at ranking prospects, but poor at matching players with teams.  Run that analysis sometime.  LOL  

 

I can see the interest of it all, but man, talk about complexities.  It is an analytical wonderland however.   

 

As to the shipping, who knows, maybe not, it'd just be a DVD and athletic departments have budgets for stuff like that, and it's a good guess that being from the UK might actually help you since the NFL is so focused on overseas growth, and the NCAA knows it.  Either way, it doesn't hurt to ask.    

 

 

[BarleyNY]

2 hours ago, Logic said:

The thing that bothers ME, if anything, is this:

When Diggs was a Bill, all we heard about was how he was a diva, a malcontent, a headache, and was maybe showing his age last year and no longer a number one receiver.

Now that he's a Texan, he's the weapon that's gonna put them over the top, they're favorites in the AFC, he's still a #1 WR, and the Bills got fleeced.

Like...which is it? Pick a lane.

 

It all does seem disingenuous. 

[Nephilim17]

3 hours ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

I agree that the usual suspects are as boring as batshit.

 

This, on the other hand, is definitely worth listening to (the Tim Graham podcast):

 

 

Thanks for this.

A very, very interesting anecdote from Tim Graham:

After the Game 1 Jets loss last season, Josh was in the lockerroom, towel over head, looking forlorn. Many players were patting him on the back and trying to pick him up. Dawkins said "17 for life." That kind of thing.

Diggs comes up to him and Graham did not hear what he said but Josh snapped, "It's one f**ing game!" and waved Diggs off.

That to be is pretty damn interesting and suggests that there relationship was indeed not well. 

Starts around 19:30 if anyone wants to hear.

[mushypeaches]

Houston had a fun run last year as a surprise team with no expectations, playing a lot of non-primetime games and in a division where the other 3 teams basically tripped over themselves.  Sure - Stroud had an excellent year and comported himself well, but the next step is the harder one.

 

Let's see how they develop once they start to face a much harder schedule, with more media coverage, expectations, etc - before we all start to listen to the talking heads anoint them as the next best thing and a true title contender

 

[BeastMaster]

Like most of the media (not just sports) their takes are lazy and part of the hive mind/group think mentality.

 

It's so bad now that I usually end up tuning out within a few minutes. 

 

When you feel like numerous posters here and even you could do a better job than they do, it's a sad state of affairs

[Rigotz]

5 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

Virtually every Bills centric media member was dismissive about the possibility of him being traded beforehand. Some went so far as to be rude about it and acted like people making the suggestion were idiots for even thinking it was a possibility.

 

Fast forward to the aftermath and I’ve yet to hear one utter anything in the way of a mea culpa. I literally heard one of the more dismissive ones start off their podcast with “Well, it finally happened!” Like it was something he’d been expecting.

 

I think the guy you're referring to is Joe Marino, the host of Locked On Bills.

 

He's normally great, but was extremely dismissive of the idea that Diggs might get traded and went as far as to say if anyone suggests it, you're "only showing that you're not an informed fan." Now that it has happened ... crickets.

 

I hope he addresses this at some point, because he had a very similar take on Tremaine Edmunds and finally admitted that he was very wrong after several weeks of not addressing Bernard's outperformance last season. I listen to the guy every day and love his podcasts, but he seems to not be willing to take the L when it matters.

[buffblue]

5 hours ago, Logic said:

The thing that bothers ME, if anything, is this:

When Diggs was a Bill, all we heard about was how he was a diva, a malcontent, a headache, and was maybe showing his age last year and no longer a number one receiver.

Now that he's a Texan, he's the weapon that's gonna put them over the top, they're favorites in the AFC, he's still a #1 WR, and the Bills got fleeced.

Like...which is it? Pick a lane.

Was coming here to post exactly this

[Comebackkid]

craziest after trade article ive seen was called.

5 spots for josh allen to land now buffalo has traded is fav target...

my reply is basically go pound sand..im not clicking on anything like that.

 

[Neo]

6 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

Is anyone else more disgusted than usual with the media regarding the Diggs trade? Virtually every Bills centric media member was dismissive about the possibility of him being traded beforehand. Some went so far as to be rude about it and acted like people making the suggestion were idiots for even thinking it was a possibility.

 

Fast forward to the aftermath and I’ve yet to hear one utter anything in the way of a mea culpa. I literally heard one of the more dismissive ones start off their podcast with “Well, it finally happened!” Like it was something he’d been expecting.

 

It’s a good reminder that so many media people are just playing a game. I shared here that an NFL reporter who’d been in Vegas for SB week had said that the big rumor among teams that week was that the Bills would be trying to trade Diggs this offseason. I don’t write that here to LAMP. But if it’s something that can make it to someone like me, how do they not hear it. They’re supposedly so well connected. Or is it that they collectively kept a lid on it? I dunno, either way it’s not a good look. I lost a lot of respect for many of them. 

 

 

I felt that as well.  Frankly, the same thing happened here to the Diggs must go crowd in some threads.  As an admitted non-capoligist with only high school football XandO knowledge, I get some snarky responses.  Self awareness, I post some snark, as well.   Life goes on!

 

I specifically thought of you and your Vegas post at the announcement.  @transient had a gambling insight with the Texans, also.

[Neo]

4 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

Isn't it kind of like that everywhere though?  Consider here, when a player's here, he's great, much better than they typically are in reality, especially upon us signing them.  When the leave, if they didn't perform, not to historical patterns, but to unfounded narratives, then they're worthless, a cancer, a detriment, "good riddance," etc.  LOL  

 

That's just human nature.  Trying to slice through it all is where the work is.  Most people don't put in the time.  I'll give one good example.  

 

Most people, everywhere, talk about draft prospects as if they know all about them, but most people merely read a few draft profiles and carry those.  There's zero personal risk that way.  If they're wrong, oh well, everyone was wrong, even Kiper or whomever.  It takes a ton of time to evaluate a draft prospect.  Back in the day you could order the offensive/defensive coaches' view video from sideline and endzone of every play that a particular player had, by player.  Call/write the school, tell them you're a journalist, and they'd send them to you free of charge.  I'm sure they'd still do that today.  Today there's youtube, but that's far from comprehensive.  But evaluating that video takes time, but it also allows you to come to your own conclusions.  

 

I love those highlight reels of some player from a Power-5 school beating up on Bowling Green, but is that a really good data point?  How many players on Bowling Green are headed to the NFL, especially from that team for example.  Who cares how a top prospect performed against the NCAA equivalent of a JV team.  A better approach is to look at the tougher games against similar P5 competition that features opposing players that are headed to the NFL, right.  

 

But all that takes time, lots of time.  By my estimation it takes a good 10+ hours to properly evaluate a player as if I were on a staff considering drafting him.  But think about the ramifications.  For just 30 players, at a 40 hr. work week, that's about two months of work, for someone doing it full-time.  Reviewing most of the draft field is not even remotely possible for any single person.  Hence, most people simply refer to the draft profiles, which are really all more or less scripted from one another in one or more forms.  All of these "independent" draft sites, if you look, really don't have much different info than nfl.com's draft site, Kiper, etc.  

 

Any player can be made to look like he should be the first overall pick from highlight videos.  Any player can be made to appear to be among the most overrated.  That's where teams should be earning their keep, in their independent analyses.  It's why, for example, anyone looking back in the day, could easily see that Mike Evans would be the far better overall prospect than Watkins.  Watkins made his collegiate living as a man among boys and largely on plays that simply do not work at the NFL level.  So why would it be any different simply because a bunch of draft analysts said so.  And on that note, how much work, on top of all the other stuff that they do, are those analysts really putting in besides highlight reels, which again, are often against week and feeble opponents.  The very first thing that anyone should look at for top prospects on highlight reels, is the helmets of the team that they playing, and how good the opposing players on that team are.  The second thing is how well they performed in their biggest of games.  I'm not a big Caleb Williams fan for that reason, to me he's got a high percentage to bust.  BJT OTOH hits those notes.  That's not to say that he's a "can't miss" prospect, but if he's there he'd be a good choice but I wouldn't trade up at the cost of additional relevant pics to get him either.  

 

Anyway, again, just my two cents.  

 

 

 

Insight!   I’ve said at work many times, the quickest way to go from “critical to our success” to “an under-performer we’ll replace and be better” is to resign.

1 hour ago, BeastMaster said:

Like most of the media (not just sports) their takes are lazy and part of the hive mind/group think mentality.

 

It's so bad now that I usually end up tuning out within a few minutes. 

 

When you feel like numerous posters here and even you could do a better job than they do, it's a sad state of affairs

 

 

Add deadline pressure to your analysis.  Reporters need to report NOW and often have to fill minutes or column inches regardless of the thoroughness of their investigating.  That was true in the old 24 hour news cycle.  It’s now minute to minute.  A Buffalo Sports HOF reporter once called me with questions about something in the news.  He told me what he thought he knew which was incomplete and, therefore, wrong.  I told him I couldn’t / wouldn’t answer questions.  He said something along the lines of “well, that’s what I have and I’m going with it” if I didn’t correct things.  I didn’t  He did.

Edited April 5 by Neo

[1997WS6]

5 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

There was one guy on WGR, some young kid, was like anyone that calls to say Diggs can be traded is getting hung up on.

 

It was really bad. None of them are really connected.

Probably the same kid that keeps talking about how important good looking uniforms are.  It drives me nuts.