Alphadawg7

Not sure why you say we dont want to spend on offense...is it just because they haven't signed Hopkins? We paid Allen, Diggs, and Knox very good money. They spent a lot (a first and 4th) just to get Diggs. They just used our first round pick on a receiving weapon at TE and our 2nd round pick on an OG. They spent money on the OL, more WR's, and then added 2 more accomplished RB's to compliment Cook and Hines. I mean most teams don't go out and pay top WR money to have 2 elite WR's, especially teams with big QB contracts. Teams like Cincy have them because they are on rookie contracts and so is their QB. Chargers did it because their QB was on a rookie deal and Allen will gone by the time they pay Justin. Miami paid Hill cuz Tua was on a rookie deal and so is Waddle. I mean no disrespect at all, but this notion we arent spending or investing in the offense isn't really accurate.

Like I said, injury's with him are a valid concern. I will add that other players have had injury issues before coming to Buffalo and the excellent facilities and staff have helped some of them lessen the frequency. Gaines, Brown, Johnson, Poyer, etc to name a few. No guarantees of course, but Harty is still a better football player. Here you go again, lumping me into Crowder stuff. Go check my history, during training camp I said Crowder is the best slot guy on the roster in camp last year IF he can stay healthy. I had no preconceived notions that he was going to for sure stay healthy. And in fact, if you go back to preseason, I was very anti-McKenzie as a starter and thought Shakir would emerge as the starter by end of season because I felt an injury to Crowder at some point would open up that door. Big difference though, is Harty is not coming in to have a heavy role like a starting slot WR that they hoped Crowder could handle. So if Harty goes down, its not the end of the world for the offense like when Crowder got hurt and we got stuck with McKenzie as the starter by default who sucked. Hard disagree on Sherfield = Kumerow 2.0. I have followed this kid since he was in SF, he flat out beat out Brandon Aiyuk and Deebo by outplaying them both all camp and preseason, but then was told he wouldn't start or play much because they had too much invested in those other guys and they wanted to see them play. Not saying Sherfield is some future pro-bowler, but Kumerow is not a regular contributor in the NFL as a WR. You tend to cherry pick a play or two you don't like and then project that over a players whole career. I have seen Diggs drop TD passes too, but it didn't define him, so why do you focus so hard on one or two plays as if those completely define that player and ignore the other attributes they bring to the table?

I mean if you add Hopkins, its still all on Josh to read the defenses and make the plays to get him the ball. I honestly don't think we will need to rely on Allen to do everything this year, with or without Hopkins. The biggest issue last year was OL protection, that has been upgraded as has the RB's and weapons around Josh.

One, injury history is a valid concern on Harty, no doubt about that. But his on field ability as a WR is still better than McKenzie. Two, all I said is that a second year player is going to better than they were as a rookie. I said nothing about what he will achieve other than that second year version of Shakir is better than the same rookie Shakir who had never taken an NFL snap. That is fact. Three, why do you keep bringing up Crowder to me? I’ve never once mentioned him. He did not take an NFL snap for the Bills in his career outside of preseason. He has no relevancy on comparing the WRs set to play this year versus the ones who stepped on the field last year. Crowder obviously had a better resume and was a more proven commodity, except he never took a snap here and is gone. This year, Sheffield replaces Kumerow. That is an improvement. Harty replaces McKenzie, that is an improvement factoring in ability but has some injury risk. Shakir (2nd year) replaces Shakir (rookie) and that is an improvement just on the experience alone. We still have Kincaid, the OL upgrades, and RB upgrades factoring in as well. We are in better shape on paper heading into training camp than how we closed last season against the Bengals.

Shakir year 2 > Shakir year 1. That is just basic fact he has more experience in the NFL and our offense at this point. And sorry, your no context stat sheet evaluations that don't factor in injuries, teams, who the QB was, etc are not how you evaluate if one player is better or not than the player they are replacing. If you can watch Kumerow play and watch Sherfield play and not see that Sherfield is clealry a better WR, then I don't know what to tell you Same goes for McKenzie vs Harty. McKenzie only positive trait besides his personality is his speed, which he wasn't good at maximizing. He struggles to track the ball, so for all that speed he isn't a guy who can take the top off the defense, plus he is a below average route runner with questionable hands who can't catch in traffic or fight for yards. Harty is a legit deep ball threat, a dimension this offense has lacked. He is faster and can handle any of the gimmick plays that McKenzie was better suited for while also adding pressure to the defense as a deep ball guy. No one is saying those guys are as good as Hopkins, but they are better players than the guys they are replacing and Shakir should be better in his 2nd year than his first, especially with increased opportunities. And that Shakir drop you referenced is comically understating the difficulty of that catch. It wasn't a gimme between the catch, the tackle and impact. Ive seen Diggs drop easier catches, so to cherry pick that one and doom the kids future is pretty ridiculous. Individual stats coming from completely different systems and circumstances are categorically inaccurate way to evaluate the abilty of each player. Especially considering Kumerow and McKenzie got to play with one of the best QB's in the NFL.

Dont get me wrong, I am as high on Hopkins as you are. He was excellent last season and would love to add him. Just feel like our offense can afford to not have him more than our defense could afford to not have both Poyer and Floyd.

I know you are saying maybe, so isn't really directed at you so much...but no way I would take Hopkins over both Floyd and Poyer. People are sleeping on the value of adding Floyd IMHO, and Poyer was (and has been) one of the most impactful players in our defense for several seasons now, especially last year. I get he is "aging" but he isn't washed yet either when talking about what to expect this year. And Poyer is the same age as Hopkins, so the aging thing is a wash. I would LOVE to add Hopkins, don't get me wrong, but people grossly misplace their disgust with the receivers after last years playoff loss. We would have lost that game even if we had Hopkins last year. This notion we had no weapons is a myth. We had a TE who had 15 TD's the last 2 seasons despite not being heavily involved in the pass game with the need for him to help the OL. We had 2 RB's who were supposed to be receiving weapons in Hines and Cook that we basically ignored in our offense as receivers by Dorsey. We had a top 5 WR (something only 4 other teams can say) and Davis who despite his flaws, still has shown capable of making plays. Our team collectively crapped the bed, and the OL was atrocious. We had guys open that Josh couldn't get to with how bad the OL was playing. Plus, Josh started trying to press and force plays when things were not going his way. Under no circumstance did we lose to the Bengals because no one was open. And our defense laid down like a doormat versus the Bengals both in the brief regular season game and the playoffs. Just like it did the whole game vs KC the year before in the 13 second debacle. This season...we have Kincaid, Shakir with a years experience, noticeable upgrades to Kumerow and McKenzie with Sherfield and Harty respectively, plus an upgraded OL to go with it. And now McD is calling plays and all the talk is about a more aggressive defense where guys like Floyd, Rousseau, Von, Oliver, etc should benefit from getting more chances to get to the QB, not to mention Tre now further in his recovery and Elam a season under his belt. Hyde is back too to go along with better depth at safety and corner this year. So I would love Hopkins, but he is not such a need that it would be worth weakening our defense by 2 impact players headed into a season where Frazier is finally gone and McD is coming in with a more aggressive mentality on calling the D that might have gotten us to the SB 2 years ago had it happened before the KC game. Just my 2 cents...again, love to bring Hopkins here still, but I would not give up 2 impact defenders to do so in a conference we need to face other potent offenses. Especially when talking post season bad weather games where the passing game is often less effective.

No disrespect intended here, but that isn't exactly what happened though, and people took "its not football related" way too literally. And just being honest, you seem to be basing your whole assumptions on how you personally interpreted that statement, not actual information that has since come out. I mean, it was at a football camp, amidst the football players/coaches, with a football player unhappy...so it was obviously football related. Josh saying "its not football related" had more to do with the media's wild speculation he wasn't happy here, wants a trade, and all the other defcon 5 click bait stories they were putting out. The issue Diggs had that day had everything to do with football. In fact, everything that has come out from actual people involved with the team has suggested it had to do with communication issues and how Diggs was used in the back half of the season, which is something Diggs has also directly stated in interviews. No disrespect, but the stuff you are saying is more just wild interpretations than factual things that have come out about the situation by everyone in the actual know of what was going on.

Oh yeah, not saying what he said was unreasonable, and match up better also means an easier matchup. But yes, it was specifically that Bengals were better than Bills and that KC matches up better with Buffalo as the two statements. I am assuming he is referring to their offense vs our defense in the matchup comment as Bengals had more success disrupting their offense than we had

Saw this, Mahomes said Bengals are better team, but Bills have a chance with them missing OL. Also said he would rather play the Bengals even though he felt Bills were easier matchup. Interesting considering he last the last 2 reg season games against Bills and took a miracle moment to beat the Bills in the playoff game. But then again they had not beat the Bengals yet, so I get the motivation.

I have to agree here...this isn't that big of a deal other than just makes him look like a douche.

Personally, I think people took that too literally. I mean by the very fact it was a football player at a mandatory camp unhappy with something that was related to himself and the team in some capacity means it is in some capacity a football related issue. Josh stating it wasn't football related I think had more to do with trying to calm all media hoopla that Diggs didn't want to be in Buffalo, Bills may need to trade him etc. But everything credible that came out seemed it wasn't that serious, and had more to do with some things between him and most likely the offensive coaches. Things like communication issues, concerns with how he was used second half of last year, etc. Either way, Josh has professed his love for Diggs many times now, and Diggs has shown that love back publicly too. Whatever it was, it seems to be in the past and the relationship between Allen and Diggs seems to be just fine.

Luck was good, not great. He was actually not very good in crunch time or the playoffs. He has a reputation that exceeds his resume. He didn't suck by any means, but he was the QB's position of Jadeveon Clowney on being over rated off of college draft hype. A pretty good player whose reputation was greater than their results. If it was the "Hall of pretty good" then sure, but not only does he not have the longevity, he doesn't have the accolades. He was always pretty good and obviously talented, but lore is greater than his resume. In 2015, Colts were 2-5 with Andrew Luck and 5-3 with old man Hasselbeck who was in his final season in the NFL. Luck only had 2 really good seasons (like top 5 type play) in 2014 and 2018. He had a good season in 2017, but nothing that I would say screams HOF. There is false myth that injuries cut his career short, yet outside of 2015 he only missed one other game his whole career. He screwed over the Colts, his teammates and the fans when he quit on his team just before the season started despite missing just one game over the previous 2 seasons. He pretty much sucked in the playoffs the 4 seasons his Colts reached them (8 games in total) 2013 he had his best output in yards and TD's, but in 2 games he still through 7 INTs to just 6 TDs and got blown out by NE in the 2nd round. Outside 2013, the other 6 playoff games he averaged 246 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT per game. If he makes the HOF, then the HOF is a sham. There are so many deserving players yet to get in, and if Luck gets in over them it will be a grave injustice to those who accomplished a lot more and for a longer time than Luck.

This drama had nothing to do with Allens personal life, and it stemmed from how Diggs was being used the 2nd half of the season when his usage when noticeably down compared to the first half of the season. Diggs has even discussed this in interviews how he felt like even though they still won, things were just harder and not going smoother like earlier in the year. He was frustrated with his role decreasing while the struggles as an offense and team as a whole were increasing.

Maybe to those how have this false hope he might still come here...but the reality is that ship sailed a long time ago, so this really was insignificant other than him just pointing out that another fake rumor was BS.

OMG this thread is hilarious. This isn’t rocket science. DHop gave an emoticon response directed at calling the reported rumor BS. It literally means nothing else so stop trying to read more into it.

Bills Predictions: Josh Allen has his highest rated season and wins MVP Dorian Williams locks down the starting MLB position Elam breaks out and locks down a starting corner position Bills finish the season top 5 in sacks with Rousseau reaching double digits Bills defense and offense both rank in the top 2 of the league Predictions for rest of NFL: Watson returns to being a top 10 QB Giants regress to below .500 Sam Darnold starts at some point in SF Nick Chubb leads the NFL in rushing and touchdowns Miami finishes with 9 or 10 wins but misses the playoffs

I mean, lets not forget about Spygate and the Rams claiming it was like the Pats knew all their plays. The NFL as a whole was already a full blown passing league at that point, that Super Bowl wasn't indicative of the entirety of the league and all its games. There have been plenty of physical Super Bowls since as well. I don't disagree that they are even more ticky tack with PI calls the last few years compared to back then, but that game had a lot of layers to it and many of the rule changes and enforcement emphasis to support QB's and the passing game had already been implemented. I have been a die hard NFL junky since the 80's, and the league, rules, how they called rules had long been evolving into passing prior to that Super Bowl.

No disrespect Gunner, but Patriots did the same thing to the Rams vs McVay where the beat them 13-3 in the Super Bowl. That was two potent offenses that combined for 16 points with BB shutting down what was considered the best offense in the league. The greatest defensive mind in NFL history disrupting a potent offense in the Super Bowl, something he did many times over his career both as a DC and HC, and still does, is not indicative on its own that it was a "different era". In fact, the Rams had already become one of the most high flying offenses of all time prior to that year and a Super Bowl Champion already.

No disrespect, I already answered this in the post you are responding to. You compared the 2002 QB stats to the 2022 group of QB stats. For example: QB A averaged 3000 yards per season over 3 seasons with 2 pro bowls. Guess that means he played in a different era right because of the stats as if it has nothing to do with the player? Well QB A is Tyrod Taylor stretch with the Bills. Not a different era, just a guy who wasn't very good. You posted stats without context as if the players on the field had nothing to do with the stats, and only the rules did. The unequivocal facts, and the only thing that are 100% facts and not subjective to variables such as talent, team makeup, coaching, and talent around players are the rule changes. And the rule changes to boost the passing game began in 1995. And arguably the most significant rule changes to boost the QB's performance and passing game was the move to make the QB's significantly more protected with the roughing the passer changes in 2001 and 2002, Mannings 3rd and 4th year. So, once again, the point is that Manning played during an era where the NFL was emphasizing the passing game. That is factually indisputable. There of course have been more rule changes, and there will continue to be more rule changes. But the leagues transformation to push the passing game and scoring started before Manning entered the league and made its biggest strides early in Mannings career towards that. No disrespect, those are just the facts. I mean the league will always have some differences even going back 10 years, that will always be true. But this notion it was a "completely different era" as if the passing game wasn't emphasized across the league by both the rules and teams is just a gross over exaggeration of the differences.

It wasn’t massively different. The rules began being adopted before Manning got to the NFL and over Mannings first 4 seasons. Again, if people want to isolate a tiny portion of Mannings career and say “it was a different era”, then that’s their prerogative. But the facts are, the rule changes to help WRs happened before Manning got to the league, and the hands off the QB rules (one of the most significant changes, if not the most significant change) came about in his 3rd year and doubled down in his fourth year. The league was centered on high octane scoring and passing pretty much the majority of Mannings career. So like I said, the different era stance is an over exaggeration. The majority of Mannings career the NFL was, and still is, focused on passing the ball and scoring points.

You guys and your cherry picking stats with no context. What you are talking about refers to the quality of the league, not the era of football. It was a "passing league" MOST of Mannings career. To say it wasn't just isn't factual. I mean you have to be kidding here comparing the QB group of 2002 to the one in 2022. NFL leading passer with 4700 yards was a journeyman backup QB in Rich Gannon who came to life end of his career for a few seasons. NFL leading passer in 2022 was what might be the greatest QB to ever play the game when he is done in Mahomes. In 2022 Kerry Collins and broken down Daunte Culpepper were top 5 in yards. In 2022 the top 5 consisted of Mahomes (might end up GOAT), Brady the actual GOAT, Herbert (one of the best young QB's to enter the league in 10 years), Burrow (even better than Herbert), and Cousins who would have probably been a top 4 QB in 2002. Just saying "it was an entirely different era" because you think its been long enough to say that doesn't make it true. Doesn't take much effort to find the actual facts of the evolution of the passing league through google: Since 1995, the NFL has allowed a WR forced out of bounds by a defender to return in bounds and make a play. This helped eliminate the move of "chucking" a WR out of bounds to remove him from a play. In 1996, the NFL announced they'd actually enforce the illegal contact penalty, created in 1978, more stringently than before. The rule was no longer just a recommendation. In 2001, the NFL announced Roughing the QB penalty would be enforced more strictly and specifically targeted late hits. By 2002, they protected the QB even further by barring helmet-to-helmet contact with a QB at any time, even after a change of possession. The NFL again tightened down enforcement of already existing rules for illegal contact, pass interference, and defensive holding in 2004. QBs received even more protection in 2006 when the NFL barred hits to the QBs below their knees unless the defensive player was blocked into the QB. The NFL began trying to elevate the passing game and give WR's more options and space in 1995 and 1996, prior to Mannings arrival in the NFL. The NFL furthered the efforts towards the passing game in 2001 by protecting the QB with strict roughing the passer enforcement. In 2002, no helmet to helmet contact allowed with the QB. All of these rules were designed to improve scoring and passing offenses, and it all began BEFORE Manning entered the league and continued with big changes in Mannings 3rd and 4th seasons. Sorry...no disrespect, but Manning entered the league at a time the NFL had ALREADY been transitioning to boost scoring and passing specifically, and many of the biggest changes were adopted before he got in the league and early on in his career. To say it was a "completely different era" is an over exaggeration.

This thread just won't go away and randomly flares up out of nowhere...its basically TSW digital herpes at this point.

Talk about over dramatizing...you are cherry picking stats while ignoring the context. Tom Brady and the Pats set the NFL all time scoring record in 2007, long before his "career high in attempts" which has literally nothing to do with the type of "era" it was and everything to do with the circumstances of the team and offense he was playing in at that stage of his career. Furthermore, you literally proved my entire point in your own post...the "passing league" and the shift to offensive focus and passing offense specifically had already long been in effect. You literally posted a quote stating that 2011 FURTHER cemented the modern NFL's reptuation as a "passing league", which once again, was something that had been true for a while. Hence them referencing the fact is was already an "era" by referring to it as the modern NFL period. Point is...the Era Manning played in was not much different than the one Allen is playing in. An era that saw Tom Brady and the Pats establish the highest scoring offense of all time in 2007, only to be broken by none other than Peyton Manning in 2013 as just another accolade in a career where he amongst the leading passers every season he played and with mostly gaudy stats and a butt load of offensive weapons, HOF level weapons, around him almost his entire career. Meanwhile, Allen has just Diggs as top end talent, and only had him 3 of the 5 seasons he has been in the NFL. Manning had Harrison, Wayne, Faulk, Edge, Welker, Thomas, etc. Allen had to start his career more raw than Manning, for a team that gave him Kelvin Benjamin and Zay Jones to start as his initial receivers. This whole it was a different era thing is just so over exaggerated and pretty irrelevant.

WHy did you go all the way back to 1984 to talk about an era of a player whose rookie year was 1998? I literally said that when Manning entered the league, there was already a big push by the NFL for passing and offense. The era of Manning and Allen are not that different...they were both passing era leagues for MOST of Mannings career. This whole line is a bit exaggerative if I do say so myself.