hondo in seattle

I agree with you 100%. But I'll add this to be fair to Beane. A GM can't afford stars everywhere. On offense, he drafted Josh - a huge win - and rented Stef for a while. That's it - though maybe Kincaid emerges this year. But Beane's been snake-bitten on defense. He seemed to want (and is willing to pay for) a difference maker on each level of the defense: Von, Milano, Tre. With injuries, that plan hasn't worked out, and we ended up with - for example - Klein on Kelce in the playoffs. But the point stands, we haven't had enough elite difference makers to compete for a Lombardi.

So imagine McD's scheme but with at least one elite DE, LB, and CB. That's, I think, what Beane was aiming for. But injuries derailed Von, Milano, and Tre. People will point out that the Bills haven't been cursed with an exceptional number of 'player days lost' due to injury. But the injuries we have suffered on defense have been to key people.

Beane is fantastic at building depth. But to quote @GunnerBill, "we need more difference makers" in the starting lineup.

It's funny because that's pretty much how I felt about us signing him as a UDFA. Looking at his measurables, Gore Jr. doesn't belong in the NFL and I thought Beane signed him as a favor to his dad. But watching him play, this kid legit deserved a tryout.

Nice Job, GB! Well done! And I think this passes the fan eye test - at least for this mafioso. It used to feel like if you got cut by the Bills it was a really bad sign for the player. If even the Bills didn't want you, with our atrocious roster, maybe you just weren't meant for the NFL. I remember when we fans used to look forward to cut-down day because it we'd pick up players who could help our roster. Now we dread cut-down day because of the good players we'll bid sayonara to. I think Beane hasn't built a SB roster - yet. We don't have enough stars on our offense (currently just one) and our OL has been bad to middling during his tenure. But he has built a good roster with more depth than what we had during our long & painful drought.

You're right. It doesn't. That regular season versus postseason dichotomy with the Chiefs is both puzzling and painful. I still think my point is generally true. If we have the players (and the coaching staff) to do it, why do you think we beat the Chiefs in the regular season and not in the postseason? The same players running the same schemes should - theoretically - get the same results. Though there's a certain element of chance (bad bounces, calls, injuries) in football, too.

Yes. You're right. However, if this was a discussion among 12 year olds, you'd hear a lot of bravado: "I could kick your ass any day of the week with one hand tied behind my back!" Instead, we're a bunch of old men admitting McDermott's granny could beat us up with two hands tied behind her back.

In 2025, in no particular order: WR, DE, CB. In 2026, we'll pick a RB in the first 3 rounds.

I agree with this 100%. We've had good players who disguise our intentions and execute McDermott's scheme well . But we haven't had a bunch of elite athletes on defense who can consistently win one on one battles on the line, in the secondary, or anywhere else. And our schemes aren't good enough to consistently fool the best OCs and QBs. These shortcomings - and injuries - tends to derail us in the playoffs. Cool, though, that Cam singled out McD for praise.

In 1920, the Buffalo All-Americans went 9-1-1. In 1921, we finished the season undefeated (9-0-1) and thought we were the NFL champs because we had the best record. There were no playoffs back then. The team with the W-L best record was crowned CHAMPS and that was us. But then we decided to play two postseason "exhibition games" that the NFL decided to count toward our record because of league politics. That left us tied with Chicago for the league championship. So the NFL invented a tie-breaker rule that gave the championship to Chicago. This series of unfortunate events is knows in football history as the "Staley Swindle." In other words, it was a normal Billsy story that saw us screwed.

If I recall correctly, at one point in the offseason Shakir was the only wideout we had who had caught a ball in the NFL. Of course we should have signed him. We needed all the wideout competition we could get.

I agree with NickelCity that we all like to think we're immune to celebrity endorsements. After all, we're intelligent, independent strong human beings. Then again, the reason companies spend millions on celebrities is because their data show our purchasing decisions are influenced over time. At a minimum, celebrities get noticed so they help build brand awareness, though some of the impact is more subtle than that. However, I'm going to claim to be an exception. Not because I'm any more strong-minded than the rest of you John and Jane Waynes. But because pretty much the only TV I watch is football and I don't do social media. I don't actually see a lot of commercials or endorsements. I don't even know if anything I buy is endorsed by a celebrity. I lean a lot on online reviews.

I don't see how we have "far, far less talent." The OL is mostly the same as last year. Let's call that a wash. Josh is still the QB. And Josh says his mechanics were off last year because of his elbow injury. He just might be better this year. The RBs will still be led by Cook but the guys behind him, notably Davis, may be better than last year. The TEs are the same. But Kincaid was a rookie still learning the offense and NFL last year. Knox was hurt. The TEs should be better this year. Shakir is still one of the wideouts but it seems his career is on an upward trajectory. He may be better this year. Samuel is better than Davis (more versatile, higher catch %, more separation). Coleman is worse than Diggs. So is Mack Hollins, or whoever you want to count as Diggs' replacement. The backup wideouts seem to be an improvement over last year. The drop off from Diggs to Coleman/Hollins is a real concern but we don't know yet how good Coleman is. Everywhere else, we're either better or the same.

Agree 1000%. If he steps up, we'll be okay. If he doesn't, the Bills will be watching the playoffs on TV.

I have no idea what Brady is scheming up. But some thoughts... Gronk and Hernandez once combined for 2,237 yards. Maybe Brady plans on leaning on his TE duo. CMC once had over 1,000 yards receiving out of the backfield. Maybe Brady has big plans for Cook and Davis. I'm just saying, we have some other targets besides the wideouts. No doubt, a passing offense that emphasizes the backs and TEs would look different than the Daboll EP scheme that both Dabs and Dorsey ran. But it could work.

Not a beautiful throw but not a great attempt to catch it either. Look at his right hand. He should get his hands to intercept the trajectory of the ball. Instead, his right hand is moving overhand trying to grasp at the ball - and failing. It's as if he was expecting the ball to be thrown at his body/head and didn't adjust when he saw that it wasn't. As you say, not a 'clean attempt' at the catch. But not something I would damn him over. It looked worse live.

I don't have high expectations, but I am curious... How are the two non-football players doing: Gable Steveson and Travis Clayton?

I agree with this - for the most part. When we're good, I watch every game during the season. During the 7-9 years, I watched most games but allowed myself a Sunday off here and there if we had an interesting family adventure planned. Maybe it was a good thing Sunday Ticket didn't exist during the 2-14 era because I missed a lot of those games and don't regret it. Barring something unforseen coming up, I'll watch every game this season again.

Personally, I'm entirely invested in this season. The fact that Josh is our QB and McD is running our defense already makes us competitive. Josh is an offensive force of nature and McD is the kind of defensive schemer who can make lemonade out of lemons. I'm super curious to see what Brady will do. Daboll failed in his first stints as an OC but learned a lot through those, and other, experiences. He put a lot of points on the scoreboard with the Bills. Brady is young and smart. Maybe this is the year he emerges as a top OC. Maybe not. Whatever happens, I want to see it. I'm super curious about the receiver group. Are they as bad as the pessimists fear or as good as the optimists hope? How will Samuel do with a good QB? Will Shakir continue his growth? Will Keon prove he was worthy of a high draft pick? Will Kincaid breakout as a legitimate star? Will Kincaid-Knox be the new Gronk-Hernandez, minus the shootings? I'm curious about the secondary with Hyde, Poyer, and White all gone. In fact, I remain curious about nearly everything. And while I doubt if a Super Bowl is in the cards, I do expect a good (playoff) season.

Here's my Bills fantasy... Joe Brady has been around a lot of coaches, worked with different systems, and this is the year he puts it all together and emerges as the second coming of Don Coryell and Bill Walsh. Despite the shortcomings of the WR room, Brady is able to scheme guys open all over the field as Josh leads the most potent passing attack in the league on the way to a SB. Not likely... but a guy can dream. The Bills and their fans deserve some unlikely good luck.

His first game as a Bill, Josh was throwing to the likes of Kelvin Benjamin, Zay Jones, Andre Holmes, and Jeremy Kerley. Hopefully, things haven't become that bad. But, I agree, Beane should have done a better job and we're not opening the season with a stellar lineup. I had hoped between Coleman, MVS, and Claypool, one had stepped up and earned the third starting wideout position. In any case, I now have some concerns about Brady. I see three possibilities: 1. Joe does a stellar job and produces a lot of points despite the weaknesses in the receiving corps. 2. Joe does a midling job, doesn't produce a ton of points, but McD excuses and retains him due to the roster shortcomings. 3. Joe does a terrible job, leads an inept offense, and gets fired. #1 is seeming less and less likely with every injury but it's the only option I like.

I'll take a stab at this: (1) It's a passing league. Coaches and analytic geeks have determined that the best way to move the ball down the field in today's game is by passing the ball about 50% more often than you run it. (2) Josh is the best player on the team. By far. The coaches want the ball in his hands. Cook is a good back. But he is not nearly as talented at his position as Josh is at his. And Josh plays the centerpiece position of the modern NFL.

Yikes! While I agree that we shouldn't trade Cook, I find the commentary here is unneccessarily unkind. And I'll add this about Cooks' stats. He's a good back. But he also shares the backfield with Josh Allen. I think defenses see Josh as the alpha and omega of our offense. He's got a cannon arm, tremendous escapability, and is a fearsome running threat. I think they play a lot of two-high to frustrate Josh's and his desire to air it out. And I think they often have a containment plan for Josh and/or a spy. I don't think teams scheme much to stop Cook, and his stats benefit from him being an after-thought.

RBs are an easy position to fill. Heck, if the Bills want an RB, they can just call me. At 65, I may not offer much, but I'm reasonably fit for my age and will learn the playbook. For every position, even RB, there's a bell-curve of talent. If you want to win the SB, it's best to have players at the upper end of the bell curve. RBs may be a dime-a-dozen but good RBs are not. Cook isn't OJ or Thurman but he's better than average. He's also on a cheap rookie contract at 1.6M/year. Why trade away a player who's both cheap & good for a roll of the dice (i.e. the draft)? In two years, Davis will take over as the #1 RB and we'll draft Cook's replacement.

It's good to see (ex) players spending their money entrepreneurially instead of on fast cars, parties, and paternity suits as some do.