Alphadawg7

Pulling chicks.

So what you are saying is that Brady did a much better coaching job…therefore the offense responded better…and we won more games. Seems that’s just further making my point that Brady and the offense were better during our hardest stretch of the season.

I literally said Chargers NOT one of the top 5 defenses in those 7 games. So what are you even talking about here. Literally none of these opinions above have anything to do with the facts I provided nor refute them. How about this. Why don’t you go take out all your he easiest games and only count them he tougher sections of every WBs schedule and see if there numbers go up or down hen facing harder competition vs the easy competition . I mean Tua put up 70 on the Broncos who we lost to and we managed to only score 22 against the same team a few weeks later. You are comically delusional if you believe think we were a better offense under Dorsey than Brady. Again, I’ll stick to the facts…feel free to just rant all you want outside those facts, to each their own. And for the record, neither or, or really anyone has said Brady has proved anything other than being the correct decision last year. We don’t even know what his offense will be as last year you do realize he coached Dorsey’s offense. You can’t install a new offense midseason. But to pretend Brady was bad compared to Dorsey last season is utterly ridiculous unless you prefer losing over winning.

No disrespect at all bud…but…Hard disagree on this. We are not talking about 11 players deep on the bench, we are talking about 11 starting players. You can't say that the best player is magnitudes more important than the worst player, that makes no sense. For example, if the best player is the Center and the worst player is the QB, that Center is not magnitudes more important than the fact the QB isn't good, it will make almost no difference. And in 2020...and 2023...the number 1 player on the offense was the same. Josh Allen. When your number 1 player on the team is the QB, it makes everyone else better. And while 2020 Josh was seen as a better version than 2023 Josh (mainly over the turnovers) its not like Josh was a disaster last year, he was still the only person not named Lamar to get an MVP vote. Once again...1 individual person (in this case 2020 Diggs) does not equal a whole offense either. How many times did Calvin Johnson sit home and watch the playoffs from his couch? Almost every year of his career despite having a top 10 QB. How many SB rings does Megatron, Moss, Julio, Fitzgerals, and Hopkins have combined? Zero...despite being the best player on their teams most of their careers. This notion that one offense is better because it had the alleged "best single player" on it does not at all equate to best overall roster. And as far as last year goes...it was still Diggs as the best player not named Allen…just because his usage changed does not mean his skills went away. Under Dorsey Diggs was on pace for 1,475 yards and 12 TDS which would have been his 2nd highest career total in yards and career best in TD's. Brady completely changed the philosophy of the offense and Diggs usage changed with it. So this idea that Diggs was some shell of himself like people like to say is just not accurate and Diggs was still the best player not named Allen on the offense. Ive already shown this to be false. The top end talent of 2020 wasn't even much different. Allen was still an MVP finalist, Diggs was still on pace in his feed him the ball role under Dorsey. Then you have better and more efficient targets for Allen in Kincaid and Shakir, you have the best RB of Allens career behind the best OL of his career to go along with the best TE group of his career. I will take the 2023 roster over the 2020 roster personally, and its an easy choice for me. That roster got wasted by Dorsey to start the season, I thought he had a bad 2022 and hated him coming back but also hoped he would be better...he wasn't. Brady saved the season but was still handcuffed to Dorseys offense and did a stellar job despite that. I can only wonder what could have been last year had Dorsey been fired after 2022 and Brady installed in the offseason.

Wrong...the discussion was about the reduction in yards for Allen under Brady. FACT: 5 of the 7 teams the Bills faced were top 10 defenses on yards allowed per game. FACT: 4 of the 7 teams were playoffs teams. FACT: The SOS under Brady was significantly harder in the 7 games and they collectively had a winning record of 61-58 for a .512%. Under Dorsey, the collective record was a losing record of 75-95 for a .441%. FACT: Weather was worse in outdoor games during the back end of the season compared to the front end of the season. FACT: Brady had to take over during the season and modify and adjust the offense within the confines of someone else's playbook and did not have the luxury of using an entire offseason to put his stamp on the offense. FACT: Brady won more games in less games going 6-1 against stiffer competition while Dorsey led teams lost to Jets, Broncos, Patriots, Burrow-less Bengals, and over rated Jags. And should have lost to lowly Giants and Bucs on both final plays of those games. Meanwhile, Brady only loss was against the playoff bound Eagles who had just played in the SB the year before and it was a narrow loss with a good offensive showing. It is absolutely undeniable that Brady faced a harder stretch of games and conditions than Dorsey and the team grossly performed better and responded better to the direction of Brady over the offense. Also all wrong. See above.

Burst…Hard for a bubble to bust if it never existed. They have beaten a team with a .500 record or better twice in 2 years and have no playoff wins. They are going to miss the playoffs this year.

Late...but worth it This was an excellent response and honestly mostly how I feel about him too with an even higher level of detail, so really enjoyed this. I love the Ward comparison too, who was one of my all time favorite non-Bills WR's. I loved how Hines played the game and his character was impeccable, so maybe thats why I am so high on Shakir.

I get that, but I have a lot more confidence in Josh Allen and our coaching staff on both sides of the ball than I do about Tua and the Miami staff. And it wasn't a "miracle"...Dolphins have won only 2 games in 2 years vs .500 or better teams, it's who they are. They beat Dallas, another pretender annually, and they beat us in the heat stroke bowl the year before where we Tommy Doyle had to play the last 4 snaps of the game on a torn ACL because we had no more OL left and its why we didn't have enough time to get the ball spiked to win the game...so that game was more a miracle win for them that took absolute extreme conditions for them to only win on a technicality of 1 second not being left on the clock. Miami also lost 5 straight with Tua in 2022 to end the season with Tua getting hurt to miss the final game of the season in which they won with a 3rd string QB or they would have missed the playoffs in 2022 too thanks to another Miami collapse with a healthy Tua. So...yeah, not a miracle, thats a repeated pattern for 2 consecutive years by Miami. And its not that we as Buffalo needed a miracle, we need an OC change which when we did led to the Bills going 6-1 were 5 of the teams had top 10 defenses and 4 of them were playoff teams. Thats a good team winning games thanks to a coaching change fixing what wasn't working. I even started a thread that said I expect us to not only win out, but reach the AFCCG with 5 weeks left to go and still 3 games out of the playoffs. It was what I expected to happen after we got rid of the problem (Dorsey). And we came a stepped on foot away from doing it too...although we did win out like I said we would.

I revised that since I wrote because the "by far" was more referencing your original comment of "since 2021" and I was comparing against 2021. You then changed your tune when you realized you couldn't really make a case for 2021 and grabbed onto my "since being a Bill" comment to pivot to 2020…which was fair given I stared since being a Bill. And since 2020 was now more prevalent and when looking at it specifically, I edited the original comment to remove the "by far" as that was too strong of a phrase, and even told you when I said we should agree to disagree that it was not even probably that significant of a difference of comparing the roster of 2020 and 2023. But...you have been cherry picking stats and ignoring context in this comparison as well as things you said about things like Brady last year in other posts. The fact remains...the biggest difference was the STYLE of offense under Daboll vs the combo of Dorsey/Brady last year. Player for player, I would say the 11 guys on the field in 2023 are a better group than the 2020 unit. I have already broken it down for you many times, so not gonna waste more time doing it yet again and just revert back to the agree to disagree stance, because again, we aren't probably talking about a massive difference one way or the other. And for the record...the 2020 team was the lone team that absolutely looked like it did not belong in the playoffs against KC. For an offense that was allegedly sooooo talented...they absolutely sucked against KC and their mediocre defense where the Bills offense was totally outclassed all over the field. The 2023 team beat the best defense KC has had in Mahomes career (one of the best in the league) and then lost by 3 in the playoffs to it as well. So again...agree to disagree bud

You want a class on how not to build a winner...see Miami. Top 5 money to TWO WR's now and likely top money to a QB who can't get past his early reads or beat .500 or better teams is hilarious. First off, Waddle is no where near a top 5 WR...they should have traded him or let him playout his deal and walk. He isn't worth anything close to this money...and to pay him that on top of Hills deal? LOL. They suck in the trenches on both sides of the ball right now...their front 7 is one of the worst in the AFC on defense, and their best OL can't stay on the field and probably retires soon. Calling it now: If Rodgers stays healthy, Miami will not make the playoffs. You already have: KC, Buf, Balt, Cin, and Hou that should all be playoff teams and likely see the division winners come from that group. Then you still have Pitt, Cle, Jets, Jags, Colts, LAC, and Mia as teams that might or should compete for a playoff spot. Miami barely made the playoffs last year after blowing a 4 game lead in our division the back half of the season with a better defense than they will have this year (they finished 10th last year). Now, they have even more competition in the AFC and its own division with the return of QB's like Burrow, Rodgers, Watson, Richardson...not to mention teams like Steelers getting an upgrade at QB on a playoff caliber roster. So just can't see how Miami is not a worse team this year compared to last year in a tougher AFC overall and tougher division with Rodgers seemingly back for Jets. And even one game worse likely puts them out of the playoffs.

It was...but I think that had a lot to do with instability and struggles at OC. Even when Brady took over, he still had to work out of Dorseys offense, which is why I think he leaned so much on the run game as well, to try and just stabilize things given he couldn't make sweeping changes midseason.

You think the level of competition may have had something to do with that given Brady took over during the toughest part of our schedule? The lack of context people consider when they make these statements about the numbers under Brady just surprises me. I mean the eyeball test alone could see the offense was better by a long shot over this stretch of games compared to the first 10 weeks. But "numbers" are also impacted by the fact we played the following under Brady's 7 regular season games: In 7 games Bills Played: Five out of the 7 games were against top 10 defenses (including 3 in the top 5) and 4 of the 7 games were against playoff teams. The only teams not in the top 10 in defense ere Eagles (a playoff team and tough opponent) and the Chargers (a team that was fired up being first game with new coach after firing Staley). So...anyone wanting to remove all context and go back and look at the offense or Allens "numbers" only during: 1 - The toughest part of a seasons schedule vs entire previous seasons and 2 - The back end of the season in worse weather than the first 10 games...and then compare those numbers to whole seasons that include the easier batches of games (and easier overall schedules in past seasons) with better weather too is just a poor way to analyze the numbers and delivers inaccurate conclusions about said numbers. To say it was maybe his worst on that small sample size...a sample where we rose from the ashes and won 6 out of 7 of those games with a team that had been losing to teams like Jets, Denver, Pats, Burrow-less Bengals, and a not very good Jags team (with should be losses to Giants and Bucs too)...is just looking at it completely wrong IMHO. And further context: Not only was it the hardest portion of our schedule and during the part of the year with worse weather conditions...but there is also the fact that Brady was having to coach out of another coordinators playbook and still find ways to adjust it and doing so on the fly given he took over after 10 games to boot. Yet...Brady led offense with Allen went 6-1...Division Champs...#2 seed after this team was being declared dead in week 10 at 5-5 after losing to a bad Broncos team that gave up 70 points in a single game last year.

Don't you dare provide context...theres no room for context when people can just blindly rant or complain and cherry pick stuff to try and prove a false point HA Its a complete joke for anyone to try and act like anything was worse under Brady than Dorsey. Brady was beating playoff teams, including the Super Bowl Champs, while Dorsey was losing to teams like Zach Wilson led Jets and a Broncos team who gave up 70 points in a single game. And quite honestly, Dorsey should have been 3-7 instead of 5-5 but Daboll bailed him out by doing his best Daboll impression to cost the Giants the game on the goalline and then we also lucked out in the Bucs game where we should have lost on the final play too but got lucky. Dorsey had the softest and easiest part of our schedule just to have us well out of the playoffs and sitting at 5-5 with only really 3 good games out of 10. Brady came in made an immediate impact, so much so, it had Allen screaming "I'm Back!" on the sideline that first game. Brady in 7 games (which we went 6-1) faced FIVE top 10 defenses and 4 playoff teams. Dorsey lost to a bunch of bad teams and nearly lost to Giants and Bucs too to be lucky to have a 5-5 record instead of a 3-7 record.

I think as a whole, it was his best group 11 vs 11 comparison he has had in his career. The biggest issue was the OC...going from one who had no idea how to use his personnel, use movement, break from script, adjust, be less predictable, or run the ball...to a guy better in all those areas but taking over 10 games in and having to do so with the predecessors offense in a can't lose any more games position.

Again, I said the offense as a whole...its funny to me how hard you are trying to steer away from that. But, if I get time, maybe I will start that thread.

But is it really hypocritical? To me it would only be hypocritical if the NFL was putting out statements that Gambling in general is bad and that no one should gamble in general. But the NFL is not condemning gambling in general, it's a big part of all sports. What the NFL is saying to players by banning them from gambling is really that you can't CHEAT...its not really about gambling...it has to do with violating the integrity of the game through cheating and manipulation of the outcomes or scores. The real issue is built around players, refs, etc cheating on games, or just as bad, being perceived to be cheating just on the fact they gamble on the games even if they aren't actually impacting the games they are betting on. Perception to be is almost as damaging to the trust in the game as actually really cheating. So I don't find the strict policies against players gambling vs allowing gambling sponsorship as hypocritical because the NFL stance isn't anti-gambling...its anti-cheating.

I agree about Beasley and also about the offense this year, in fact, its what I have been saying for a while now is the plan because its what Beane has been echoing as well on how and why he is building this WR room this way. I felt like Shakir could really break 1000 yards this year right after the Diggs trade. But with how balanced the WR room is, and more importantly, how deep it is now...it might be hard for any WR to break a 1000 yards in this spread the ball offense and we could see 4 guys come in between 700-1000 yards in Kincaid, Keon, Shakir, and Samuel plus still get 80-100 targets to RB's and some decent production from guys like Knox/Hollins/Claypool/MVS.

@HoofHearted you never gave your own response to this...said you were going to later, but just reminding you that you still haven't as the next QOD has arrived Im curious to your thoughts on this too

I don't think the sponsorship impacts or tempts players to gamble any more than if they didn't exist. Like I doubt there is any player in the league that walks into a stadium and sees a casinos sponsorship and goes..."Oh, guess it's cool to gamble on my own games now". Like they either do it or they don't do it. The ease of access to gambling for players is there regardless if the NFL allows sponsorships or not. Apps and tech are what make the gambling tempting or easy, not NFL sponsorships. I mean its not like players only know who FanDuel or DraftKings are because they saw it in an sponsorship within the NFL...those are practically house hold names whether you gamble or don't because the marketing is everywhere. So the only risk would be if the NFL "looks" hypocritical if a player violates the gambling rules using a platform that has or is spending money as a sponsor in the NFL. But make no mistake about it, the fact they are a sponsor had nothing to do with the stupidity or gumptions of said player to violate the gambling rules for players.

I think 33% cap on outside routes is fair estimate...he doesn't have to live outside, but he is capable enough to move him around like Samuel too to keep movement and defenses on their toes. I do think he is definitely capable of more targets per game than 4-5...but also this group is deep, and there is only one ball to go around, so I think 5-6 is probably where he falls and there could be some games where he doesn't get many and others where he gets more. I fully expect the offense to adapt weekly to what is being given to them and the targets will reflect that. One week a team may be struggling to cover Keon who goes off...the next week, maybe its Kincaid just exploiting something in the defense...another week might be Shakir having the big game...another week Cook and Davis go off and we throw a lot less. My guess is by seasons end Shakir probably ends up around 90 targets which would be 5.3 per game so just a hair above your range. And there in lies the beauty in what Beane is building in this room...a team that does not need one guy to go out and get 80-120 yards every week...but a group where any one guy could put up a week like each and every week and there isn't one player for the D to key on to disrupt the offense. Take away Keon and Kincaid or Shakir is going to burn you. Take away Kincaid, and Keon and Shakir are there to hurt you. Put a good plan to slow down the pass attack and Allen, Cook, and Davis might maul you on the ground. We may not have one guy who will put up a 1400 yard season this year, but we could have 4 guys who finish somewhere between 700-1000 yards and that is harder to defend than the one guy. Heck, its possible Keon, Kincaid, and Shakir all flirt with 1000 yards this year with Samuel still putting up 600-700 yards himself while the team still rushes for well over 2000 yards.

Im even more vested in the offseason now that we are good. Every little bit matters now, especially when we are talking about how coming up short has come down to so often of just not making one or two more plays.

Is Hollins capable of having a hell of a year: Yes, he did it with Carr in Oakland. But will he here this year: Doubtful. The reason: Target counts. There are only so many balls to go around. Bills had 545 targets last year with Diggs getting 160. Keon, Kincaid, Shakir, Samuel, and the RB's will eat up enough targets that will probably only leave about 80 to 100 targets at most for the group of Knox, Hollins, Claypool, and MVS. I like the Hollins addition, and I think he has a great chance to me the roster based on his blocking and ST ability and he isn't a "throw away" at WR like say Kumerow was. But I do think he might have more of that Kumerow role where he is primarily a ST guy or comes in on bigger packages rather than be a guy who puts up a statistical season here that would qualify as a "hell of a year" unless injuries created opportunities for him.

I don't really understand your question here. What do you mean "how did he learn anything from that?"...He literally said he has learned from his struggles, from listening, taking notes, preparing the right way. That is the best way to learn, by doing all the right things. Year 1 it was no secret that he needed to work on zone coverage to fit in here. Year 2, its not like he got beat out by a scrub, Benford had an excellent camp and preseason and just won the job being more ready to play our style of defense. Elam then also battled some injuries as well. But along the way over those 2 years, Elam got some spots to start thanks to injuries and made some very promising plays including big interceptions in big moments. There is so much more to it than just taking notes and listening. Not sure if you ever played competitive sports, but so much of what a CB does relies on muscle memory and instincts. You are asking this kid to change all of that...all the muscle memory and instincts in his style of play to fit better into how they want to play him in this defense. That is no small task, and those things a probably most important for a CB than any other position in the NFL because they are always playing a major disadvantage on every snap as they don't know where the WR or play is going and need to have instant reflex and reactions to make sure they can be in the right place to defend the play at the right moment...and do so without violating all the rules that are heavily skewed to protect the offense, the QB, and the WR. Its not a silly excuse and it definitely has truth to it...McD, like any coaching staff, prefers to not force a rookie in there if its not necessary and there are guys ahead of him more ready to play. He isn't afraid to start a rookie, but if he doesn't have to he won't rush them in there. Which is why I am not sold Bishop starts week 1 at Safety because he has vets capable of starting in Edwards and Rapp, not to mention Hyde might play again this year here still. So he doesn't need to put Bishop out there unless Bishop just flat out and convincingly wins one of the jobs. There is one thing I know and that is that this staff can find and coach defensive backs and get them playing at their best. Elam was different though as his style was different than what we run here, but they felt he had the talent and commitment to get to where they needed him to be which is why they took him and still have him here. And like you said and I also mentioned above, he has flashed potential when he got opportunities on the field. And I have no doubt he will very much be in a camp battle again with Benford to start opposite Rasul. But what I love about Beane and McD is they don't care at all about draft pick status when it comes to who is on the field to play. Some GM's are more worried about how it looks and demand the high pick play...here, its all about legit competition and aren't afraid to play a guy who was a lower pick over even a first round pick if they feel it makes the team better. I get why you have checked out, but I personally have not written him off and I am actually quite excited to see how he battles with Benford this year. But nothing will be handed to hims, so if he can't find himself a role this year, then I think he probably gets traded this offseason...we are probably too thin to trade him before then I suspect.

Shakir is capable of a lot more than Cole was though who was really one note kind of WR. He was a short area specialist...Shakir is faster, bigger, stronger, and much better YAC and can attack the defense in all 3 phases of the game. And he can do that out of the slot or being moved around. So I think you limit the value of Shakir if you try and replicate Cole.

bahahaha that made me LOL...more like Dawg/Dog discussion, but still was funny AF