GunnerBill

High level special teams play. The British guy isn't even a rugby player. Not really. He is an amateur rugby player and boxer. The chances of him being anything at all are very remote.

You don't get a roster exemption for the 53. You do for the 90 and he doesn't count for the PS. If he makes the roster he makes it as one of 53.

I do think Bishop will start if not day 1 then by week 4 or 5. But on the edge point that was about who was there. There were four edge guys taken in rounds 3 but they were all 3-4 OLB types (and the teams who drafted them reflect that - Atlanta, Denver, Baltimore and Philadelphia). Could you have drafted one and then brought them along and converted them in time to more traditional defensive end role? Yea, but not while getting much production early. Zero edge were taken in the entirity of round 4. The next tier of guys were more 4-3 ends - Thomas, Booker and Solomon - and all went in round 5 including one to the Bills. It was not a good edge class beyond the top few guys if you are a 4-3 team.

Rex wouldn't have been interesting with anything. He was a mailing it in has been by the time he got here. More interesting in his brand than his team.

Yea me too. My comp is Roger Federer at the French Open. All he needed to win one was someone else to beat Nadal because while he had beat him on clay at other tournaments he couldn't get past him at the French. Then the year Soderling beat Nadal, Roger got his title.

Could have had Belichick and Landry coordinating the D that night. Wouldn't have mattered.

I think he could yes. The defeat to the Bengals two years ago was on the players. Josh included. He sucked.

Or when he doesn't have to get past that same Patrick Mahomes.

And Levy wasn't doing anything. He was GM in name only. He literally fell asleep in draft meetings. It was the Levy/Modrak/Jauron trio.

They actually drafted pretty well until about 2015. After that it was a disaster zone. I don't know whether the league changed and Bill was still drafting for a league that no longer existed or if there were other influences in senior personnel positions that changed. It was about the time Bob Quinn moved on but he was more pro side anyway from memory.

So this year I am not sure we would be favoured to beat the Ravens or the Bengals in the playoffs. My expectations are somewhat lower so I'd probably give him a pass on that unless it is a no contest type of defeat. If he misses the playoffs he has to go. If he loses to a team we are clearly better than in the playoffs I'd consider moving on. Not sure whether I have Houston in that bracket or not but losing to a Miami, or the Chargers or Jacksonville, or Indy in the playoffs would definitely give me pause.

Agree. That is pathetic.

He is not an idiot. He was a coach trying to deal with cluster injuries to the exact part of the defense that KC were built to exploit.

And better GMs (our GMing was arguably even worse than our coaching in the drought). Although over 15 years it is really hard not to have 2 or 3 down years roster wise. If a franchise QB has a 3 contract career that is about 15 years you likely have 3 teams around them in that period. So some of it avoidable, some not.

Certainly better than last year. I think last year was Josh's worst since he broke out. And I am not talking about the offense. I am talking about Josh. He was less consistent with his fundamentals and his decision making was more erratic. Not that he was terrible compared to his peers. He still played like a top half dozen QB. I don't think he was top 2 or 3 in 2023 though. I am not saying he will have a career year but I don't discount it. If the weapons around him step up I could see a big bounce back.

Yep. It might not be popular with some but we don't just have a better QB than all of those years we have a better Head Coach too. Josh is a bigger and more important upgrade than Sean is. But they are both definitively better than what went before.

If I imagine Josh (as he is now, so not factoring in a development arc as if he was a rookie in 02) as the Quarterback of each of the teams going back to the start of my fandom in 2002 then I think they break to drought in 2003 with Williams as Head Coach. The D was very good that year. Any sort of offense they are a playoff team. Likewise they'd have made it in 04 (should have anyway) and would have been a potential Superbowl contender. The 05 and 06 teams were not as strong. They lost Pat Williams and London Fletcher and Spikes had the injuries and barely played over those two seasons. I think they'd have been playoff competitive but would have been touch and go to get in. The 2007 team was terrible. How they won 7 games has long since been a mystery to me. I think that was the 3rd worst team of my fandom after 2010 and 2018. I know you look at it and go "they went 7-9, Josh would have got 2 more wins" but that roster sucked I think if they played that schedule 10 times they don't get to 7 wins more than once. 2008 and 09 they probably make it. 2010, no. 2011, possibly. 2012 yes. 2013, no. 2014, yes. 2015 I think they'd have been a Superbowl contender with Josh and any drought coach EXCEPT Rex. 2016 playoffs. My breakdown of the 15 years of the drought that I watched would be: 2 genuine Superbowl contending years (04, 15) 6 likely playoff years (03, 08, 09, 12, 14, 16) 3 playoff contention 50/50 in/out years (05, 06, 11) 4 playoff misses (02, 07, 10, 13)

McDermott did not think that. The guys who he thought could were not healthy. There is an argument they should have used Siran Neal more, earlier in the game, but their options were severely limited. That sucks but it is yet more proof positive that you need luck to win a Championship.

A pass rusher at that age coming off a 2nd ACL tear is not the same as a 28 year old receiver or corner for example coming off an ACL.

Whereas I expect him to have a garbage time touchdown in week 15 after spending all year on a PS and there to be a seriee of "mistake by Beane" threads.

I defend his right to say it too. But I can do that and still object totally to what he said.

Nor am I trying to convince you. What I am saying is the biblical justification for his statement is at best arguable.

Yea I don't buy that. Sorry. Unfortunately we live in an era of extremism and gay people are still being persecuted and indeed killed in many parts of our world by people with similar beliefs. I don't accept that sin exists. Or that it is deadly. Or that there is any biblical justification for him saying pride represents a deadly sin. Or that he needed to refer to it in that manner. He's an idiot. I don't think he should be thrown out of the league or anything. But I don't think there is a defence of his comments.

How do you know he was just talking about transgenderism? Pride represents all LGBT people and he said it was a deadly sin. People wanting to defend him immediately jump to transgender because that is where there are more difficult societal issues to grapple with in relation to a conflict of rights. It is harder to defend if you accept he was on about all groups represented through Pride.

Yea agree would be interesting. Boogie I think was just a flat out misevaluation. My theory is they needed edge badly that year and were talking themselves into guys to take at the end of round 1. They expected Groot to be gone and they were convincing themselves "there are still guys after Groot, Phillips and Paye (conensus top 3 that year) who can play." So they had grades on the 2nd tier edge guys that were artificially inflated because of their need. So when Boogie got to the end of round 2 he looked like he was sticking out, when in reality he shouldn't have been. Elam I think they thought they could take the clay and mould him to their scheme. Ultimately that has failed.