hondo in seattle

Thanks. I'm not excited about our free agency thus far but this makes me feel a little better. At least we're not the 49ers.

DL was one of the weak spots on a team dreaming to reach the SB. I'd personally like to see a massive upgrade. I think, so far, we're treading water. But let's see what the draft brings.

"A+" would be building the best roster in the league, something he's never accomplished and is unlikely to accomplish this season. Remember, the Bills were $15M over the cap because of Beane's past decisions. We could have been chasing bigger names and better talents if he had managed the cap better in previous years. I'm not giving Beane an "F" by any means. But he's got a lot more to do before I award him an "A+."

I recall Beane once saying exactly what you've observed: he tries to plug all the holes in free agency so he doesn't have to reach for need on draft day.

Hamlin isn't bad. He just isn't the guy you want at safety if you have Lombardi aspirations.

FWIW... Ogunjobi received an overall PFF grade of 49.4 for the 2024 regular season, which was the lowest grade of his NFL career. He was ranked 150th out of 219 defensive interior players.

I don't get this. If he doesn't get 10 sacks, you take your boyfriend out to a nice dinner. If he does get 10 sacks, you get rid of that stupid pitbull that's been peeing all over your carpet. For you, it's a win-win.

I know cap availability is problematic... as is talent availability (the guys we truly want aren't UFAs). But we haven't been to the Super Bowl since the 1990s. We need an injection of playmakers to get there, and we haven't gotten that. Color me "meh" so far.

It's perfectly okay for a guy in Seattle to say, "I was hoping to work for Microsoft, but Amazon offered me more." But in football, there's a tradition of pretending it's not about the money. Players like to cite all sorts of reasons for choosing a team rather than crassly admitting, "Team X offered more." When the average NFL career lasts a mere 3.3 years, most players get paid while they can. I think it's rare for a player turn down the highest offer - whether the team is a contender or not.

Maybe I'm not an adept connoisseur of wide receiver work but his stats say he's a jag and, to me, the video of all his '23 targets says the same thing.

I was always ambivalent about Von's signing. We needed to provide more pressure on the QBs and Von was available to the highest bidder. It made sense. But the opportunity cost always bothered me. We were - and remain - a team with multiple needs and I always wondered who we didn't sign afterwards because we signed Von. To spend all that money on one guy seemed pretty reckless - particularly on a guy in his 30s. And, yes, I realize that some players (even DEs) remain productive in their 30s. But some don't because of age and/or injuries. Signing Von was a significant gamble with a high opportunity cost. It could have worked out better but it's not a shock that we ended up paying $3 million per sack over three years. We won the bidding war because the cost-benefit analysis done by other teams wasn't as optimistic as Beane's. It turned out they were right and Beane was wrong.

We signed Von because he was a sack artist and ended up paying him $3.4 million per sack during his tenure with us. In comparison, Trey Hendrickson led the NFL in sacks last year and earned less than $1 million per sack.

Bull, I get your point but let's count how many receivers got 1k yards and 10 TDs last season with Josh throwing them the ball. Either our receiver corps is really weak, or Brady can't scheme wideouts. In either case, a 1,000 yard receiver with 10 TDs would be a welcome addition.

This is so Billsy... 25 years after the fact, we're still arguing about Johnson versus Flutie. I enjoy it in a warped kind of way.

Fairly or unfairly, this is how I remember Flutie: He'd play like badger doo-doo for three quarters, but our stout defense would keep us in the game. Then in the 4th quarter, Flutie would do something magical with his legs or complete an unlikely pass and be hailed as the hero of the game.

Beane questioned the validity of the survey, the F- in particular: "My question is how many people actually completed this survey? This is the problem when you do anonymous surveys. Are we talking about six people, 12 people? You're talking about we have 70-something players when you count our practice squad and beyond. So, it's really hard to ascertain who gave the F-minus for their plane travel. Ultimately, we love feedback, but we're not getting that in the building..."

Thanks for posting. I hadn't realized that the Bills had finally, finally, finally broken .500.

I get the point, but I don't think so. Could Chan Gailey have been a good (i.e. winning coach) if he had found a good DC? Could Dick Jauron have been a good coach if he had found a good OC? And would they have both been more successful with good GMs? I don't know but maybe - if we had more patience. I think NFL organizations, in general, are too quick to pull the trigger on coaches. This creates chaos. Chuck Noll went 12-29 his first three years with the Steelers. Most teams would have fired him by then. He went on to win 4 Super Bowls. But his legacy was even bigger than that. He helped the Steelers build a culture and a way of doing things that has sustained success for decades. Rolling out a new coaching staff with new offensive and defensive schemes & philosophies every three years creates chaos. As Art Rooney II has said, "I don’t like to criticize other people’s way of doing things, but we do feel there’s value in stability and continuity, and so that’s worked for us.” I guess so: over the past 50 years, they're the winningest organization in football.

The team with the very best winning percentage - the Steelers - have only had 3 coaches during that time. Meanwhile, the Bills had 16. Continuity matters.

Not amongst the 5 best. He's among the top two. I love good RBs and have been watching them with awe for decades. And I've seen most of the contenders play: Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith, Bo Jackson, Eric Dickerson, and so on. OJ was, IMHO, clearly better than any of them. The only guy who competes in my eyes is Jim Brown who I've only seen in highlights but those highlights, along with his statistical dominance, are impressive. Jim Brown and OJ would average 8 yards a carry against today's coverage LBs and pass-first defenses. My dream Bills backfield: Josh at QB, OJ at HB, Cookie at FB. And then let's have Eric Moulds and Andre Reed at wideout. We'd be unstoppable.

It was a different era when OJ played: the best athletes became RBs, Heisman trophy winners and first round draft picks were RBs more than QBs, rules didn't protect QBs and favor the passing game like today, and defenses were built to stop the run. And OJ shined like no other. When he rushed for 2003 yards, the next best guy in that heavenly year of the Golden Age of Running Backs gained 1144 yards. OJ nearly doubled the next best guy at what was then the most important position in football. It was freaking superhuman, barely believable. Off the top of my head, the only comparable achievement in all of American professional sports was in 1920, when Babe Ruth hit 54 home runs and the next best guy hit 19.

To quote Jim Morrison, "The future's uncertain and the end is always near." Andrew Luck retired at 29. Maybe Josh pulls a luck. Then again, maybe he does a Brady and gives us 10+ more good years.

I confess I'm no DL guru but I've had the same concerns for the same reasons. Maybe someone who's an expert at DL play can answer the question.

I think Beane is a good GM. But I'm afraid that 20 years from now, I'll look back on the 2020s and reminisce that the primary reason we didn't win a Lombardi is because Beane was a good GM, but not quite good enough.

I hear you but all I care about is whether a player practices hard, plays well, and is a good teammate. How they go about their negotiations is irrelevant to me as long as it doesn't involve a long sit-out.