This roster is a disaster however…..

[SoMAn]

Though I'm not completely dismissing this season, next year looks promising, especially if they make finding an elite receiver a priority, and land one. They'll need to address the aging nickel and safety positions, but WR has to be the top target.

 

With the return of their injured D-linemen (hopefully Hoecht can return for the regular season), and maturity of 2nd and 3rd year players like Hairston, Bishop, Carter, Soloman, Sanders, Walker, Strong, Hancock, Jackson*, etc., they should be in good shape if they can shake the injury bug. They have a solid OL and good reserves. A very good TE group. 

 

With a couple of key additions through FA and the draft, I look for them the be a dominating team next season.  

The roster, when healthy, is far from being a disaster, and there's great optimism for next year when they christen their new home.

 

 

*I'm really pulling for Jackson, but not convinced he's going to be an impact player.

[FireChans]

43 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

He was a projected anywhere from the late first to an early 3rd round pick, and the Patriots were planning to take him right after us. Stop trying to rewrite history. 

If the Bills pass on Coleman and the Pats take them, are the Pats still leading the division today?

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Most of the Patriots superbowl teams, they just didn't have the amount of injuries on defense, except that time they had Troy Brown playing defense

 

The first run SB teams had Seymour, McGinnest, Bruschi, Samuels, Ty Law, Vrabel.  That's a pretty stacked Defense--not built for "depth". 

[Rochesterfan]

7 minutes ago, FireChans said:

If the Bills pass on Coleman and the Pats take them, are the Pats still leading the division today?

Depends - They took Polk who has done less than Colman and is gone - so my guess is probably.  Especially if we did what the majority of fans wanted and took Worthy or Legette.  That entire area was littered with wasted WR picks and 1 diamond in McConkey.

 

That section of the draft had 10 picks - 6 WRs went and only 1 has been worth the pick.  They all had positives and negatives and all were projected in that area based on what teams wanted.

 

You can go through that entire draft and even at the top - the class has not lived up to the hype, but people wanted 2 or 3 WRs drafted.

[newcam2012]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

Depends - They took Polk who has done less than Colman and is gone - so my guess is probably.  Especially if we did what the majority of fans wanted and took Worthy or Legette.  That entire area was littered with wasted WR picks and 1 diamond in McConkey.

 

That section of the draft had 10 picks - 6 WRs went and only 1 has been worth the pick.  They all had positives and negatives and all were projected in that area based on what teams wanted.

 

You can go through that entire draft and even at the top - the class has not lived up to the hype, but people wanted 2 or 3 WRs drafted.

All true but that doesn't negate that the Coleman pick was a bad one. He was never going to be an X WR in the NFL for several obvious reasons.That's just poor scouting and planning. It's hard to get over the top with such blunders. 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

Meh I completely disagree.

 

2024 felt that way because Josh was basically playing at a transcendent level from the Houston game on. He was still needing to scramble out of the pocket to hit long shots to Shakir or Mack Hollins to get the offense going. He just was playing as perfect as an NFL QB can play.
 

The difference between 2024 and 2025 is that teams respect us deep even less and have done their darnedest to take away Josh’s explosive plays made by his legs.

 

Combine that with Josh not being able to maintain playing basically perfect, and you get a laborious offense despite being captained by a superstar.

 

go back and watch 2020 Bills film. It was pitch and catch for Josh. He still did incredible things and made incredible plays, but his life was so much easier down to down.

 

I agree that our explosives still came a lot from Josh getting out and creating but there were more easy button throws in last year's offense than any year since 2020. And 2020 there was no meaningful run game to speak of either. Our offense was almost entirely Josh. Last year he had an excellent run game to support him. Of course Josh was extremely efficient too and did play at an incredible level, but there was WAY less cape in 2024 and more him just being masterfully in control of the offense. Compared to 2022 and 2023 and chunks of this season where it has felt like almost constant cape requirement and if he doesn't put it on we lose. 

[Avisan]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

This is definitely true btw. The same people who moan about overuse of the cape moan about running the ball and playing small ball too much as wasting Josh Allen.

 

Personally I do think he has needed the cape more this year though. 2024 is the least cape needy version of Allen and the Bills there has ever been IMO. Last year we won 5 or 6 games where the defense and the run game meant Josh could just play in rhythm take what the defense was giving and not have to extend himself. This year it is just the Jets, the Panthers and the Steelers so far. I'd go as far as to say we'd be a 3 win team right now if Allen had missed the season. 

I would add Saints and first Dolphins game as games that probably could have been won with Mitch under center.

 

5-8 with no Allen and our defensive injuries (functionally missing like 40% of our contract investments) seems pretty reasonable tbh, we'd be a lot like the Bengals have been this year but slightly better imo.

[Shaw66]

13 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

You're right, Mahomes is not a valid argument to try and make and isn't important to my point, my apologies.  I'm also not suggesting we move up to #10 to get a receiver.  My point is that the Bills can find talent at the back of the first and into the second round if they put the effort in, which may include moving up 5-10 spots or so.  So the "we're drafting at the end of rounds, woe is us" doesn't hold much water for me at this point.  We have Josh Allen.

 

You seem to be missing the fundamental point that if the Bills want to win a Superbowl they need to use better resources on receivers and the front seven on defense.  Get the proper scouting system in, it doesn't have to be trading way up to grab a guy.   8 years in and the scouts and/or Beane blew the Coleman pick so badly?  It shouldn't happen at this point, that high in the draft.  What a wasted resource.  That's why we can't make it to the Superbowl.  

 

You can quote regular season statistics and if that's adequate for you, no problem. We do well in the regular season.  The playoffs are the thing,  I don't believe this year's receiving statistics will translate to a Superbowl, so we can agree to disagree and see.  

 

And if there was a game changing DE or LB that fell to number 10, I would absolutely mortgage picks to move up and get him.  We sorely need one.  JMO of course.

Thanks.  Good discussion. 

 

I think your "fundamental point" is incorrect, for two reasons. First, the Bills have used resources on receivers and front seven.  They've drafted Coleman and Kincaid in the past couple of years. The point is that it seems cleared that Beane missed on Coleman and the Bills haven't gotten as much out of Kincaid as they wanted and we expected. They also got Sanders in the second round. Thus, I think the quality of Beane's player assessment (particularly given how badly he missed on Elam) is what should be questioned, not his commitment to receiving or the dline. 

 

But more importantly, you and several others may think that the Bills need better receivers and front seven defenders, and that they need to commit more resources to getting them, but McDermott and Beane clearly disagree with that philosophy. I laid out their philosophy in an earlier post. They've been very clear about their dline philosophy - they're going to rotate 8 or 9 guys. If that is your philosophy, you cannot spend first round or large cap resources to get a stud dlineman, because that will mean that you're not leaving enough capital for other positions, or you're getting underqualified guys for you 7-9 dlinemen. And although they haven't said it, they obviously believe that receiver by committee, including tight ends and backs, is a better offensive approach than having stud receivers.  The Bills have a pretty effective passing attack, just not the kind of passing attack a lot of us enjoy watching. 

 

Don't they WANT a stud receiver or dlineman?  Sure they do. They just don't think spending a lot of resources trying to get one is as important as spending resources on other positions. I think their approach to getting a stud dlineman is to keep taking them second through fourth or fifth round and hope a star emerges. Sanders and Walker are the examples. Walker already looks like he could be a really good player in the future, so he's a candidate. I think they feel the say way about receiver. Coleman is the latest experiment. Shakir is an experiment who has worked pretty well. 

 

You can disagree with their philosophy. A lot of people here do disagree. I've often said the Bills need a stud defensive lineman - a game-wrecker type. But I don't spend much energy worrying about it because, (1) as long as McBeane are with the Bills, they're going to do it the way they think is best, and (2) I don't see the point in getting upset about their philosophy so long as they're winning as much as they're winning. And no that doesn't mean I'm settling for wins - I want the Lombardi as much as anyone, and I don't have a lot of years left to get one. The point is when the Bills are winning as much as they are, they're in the playoffs every season, and being in the playoffs is the first to winning a Lombardi. I just checked, and the Bills apparently are the betting favorite to get to the Super Bowl from the AFC. If they're winning and going to the playoffs and favored to make it to the Super Bowl, who am I to conclude that their philosophy is wrong?

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:

All true but that doesn't negate that the Coleman pick was a bad one. He was never going to be an X WR in the NFL for several obvious reasons.That's just poor scouting and planning. It's hard to get over the top with such blunders. 

 

 

I agree. My philosophy about first and second round picks is that it is essential to get guys with those picks who will start for your team.  Not necessarily as rookies, but who will become valuable starters, usually by the second season. When you use a high pick on a guy who doesn't start for you, you've weakened your team for several years.  

 

Beane seems to be using a different approach. He seems to be looking for the guy who is going to outperform the consensus the league has formed about the guy. That is, he takes Elam, Kincaid, and Coleman because he thinks after two or three years everyone will recognize that he should have gone in the top half of the first round.  In other words, he takes a longshot bet, and I think that's a mistake.  Why?  Because when he loses that bet, he has weakened the team for the next five seasons.  He traded up to get Elam, and he could have taken a lot of other guys who would still be on the team and contributing.  I didn't particularly want Worthy, but the point about Coleman is not that Beane didn't take Worthy but that he didn't take someone who is a solid contributor in his second season, like Bishop. 

 

The time to make the longshot bets is the third round and beyond, because it's a bit of crap shoot in those rounds - you just can't be sure you're going to get a starter. So, for example, he bet on Bernard and took him higher than the league in general valued him.  He won that bet, but the point isn't that he won - the point is that it wasn't a bad risk to take. 

[GoBills808]

4 hours ago, FireChans said:

Meh I completely disagree.

 

2024 felt that way because Josh was basically playing at a transcendent level from the Houston game on. He was still needing to scramble out of the pocket to hit long shots to Shakir or Mack Hollins to get the offense going. He just was playing as perfect as an NFL QB can play.
 

The difference between 2024 and 2025 is that teams respect us deep even less and have done their darnedest to take away Josh’s explosive plays made by his legs.

 

Combine that with Josh not being able to maintain playing basically perfect, and you get a laborious offense despite being captained by a superstar.

 

go back and watch 2020 Bills film. It was pitch and catch for Josh. He still did incredible things and made incredible plays, but his life was so much easier down to down.

yeah you cant watch lions or rams 2024 and say that

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

5 hours ago, FireChans said:

Meh I completely disagree.

 

2024 felt that way because Josh was basically playing at a transcendent level from the Houston game on. He was still needing to scramble out of the pocket to hit long shots to Shakir or Mack Hollins to get the offense going. He just was playing as perfect as an NFL QB can play.
 

The difference between 2024 and 2025 is that teams respect us deep even less and have done their darnedest to take away Josh’s explosive plays made by his legs.

 

Combine that with Josh not being able to maintain playing basically perfect, and you get a laborious offense despite being captained by a superstar.

 

go back and watch 2020 Bills film. It was pitch and catch for Josh. He still did incredible things and made incredible plays, but his life was so much easier down to down.

There were definitely passing game disasters in 2020 I just think people are more willing to overlook them if they get to watch a well oiled pass happy offense the rest of the time 😂

 

Tennessee and kc back to back were awful (kc especially was extremely humiliating), we almost lost to a cam newton led pats team not long after where Josh passed for under 160 , then we almost lost to a pretty bad chargers team where Josh passed for under 160 also. 
 

Ironically there were probably equally as many bad passing performances as this year against the same split of good/bad teams but we snuck out with wins in a few so nobody looks too close 

 

another interesting discussion point is I think there’s been a bit of a swing back towards defense since 2020 so who knows how big of an effect that is having.  This year there’s 4 or 5 teams averaging over 370 yards per game and in 2020 it was half the league.  It’d be interesting to average all teams output but offense seems to be way down 

Edited 3 hours ago by Generic_Bills_Fan

[newcam2012]

39 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree. My philosophy about first and second round picks is that it is essential to get guys with those picks who will start for your team.  Not necessarily as rookies, but who will become valuable starters, usually by the second season. When you use a high pick on a guy who doesn't start for you, you've weakened your team for several years.  

 

Beane seems to be using a different approach. He seems to be looking for the guy who is going to outperform the consensus the league has formed about the guy. That is, he takes Elam, Kincaid, and Coleman because he thinks after two or three years everyone will recognize that he should have gone in the top half of the first round.  In other words, he takes a longshot bet, and I think that's a mistake.  Why?  Because when he loses that bet, he has weakened the team for the next five seasons.  He traded up to get Elam, and he could have taken a lot of other guys who would still be on the team and contributing.  I didn't particularly want Worthy, but the point about Coleman is not that Beane didn't take Worthy but that he didn't take someone who is a solid contributor in his second season, like Bishop. 

 

The time to make the longshot bets is the third round and beyond, because it's a bit of crap shoot in those rounds - you just can't be sure you're going to get a starter. So, for example, he bet on Bernard and took him higher than the league in general valued him.  He won that bet, but the point isn't that he won - the point is that it wasn't a bad risk to take. 

Good solid post. Agree with everything except I'm not sure that's Beane's mindset with regards to the 1st and 2nd round picks. I'd like to think he is trying to form the best roster without the expense of stroking his own ego. 

[Shaw66]

16 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

Good solid post. Agree with everything except I'm not sure that's Beane's mindset with regards to the 1st and 2nd round picks. I'd like to think he is trying to form the best roster without the expense of stroking his own ego. 

Thanks. The reason I think he's making bets is based mostly on the Elam pick and what followed. If I recall correctly, the scouting reports said his potential was as a great cover guy and that his tackling was a bit weak. When the Bills drafted him, it said to me that they believed they could make him into the kind of corner McDermott wants - a guy who runs the system flawlessly, with a lot of zone and a lot of tackling responsibility.  That is, they were hoping they could develop his other skills and then have the benefit of his good one-on-one skills. Or, in other words, they took a guy who wasn't a good natural fit but who looked to Beane like he could be developed into a great fit. 

 

It's interesting to me that Beane essentially flipped the script in that draft. He made a bet on Elam when he should have taken the the guy who looked like the most sure-fire, long-term starter.  He needed to be sure he was getting a starter.  And then in the fifth round, when he should be willing to bet on a guy, he took Benford. NFL.com's draft profile said things about Benford like good football IQ, impressive talent for reading routes in space, willing tackler. Those skills are the skills that Beane HOPED McDermott could bring out in Elam. In fact, what happened was that almost from day one they realized they didn't need to teach Benford much of any of those things. 

 

Then I look at Kincaid and Coleman, and I see two guys who projected to be good and who might be great if they became something more than they were. In other words, they look like bets to me. 

 

Kincaid is still an open question, I suppose, but it seems pretty clear that this roster would be considerably stronger is Beane had taken solid starters instead of Elam and Coleman. 

[GunnerBill]

44 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

There were definitely passing game disasters in 2020 I just think people are more willing to overlook them if they get to watch a well oiled pass happy offense the rest of the time 😂

 

Tennessee and kc back to back were awful (kc especially was extremely humiliating), we almost lost to a cam newton led pats team not long after where Josh passed for under 160 , then we almost lost to a pretty bad chargers team where Josh passed for under 160 also. 
 

Ironically there were probably equally as many bad passing performances as this year against the same split of good/bad teams but we snuck out with wins in a few so nobody looks too close 

 

another interesting discussion point is I think there’s been a bit of a swing back towards defense since 2020 so who knows how big of an effect that is having.  This year there’s 4 or 5 teams averaging over 370 yards per game and in 2020 it was half the league.  It’d be interesting to average all teams output but offense seems to be way down 

 

2020 was the no fans year too. That definitely advantaged offenses and particularly passing offenses because there was no issue setting protections etc.

[GASabresIUFan]

I’m not exactly sure how this “roster is a disaster.”

 

On offense:

QB, RB, TE and OL are among the best in football both in quality and depth.  How many teams could lose 2 high quality tackles and still win?

 

WR is an issue, but Shakir is solid in the slot and most of the rest of the group will be gone after this season leaving Beane an opportunity to finally draft some pieces.

 

On Defense:

There are more holes to plug but it’s hardly terrible especially with McD calling the D. 
The DBs are either good now or developed into good players with Benford, Bishop, Hairston and Hancock as a good core group. Biggest question is former all-pro Taron Johnson. 
LBs are solid this season with Bernard, Thompson, a healthy Milano who has been much better of late and depth in Williams.  The here is how much Milano and Thompson have left and how much it will cost to bring them back.  
The D line is the biggest question due to injury (Hoecht and Oliver), age (Jones, Phillips, and Bosa). Walker is going to be a star and Sanders is looking better now that he’s healthy.  
 

This roster isn’t perfect obviously but it’s clearly playoff quality and it’s certainly not a disaster.  Beane has some work to do this off-season, but the sky isn’t falling.

 

In not sure how many teams could overcome the injuries the Bills have had along both the lines and still be competing  for the division title.  

[Paup 1995MVP]

On 12/8/2025 at 7:11 AM, DisplacedBillsFan said:

Wait, I’m confused. If we’re winning with a terrible roster, does that mean we have good coaching? That can’t be right though, because all I read on here is how bad the coaching is. So, we’re winning with a terrible roster and bad coaching? That almost defies anything that’s ever been possible in the NFL.

 

It’d be great if people on this board would actually give credit to our front office and coaching and recognize there is no such thing as perfection in the NFL. Why start the morning after a win complaining about the roster?

 

It’s crazy how spoiled and pessimistic folks have become. I remember more optimism during the drought years when we needed to run the table through the second half of the season and needed help from 5 other teams. Maybe try to just enjoy the game again. It’s okay to have fun and be optimistic and appreciate how amazing this era of Bills football has been and continues to be.

People are not overly pessimistic.  We want a championship.  Nothing wrong with that.  We haven't played in the Super Bowl since after the 1993 season.  That is over a generation ago.  We are an intense rabid fan base.  Most NFL teams, in fact most sports franchises have that kind of fan base.  We live and die each week with our team's results.  The coaching has been good, but not great in the McDermott era.  The roster has been good in certain areas, great at QB, and lacking in others.  
Two that really come to mind is at WR and DE.  We are seriously lacking playmakers at WR, and our pass rush is terrible.  And this has gone on for several years now.  And is a serious fail on our GM.  There is nothing wrong with fans critiquing the team.  That's what's fun about being a fan.  We go through the misery of the losses, and don't get paid to do it.  But most of us get tremendous joy out of the big wins.  The wins this year over Baltimore, Carolina, Tampa Pittsburgh and especially KC and Cinci were awesome.  (The Cinci game was easily top 5 in entertainment value in the league this year)  

 

I think this era has been very good and fun to be a part of, because of #17 and #4.  But we need to at least get to the Super Bowl to call any era amazing.

[folz]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks. The reason I think he's making bets is based mostly on the Elam pick and what followed. If I recall correctly, the scouting reports said his potential was as a great cover guy and that his tackling was a bit weak. When the Bills drafted him, it said to me that they believed they could make him into the kind of corner McDermott wants - a guy who runs the system flawlessly, with a lot of zone and a lot of tackling responsibility.  That is, they were hoping they could develop his other skills and then have the benefit of his good one-on-one skills. Or, in other words, they took a guy who wasn't a good natural fit but who looked to Beane like he could be developed into a great fit. 

 

It's interesting to me that Beane essentially flipped the script in that draft. He made a bet on Elam when he should have taken the the guy who looked like the most sure-fire, long-term starter.  He needed to be sure he was getting a starter.  And then in the fifth round, when he should be willing to bet on a guy, he took Benford. NFL.com's draft profile said things about Benford like good football IQ, impressive talent for reading routes in space, willing tackler. Those skills are the skills that Beane HOPED McDermott could bring out in Elam. In fact, what happened was that almost from day one they realized they didn't need to teach Benford much of any of those things. 

 

Then I look at Kincaid and Coleman, and I see two guys who projected to be good and who might be great if they became something more than they were. In other words, they look like bets to me. 

 

Kincaid is still an open question, I suppose, but it seems pretty clear that this roster would be considerably stronger is Beane had taken solid starters instead of Elam and Coleman. 

 

I agree with your observation. I think especially once we started to draft later in the rounds (because we became a good team), Beane thought, I'd still like to get a stud in the first round, but it's tough to get one out of the top 10-15, so let me take shots at guys that are young, or under-developed, etc. but who have the measurables and or potential to be turned into a stud (projects as they used to call them). Might take a couple of years to develop them, but if you hit and the player does indeed develop, you got a steal. But, unfortunately with those types of players, you will also miss on some (or they won't develop well, i.e., bigger bust rate perhaps). You could probably even include Josh and Tremaine Edmunds in that philosophy (even though they were picked earlier in the round). Then (after picking Ed #9 overall) we had Greg Rousseau, Elam, Kincaid, and Coleman (2nd round, but using our first round pick). They all kind of fall into that category a bit (even Ed was a bit of a projection based on his college position, despite being picked that high).

 

I think that can work if you really have a feel/like for a player, but not sure that it should be the philosophy every year. Seems a little too boom or bust for my taste. Rousseau and Kincaid are very solid players, Elam did not work out, and things aren't looking great for Keon at the moment. It worked wonderfully with Josh (although he was a top 10 pick) and Tremaine is more like Rousseau/Kincaid (though he was selected mid-round, not late 1st too). I haven't paid too much attention to Tremaine since he left, but watching the Bears game on Sunday I was surprised to hear the announcer call him one of Chicago's superstars (has he been playing that well or was the announcer just glazing?).

 

Maybe because of the Josh and Tremaine picks mostly working out (Tremaine was at least solid while here, though not spectacular), Beane felt that was the way to go. Pick guys with upside/measurables/high ceilings but who need time and development. Again, not sure if I agree with that philosophy, but I understand the thinking in it at least.

 

Would be interesting to see if we think we'd be a better team right now had we always tried to take the safe pick in round one instead (a guy who will probably start for you, but you're pretty sure of where his ceiling is). [Not that any 1st rounder is a given with a 50/50 success/bust rate in the 1st round overall.]

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, folz said:

 

I agree with your observation. I think especially once we started to draft later in the rounds (because we became a good team), Beane thought, I'd still like to get a stud in the first round, but it's tough to get one out of the top 10-15, so let me take shots at guys that are young, or under-developed, etc. but who have the measurables and or potential to be turned into a stud (projects as they used to call them). Might take a couple of years to develop them, but if you hit and the player does indeed develop, you got a steal. But, unfortunately with those types of players, you will also miss on some (or they won't develop well, i.e., bigger bust rate perhaps). You could probably even include Josh and Tremaine Edmunds in that philosophy (even though they were picked earlier in the round). Then (after picking Ed #9 overall) we had Greg Rousseau, Elam, Kincaid, and Coleman (2nd round, but using our first round pick). They all kind of fall into that category a bit (even Ed was a bit of a projection based on his college position, despite being picked that high).

 

I think that can work if you really have a feel/like for a player, but not sure that it should be the philosophy every year. Seems a little too boom or bust for my taste. Rousseau and Kincaid are very solid players, Elam did not work out, and things aren't looking great for Keon at the moment. It worked wonderfully with Josh (although he was a top 10 pick) and Tremaine is more like Rousseau/Kincaid (though he was selected mid-round, not late 1st too). I haven't paid too much attention to Tremaine since he left, but watching the Bears game on Sunday I was surprised to hear the announcer call him one of Chicago's superstars (has he been playing that well or was the announcer just glazing?).

 

Maybe because of the Josh and Tremaine picks mostly working out (Tremaine was at least solid while here, though not spectacular), Beane felt that was the way to go. Pick guys with upside/measurables/high ceilings but who need time and development. Again, not sure if I agree with that philosophy, but I understand the thinking in it at least.

 

Would be interesting to see if we think we'd be a better team right now had we always tried to take the safe pick in round one instead (a guy who will probably start for you, but you're pretty sure of where his ceiling is). [Not that any 1st rounder is a given with a 50/50 success/bust rate in the 1st round overall.]

tough to call allen a top10 pick and say coleman 'used a first' in the same argument imo

[newcam2012]

30 minutes ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

People are not overly pessimistic.  We want a championship.  Nothing wrong with that.  We haven't played in the Super Bowl since after the 1993 season.  That is over a generation ago.  We are an intense rabid fan base.  Most NFL teams, in fact most sports franchises have that kind of fan base.  We live and die each week with our team's results.  The coaching has been good, but not great in the McDermott era.  The roster has been good in certain areas, great at QB, and lacking in others.  
Two that really come to mind is at WR and DE.  We are seriously lacking playmakers at WR, and our pass rush is terrible.  And this has gone on for several years now.  And is a serious fail on our GM.  There is nothing wrong with fans critiquing the team.  That's what's fun about being a fan.  We go through the misery of the losses, and don't get paid to do it.  But most of us get tremendous joy out of the big wins.  The wins this year over Baltimore, Carolina, Tampa Pittsburgh and especially KC and Cinci were awesome.  (The Cinci game was easily top 5 in entertainment value in the league this year)  

 

I think this era has been very good and fun to be a part of, because of #17 and #4.  But we need to at least get to the Super Bowl to call any era amazing.

Fantastic post!!!👍

[folz]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

tough to call allen a top10 pick and say coleman 'used a first' in the same argument imo

 

Not sure I understand what you mean.

 

Josh was a top 10 pick, Keon was a 2nd round pick, but we only traded back 5 spots from #28 in the first round to #33 in the second round (still using our first round pick on him, we just got some extra compensation for the trades). I wasn't trying to say those picks are somehow of equal value, I was just looking at our recent top picks (mostly first rounders, with Keon included because he was our first pick even if it was early second round). I only included Josh and Tremaine in the conversation to point out that they were both kind of projects as well (despite being early- and mid-first round picks---rather than late first round picks). Many teams were scared off by Josh being too raw, bad completion %, etc. And it did take 2-3 years for Josh to develop (even though he showed tons of flashes in those first couple of seasons).